Hitler invades all the neutral countries instead of Russia

[Von Schadewald]

Turkey, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland and Sweden remained neutral in WW2.

Hitler decides in June 1941 not to invade Russia, to maintain his peace treaty with them, and that instead he will use his huge army to threaten all the neutrals to join his Axis, or else be invaded with full intention to occupy them.

Is this feasible? Does he have enough resources to take on all 5 simultaneously, or does he prioritise? They could each put up quite a fight if they decided to resist, but would they? Does the USSR react, and is the USA brought in to the war sooner?
Churchill is so outraged at the loss of all of Europe that he decides it's 'poison gas' time.

[Waleed Y. Majeed]

You forgot Eire (Republic of Ireland).

Waleed

[Ironmachine]

You forgot Eire (Republic of Ireland).

That's because there are neutrals and then there are neutrals.

He also forgot Liechtenstein, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican (I think those are all), though they probably could not "put up quite a fight if they decided to resist."

Turkey, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland and Sweden remained neutral in WW2.

Hitler decides in June 1941 not to invade Russia, to maintain his peace treaty with them, and that instead he will use his huge army to threaten all the neutrals to join his Axis, or else be invaded with full intention to occupy them.

As Spain declared that it was not neutral but non-belligerant, does that make any difference?

Now, seriously, there are a number of threads on the what-if section where a German invasion of some of these countries is considered. You may want to have a look at them:
Spain: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6228&p=52058&hilit=spain#p52058
Turkey: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=238638&p=2170810&h ... n#p2170810
Switzerland: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=68807&p=621376&hil ... nd#p621376

However, in 2016 you started a thread quite similar to this one, about Germany invading Sweden,Switzerland,Spain & Portugal: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=225783&p=2051142&h ... l#p2051142
Is there a good reason to do it again?

[glenn239]

Turkey, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland and Sweden remained neutral in WW2.

Hitler decides in June 1941 not to invade Russia, to maintain his peace treaty with them, and that instead he will use his huge army to threaten all the neutrals to join his Axis, or else be invaded with full intention to occupy them.

Is this feasible? Yes.

Does he have enough resources to take on all 5 simultaneously, or does he prioritise? All at once is feasible. The earliest feasible timeframe for each might be something along the lines of -

Sweden - June 1940
Spain - September 1940
Portugal - January 1941
Turkey - June 1941
Switzerland - July 1940


They could each put up quite a fight if they decided to resist, but would they?
My guesses would be -

Turkey - yes
Spain - no
Portugal - yes
Switzerland - yes
Sweden - no


Does the USSR react,

Of the five invasions, the USSR would not care about Spain, Portugal or Switzerland. It would care about Sweden and would be highly antagonized by Turkey. What reaction Stalin takes would depend on the specific terms (if any) of the agreement made prior to the invasions in question.

and is the USA brought in to the war sooner? No.


Churchill is so outraged at the loss of all of Europe that he decides it's 'poison gas' time. No.

[glenn239]

That's because there are neutrals and then there are neutrals.

I think the hundreds of miles of open ocean between France Ireland has something to do with it.

He also forgot Liechtenstein, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican (I think those are all), though they probably could not "put up quite a fight if they decided to resist."

I was thinking that tiny countries were not listed because they were irrelevant to the premise, not because the OP "forgot" they existed.

As Spain declared that it was not neutral but non-belligerant, does that make any difference?

I'm not following the question. In the OP's scenario the German army is presumably crossing into Spain to take Gibraltar by storm and shut down any possibility of an Anglo-American threat to Italy prior to 1944 or 1945. Spain will either joins the Axis or Franco can flee to London to see whether or not the British forgot about his brutal war crimes in the Spanish Civil War. Either way, word games from Madrid will not stop the German army. This will cross the Pyrenees and lay siege to Gibraltar.

Now, seriously, there are a number of threads on the what-if section where a German invasion of some of these countries is considered. You may want to have a look at them:

If you see observations of interest at the links you posted, then you need to post them in order to make your point.

Is there a good reason to do it again?

A better question would be for the OP to explain what each of the invasions listed is expected to do for German war aims.

[Peter89]

- It made no sense to invade Sweden and Switzerland.
- To invade Turkey without the SU made no sense: and to invade it with the SU is essentially unleash them (they'd want the Straits thus the whole Turkey).
- To invade Iberia was much more realistic, although the role of tungsten is overrated in these discussions. On the one hand, the Iberians were struggling to keep their population fed and providing for the basic needs of the people; on the other, Germans traded with both of them kind of efficiently. The difference between what the Germans might have obtained with trade and with occupation, is probably not too much.(I can provide you exact numbers for the tungsten if you want). Also I am not really sure that the Germans could have captured significantly more merchant ships than they bought or chartered in an official way (I can also provide you exact numbers and ship names).

