Hitler's price: Gibraltar?

Discussions on all aspects of the Spanish Civil War including the Condor Legion, the Germans fighting for Franco in the Spanish Civil War.
User avatar
JAG13
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 23 Mar 2013 01:50

Re: Hitler's price: Gibraltar?

Post by JAG13 » 21 Sep 2019 20:48

Ironmachine wrote:
21 Sep 2019 08:16

Just the part of the French fleet that was under Vichy's control... and that was mosty in the Mediterranean, and thus of very limited value without control of Gibraltar. And anyway, the Germans could never take control of that fleet...
And about the bases, it is very questionable that they were better than the bases Spain could offer.
Nothing even close to the usefulness of Dakar and other colonial possessions, and yes, the French did have a useful fleet.
Sabotaging the negotiations may have been Canaris' motivation, but Franco requested large caliber guns because they were needed. The real cause of the derailing of the negotiations was Germany's inability to provide the required items, not Franco's petitions.
The 1936 Canarias coastal defense projected specified few 305mm guns, nothing heavier than that...
And about the option of moving 38 cm guns from Cartagena to Canarias, there are so many reasons for which that was not a solution to the problem that I might not know where to start:
1) Cartagena was the main base of the Spanish fleet. It does not look as a good idea to remove its most powerful artillery. As we say in Spain, that would be "desvestir a un santo para vestir a otro".
With Spain in the war and in control of the strait Cartagena's guns have no job.
2) Maybe you can tell us how many 381mm guns were at Cartagena? Just 4. How much defense they would have provided in the Canaries? Negligible.
More than the protection planned in the 1936 Spanish project...
3) It would have taken a long time to remove the guns from Cartagena and put them in service in the Canaries. Probably longer than the time needed by the British to invade the islands.
4) Large caliber guns were not only needed in the Canaries. They were needed everywhere.
5) With or without heavy guns, the Canaries were as good as gone. They were going to be completely isolated from day one of Spain's participation in the war.
The same or more time than it would take for sending them from Germany...

Spain had plenty of large caliber coastal guns, and at that point aircraft make for a better defense anyway...

Spain's entry into the war would be predicated into facilitating Italian assistance on Sea Lion, the UK would be kind of busy... or that was the idea.

Yeah, Dakar fell right away, didnt it?

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5362
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 10:50
Location: Spain

Re: Hitler's price: Gibraltar?

Post by Ironmachine » 22 Sep 2019 07:22

JAG13 wrote:Nothing even close to the usefulness of Dakar and other colonial possessions, and yes, the French did have a useful fleet.
Yes, because we all know how useful Dakar, the other French colonial possesions and the French fleet were for the Germans.
JAG13 wrote:The 1936 Canarias coastal defense projected specified few 305mm guns, nothing heavier than that...
Yes. But that project was not carried out. During WWII, there was just 4 x 305mm howitzers as the heaviest pieces in the Canaries, and these were of an old design, not the modern Bofors guns of the 1936 project.
So the fact is the Spaniards wanted to improved the defenses. They were satisfied with 305mm guns when they were not contemplating entering a war, and they may have wanted something more powerful in 1940 when they were being asked to join a side in a world war. Now, if you consider that this is trying to sabotage a negotiation....
JAG13 wrote:With Spain in the war and in control of the strait Cartagena's guns have no job.
That's your opinion. The Spanish Navy may have had a different opinion. And anyway, as I have already told you, heavy artillery was not only needed in the Canaries, but everywhere. If you think that 4 x 381mm guns are enough for that, then you have a problem.

JAG13 wrote:
Ironmachine wrote:Maybe you can tell us how many 381mm guns were at Cartagena? Just 4. How much defense they would have provided in the Canaries? Negligible.
More than the protection planned in the 1936 Spanish project...
Actually, far less tan the protection planned in the 1936 project, because that project asked for 2 x 305mm batteries, 2 x 210mm batteries, 4 x 150mm batteries, plus more batteries of lighter guns and anti-aircraft artillery.

[quote)="JAG13"]Spain had plenty of large caliber coastal guns,
Plenty is in the eye of the beholder. Spanish opinion at the time was different.[/quote]
and at that point aircraft make for a better defense anyway...
So perhaps you can illustrate the number and models of aircraft available in Spain and more specifically in the Canaries in 1939-1940, and how many planes were really needed to make a good enough defense, and how many planes can Spain ask for to Germany before you begin to say the Spaniards are trying to sabotaje the negotiation.
JAG13" wrote:Spain's entry into the war would be predicated into facilitating Italian assistance on Sea Lion, the UK would be kind of busy... or that was the idea.
Whose idea? Not a Spanish idea for sure, for they had a healthy respect for the Royal Navy.
If Spain's entry into the war is intended to facilitate Italian assistance on Sea Lion (in case you are interested, there is a whole thread about that in the what if section: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=134962&hilit=italian+navy ), Spain is going to enter the fray much before the actual launch of Sea Lion, so the UK would be kind of busy... exactly with what?
JAG13 wrote: Yeah, Dakar fell right away, didnt it?
Nay, Madagascar did not fall, did it?