What really mattered was Gibraltar and the closing of the Mediterraneum; not for the otherwise nonexistent Allied merchant traffic on this route, but for the Allied warships; and also open the Mediterran sea for themselves (thus allowing their surface units to play a crucial role in the naval war for the Mediterraneum).

If we take a look at how Germans have downgraded the scale of their Iberian offensives (Operation Isabelle, Ilona, etc.) we might get a hint how they imagined to fight there.

[T. A. Gardner]

It makes no sense to invade any of these.

Spain had just finished a bloody civil war and the country and economy are in shambles. The occupation of Spain, while you would take Gibraltar, buys you nothing really but hundreds of miles of new coastline to defend.

Portugal is the same way. A resource poor country with more mouths to feed.

Switzerland will be a fight and once you take it you lose your single good outside source for technical information. For example, without Brown Boveri, the Swiss turbine firm willingly working with you for payment of consulting fees, you lose your best source for turbine blade profiles and in turn your jet engine program goes right in the toilet. The BMW 003 engine never happens because of this as one example...

Sweden is likely to sabotage their iron mines and put your industry out-of-business for months, even years, until you can rebuild that infrastructure at great cost and effort. Finland is likely not to take that move lightly or positively either... You'll probably have to occupy them too, assuming the Russians don't...

Turkey is another problematic one. What would Stalin's response be to a German invasion of Turkey? Does he give the Turks lots of material support to keep the war going rather than let the Germans just overrun the country? I'd bet Stalin would be very unhappy with this move, and it might even precipitate a war with the Soviet Union on its own...

The US might well decide its time to jump in too. That's bad for the Germans as well.

[Peter89]

It makes no sense to invade any of these.

Spain had just finished a bloody civil war and the country and economy are in shambles. The occupation of Spain, while you would take Gibraltar, buys you nothing really but hundreds of miles of new coastline to defend.

I agree with your assessment except this one. In 1940-1942 it was the other way around, the Germans didn't have to fear an invasion, but they could have used the Iberian coast for naval bases and airports for the ongoing Battle of the Atlantic.

However, I really doubt that if the Germans are on the Pyrennes, Franco would choose war. His standing with the Soviets was bad, but it wasn't good with the British either. His best chance was to let German troops through the country.

Such moves didn't mean too much at the end of the war, eg. Sweden let some military traffic pass through the country. Turkey was in direct defiance of the Anglo-French-Turkish Treaty of 1939, and it also let some military traffic through, yet they didn't get punished.

[Ironmachine]

That's because there are neutrals and then there are neutrals.

I think the hundreds of miles of open ocean between France Ireland has something to do with it.

Yes, I know. I was joking. That's the reason for the smiley icon at the end of my sentence. Didn't you notice it?
However, the thread title is "Hitler invades all the neutral countries instead of Russia" (and I can assume he means "European neutral countries") and then in the first post the OP forgot one of the main ones, without providing a reason. You may be right in that distance was that reason, but we don't really know. Maybe the OP simply forgot Ireland.
Anyway, if hundreds of miles of open ocean is the reason, maybe the OP should explain if he is including the Canary Islands in his Spanish invasion what-if.

He also forgot Liechtenstein, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican (I think those are all), though they probably could not "put up quite a fight if they decided to resist."

I was thinking that tiny countries were not listed because they were irrelevant to the premise, not because the OP "forgot" they existed.

Yes, that's exactly what I posted. I was just making a funny comment (there was a smiley icon after my sentences that this time you copied while quotin g men but still seems to have been not noticed by you) about how the OP talks about "all neutral countries" but then forgot more than half of them without providing any reason.

As Spain declared that it was not neutral but non-belligerant, does that make any difference?

I'm not following the question.

Spain was not neutral. She declared a state of non-belligerance, which is quite different. Maybe the OP did not know that fact and , as we don't know the reasons the OP may have to make the Germans invade those neutral countires, it may affect his what-if. That's why I'm asking.

Now, seriously, there are a number of threads on the what-if section where a German invasion of some of these countries is considered. You may want to have a look at them:

If you see observations of interest at the links you posted, then you need to post them in order to make your point.

I'm not making any point. There are a number of threads where German invasions of those countries (each one alone, not all of them at the same time) are considered, and the possibilities and dangers are explored. If an scenario where all those countries are invaded is the interest of the OP, looking at those threads will provide him with a good view of the possibilities.

A better question would be for the OP to explain what each of the invasions listed is expected to do for German war aims.

If that's a better question is questionable. The OP seems to be interested in whether it can be done or not, the reasons to do it seems to be rather secondary to him. Or perhaps, paraphrasing George Mallory, he just want the Germans to invade them "because they're there."

Does he have enough resources to take on all 5 simultaneously, or does he prioritise? All at once is feasible. The earliest feasible timeframe for each might be something along the lines of -
Sweden - June 1940
Spain - September 1940
Portugal - January 1941
Turkey - June 1941
Switzerland - July 1940

So that means that you think the earliest feasible timeframe for all 5 simultaneously is June 1941?

[Ironmachine]

However, I really doubt that if the Germans are on the Pyrennes, Franco would choose war. His standing with the Soviets was bad, but it wasn't good with the British either. His best chance was to let German troops through the country.

Such moves didn't mean too much at the end of the war, eg. Sweden let some military traffic pass through the country. Turkey was in direct defiance of the Anglo-French-Turkish Treaty of 1939, and it also let some military traffic through, yet they didn't get punished.

I'm not so sure about Franco's reaction, and in any case his control of power resources in Spain at that time was not so total as many people here seem to believe (and as it was years later).
Anyway, I think we should not compare the consequences of a possible Spanish "active cooperation" with the Germans with what happened to Sweden and Turkey after the war. Spain actually cooperated with Germany in OTL in ways not too different to other neutrals and still barely escaped the consequences, mostly because everybody was tired of war in 1945. But you are describing totally different situation, for example your "let German troops through the country" scenario would have allowed a direct attack on British "territory" and British citizens (in Gibraltar), and surely direct retaliations on Spanish territory would have followed, thus making it very different to the Sweden and Turkish actions you mention. With Spain directly involved in the war, at the end of the war the consequences would have been very different to OTL. However, the number of variables involved is so large that almost anything is possible (that's why I am not usually interested in what-ifs, by the way).
Regards.

[Peter89]

However, I really doubt that if the Germans are on the Pyrennes, Franco would choose war. His standing with the Soviets was bad, but it wasn't good with the British either. His best chance was to let German troops through the country.

Such moves didn't mean too much at the end of the war, eg. Sweden let some military traffic pass through the country. Turkey was in direct defiance of the Anglo-French-Turkish Treaty of 1939, and it also let some military traffic through, yet they didn't get punished.

I'm not so sure about Franco's reaction, and in any case his control of power resources in Spain at that time was not so total as many people here seem to believe (and as it was years later).
Anyway, I think we should not compare the consequences of a possible Spanish "active cooperation" with the Germans with what happened to Sweden and Turkey after the war. Spain actually cooperated with Germany in OTL in ways not too different to other neutrals and still barely escaped the consequences, mostly because everybody was tired of war in 1945. But you are describing totally different situation, for example your "let German troops through the country" scenario would have allowed a direct attack on British "territory" and British citizens (in Gibraltar), and surely direct retaliations on Spanish territory would have followed, thus making it very different to the Sweden and Turkish actions you mention. With Spain directly involved in the war, at the end of the war the consequences would have been very different to OTL. However, the number of variables involved is so large that almost anything is possible (that's why I am not usually interested in what-ifs, by the way).
Regards.

I see your point, but right after the war the hostilities between the SU and the Wallies broke out almost immediately.

OTL the Spanish got an embargo and that was about it. Later they became accepted into the NATO, and Franco as a staunch anti-communist had a good chance to survive politically. The wallies saw no need to remove him.

As for punishment, the Turks did way worse things against the Wallies, effectively allowing the Germans to arm the Turks. It didn't matter as long as they were anti-Soviet. In general, I agree with you that the number and effect of variables are too high. But I see no evidence that Franco would damage his neutrality substantially more than OTL.

The other way was to invade Spain, which was also very much possible. AFAIK Franco was pretty much concerned that his refusal for the German demands might provoke an invasion. It probably would have, given there's no Barbarossa.

[Ironmachine]

I see your point, but right after the war the hostilities between the SU and the Wallies broke out almost immediately.

Yes, but in that case (OTL) Spain has not been involved in the war, and had not fought against the Allies. In you what-if, i.e. Franco letting German troops through Spain, the situation would be very different: Spain would have been actively involved in the war and attacks on the British would have been carried out from Spanish territory. At least, Spain would have ended the war surrendering, or at worse (for Franco, not necessarily for Spain) under Allied occupation if Spain would had been invaded. Everything would have been different in this scenario, beginning with Franco out of power in Spain.

OTL the Spanish got an embargo and that was about it. Later they became accepted into the NATO, and Franco as a staunch anti-communist had a good chance to survive politically. The wallies saw no need to remove him.

Yes, the Spanish got an embargo and that was about it (and it was much for the Spanish people), but that was because, as you said, Spain "had actually cooperated with Germany in OTL in ways not too different to other neutrals" and in fact Spain even cooperated with the Allies sometimes (even if reluctantly). And still, Spain did not become accepted into NATO until May 1982, when Spain was already a democracy (Franco had died in 1975). And despite the staunch anti-communist stance of Franco, Spain was virtually isolated from the Western World until the Pact of Madrid was signed in September 1953. So with an Spain actively commited to support German in WW2, we should expect that the situation if the war ended with an Allied victory would be very different for Spain.

As for punishment, the Turks did way worse things against the Wallies, effectively allowing the Germans to arm the Turks.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. The Germans also armed the Spaniards, so I can't see the "way worse", but probably something is being lost in translation.

But I see no evidence that Franco would damage his neutrality substantially more than OTL.

As I see a great difference between being a pro-Axis neutral not involved in active warfare (OTL) and being a belligerent in the Axis side actively fighting against the Allies (your "let German troops through Spain" what-if), I expect great differences in the outcome of those scenarios.

The other way was to invade Spain, which was also very much possible. AFAIK Franco was pretty much concerned that his refusal for the German demands might provoke an invasion.

Yes, it was. Probably Franco's greatest fear in the first years of WW2.

It probably would have, given there's no Barbarossa.

Maybe, maybe not. It would depend on whether Hitler is decided to carry out the war against Great Britain until total defeat instead of trying for an agreement. However, the Soviet forces would have been still at the Eastern border, and presenting a friendly government with the "with me or against me" choice may had not been the best option available.
Still, in OTL Hitler had his view focused on the Soviet Union, so it's not easy to see this happening.

Regards.

[Carl Schwamberger]

Leaving the discussion of the real world to others; On the game board the idea makes no sense. Any gains economically are small & transistitory, or so far in the future they are not worth counting. In the short term of 5+ years its not worth the effort. It also makes the British periprial strategy easier or more logical for the mid war as neutral armies no longer shield significant portions of greater Germany. They are replaced by disgruntled populations with a minority of Germanophiles eager to cooperate with their ubermench masters. Eventually the USSR completes its mobilization, completes a training cycle or two, and is much further along in arming its 600 divisions. In many games the German player was badly losing well ahead of the historical schedule.

Its tough to use games to predict much, but when you see similar results with different players and different independent designs/systems its worth considering why the results are similar.

[glenn239]

Yes, I know. I was joking. That's the reason for the smiley icon at the end of my sentence. Didn't you notice it?

Smiley icons can become confusing in context if they are used too often.

Spain was not neutral. She declared a state of non-belligerance, which is quite different. Maybe the OP did not know that fact and , as we don't know the reasons the OP may have to make the Germans invade those neutral countires, it may affect his what-if. That's why I'm asking.

That's two things. The first - Spanish diplomatic patty cakes - would make no difference against a panzer army. The second, the reason why the OP was asking the question, seems to be investigating the feasibility of an alternative strategy in WW2 for Germany that lay outside of the Soviet Union.

The OP seems to be interested in whether it can be done or not, the reasons to do it seems to be rather secondary to him. Or perhaps, paraphrasing George Mallory, he just want the Germans to invade them "because they're there."

Viewed within the lens of the strategic situation Germany faced as of June 1940, the question is whether or not the invasion of, or threat of the invasion of, these neutrals would result in some alteration of the situation that would move Germany towards achieving its war objective. Within that context something like the invasion of Turkey is very much a question that needs to know what war strategy is being pursued.

So that means that you think the earliest feasible timeframe for all 5 simultaneously is June 1941?

Turkey and Portugal are the issues for invasion timing, but the larger factor is that simultaneous invasions would not be necessary and probably would be, in fact, suboptimal.

[glenn239]

Leaving the discussion of the real world to others; On the game board the idea makes no sense.

How would Torch be possible for the Anglo-Americans in 1942 if the Germans shut the entrance to the Med in 1940?

Any gains economically are small & transistitory, or so far in the future they are not worth counting. In the short term of 5+ years its not worth the effort.

It's case and strategy dependent. An invasion of Portugal with the Azores in Portugese hands is probably counterproductive because the Allies will take the Azores. The threat of an invasion of Portugal with the Azores in Portugal's hands might cause Lisbon to reinforce the Azores if this were the thing that would keep the threat from being triggered. Alternatively, an invasion of Turkey outside of an agreement with Stalin might prove to be a war losing catastrophe for Germany as it cements the Soviets to the British cause without weakening the Red Army via direct invasion. OTOH, an invasion of Turkey in agreement with Stalin might cause the Soviet Union to join the Axis and declare war on Britain as the price of annexation of the Straights.

Its tough to use games to predict much, but when you see similar results with different players and different independent designs/systems its worth considering why the results are similar.

Well, for starters I would predict that if Germany invades Spain then Torch in 1942 lands at best on the south coast of Morocco, meaning a year's delay (at least) to the fall of Tunisia. Perhaps even 2 years delay.