Perhaps you can explain what could Spain ask for that you would not consider an attempt to sabotage the negotiations...

Berto
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: 06 Oct 2016 14:27
Location: Italy

Re: Hitler's price: Gibraltar?

Post by Berto » 22 Sep 2019 17:03

JAG13 wrote:
21 Sep 2019 20:49
Berto wrote:
21 Sep 2019 09:40
JAG13 wrote:
20 Sep 2019 15:07

They entered the war in 1915 convinced it was about to end and in order to prey on the "loser".


They entered the war in 1940 convinced it was about to end and in order to prey on the "loser".
I doubt many people were convinced the war was about to end in 1915.
The government that decided on war was... which is why they stupidly stumbled into war.
The one that stupidly stumbled into a war that it lost was Germany, whose brilliant masterplan failed as usual :lol:

Italy pondered the offered of each side, joined on the side of the best offerer (and rightly so), and won the war :D

Berto
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: 06 Oct 2016 14:27
Location: Italy

Re: Hitler's price: Gibraltar?

Post by Berto » 22 Sep 2019 17:10

JAG13 wrote:
21 Sep 2019 21:26

Musso did beg for it June 18th, Hitler shut him down, no seat at the big boy table, Corvaja, pp. 119.
LOL!!

Then that's one more case of your lonely source spouting bullshit :lol:
Yeah, because THAT showed the French, right?


Well, they lost ground in two days's fighting despite having a fortified line and a mountain chain between them and the attacker :)
Are you talking about the Italians?
No, about your so-called country :D
Of course, attacking an already defeated country does not count like backstabbing, right? :lol:
Then I guess the United States "backstabbed" Germany and the Soviet Union "backstabbed" Japan :lol:
Well, the Italians are kinda known for it, arent they?


For what? :roll:

User avatar
JAG13
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 23 Mar 2013 01:50

Re: Hitler's price: Gibraltar?

Post by JAG13 » 22 Sep 2019 19:51

Ironmachine wrote:
22 Sep 2019 07:22
JAG13 wrote:Nothing even close to the usefulness of Dakar and other colonial possessions, and yes, the French did have a useful fleet.
Yes, because we all know how useful Dakar, the other French colonial possesions and the French fleet were for the Germans.
JAG13 wrote:The 1936 Canarias coastal defense projected specified few 305mm guns, nothing heavier than that...
Yes. But that project was not carried out. During WWII, there was just 4 x 305mm howitzers as the heaviest pieces in the Canaries, and these were of an old design, not the modern Bofors guns of the 1936 project.
So the fact is the Spaniards wanted to improved the defenses. They were satisfied with 305mm guns when they were not contemplating entering a war, and they may have wanted something more powerful in 1940 when they were being asked to join a side in a world war. Now, if you consider that this is trying to sabotage a negotiation....
It is when you dont want to go to war and avoid being obvious about it.
JAG13 wrote:With Spain in the war and in control of the strait Cartagena's guns have no job.
That's your opinion. The Spanish Navy may have had a different opinion. And anyway, as I have already told you, heavy artillery was not only needed in the Canaries, but everywhere. If you think that 4 x 381mm guns are enough for that, then you have a problem.
Yeah, so different they were asking for only 4x305mm plus medium guns pre-war when Spain had 18x38cm, if the islands were so critical they would have received some, instead they had 19th century guns...
JAG13 wrote:
Ironmachine wrote:Maybe you can tell us how many 381mm guns were at Cartagena? Just 4. How much defense they would have provided in the Canaries? Negligible.
Yeah, and no Spanish coastal position had more than 4, ever... didnt they?
More than the protection planned in the 1936 Spanish project...
Actually, far less tan the protection planned in the 1936 project, because that project asked for 2 x 305mm batteries, 2 x 210mm batteries, 4 x 150mm batteries, plus more batteries of lighter guns and anti-aircraft artillery.
Perhaps you missed the part where we were discussing HEAVY guns? There are a lot of medium French guns and those are far easier to move and set up.

[quote)="JAG13"]Spain had plenty of large caliber coastal guns,
Plenty is in the eye of the beholder. Spanish opinion at the time was different.
Sure, just let me know what other European country had as many 38cm coastal guns...
and at that point aircraft make for a better defense anyway...
So perhaps you can illustrate the number and models of aircraft available in Spain and more specifically in the Canaries in 1939-1940, and how many planes were really needed to make a good enough defense, and how many planes can Spain ask for to Germany before you begin to say the Spaniards are trying to sabotaje the negotiation.
You got me, after all aircraft are immobile and cant be placed somewhere else like heavy cannon, and Spain had no He 111s of their own, like, at all...
JAG13" wrote:Spain's entry into the war would be predicated into facilitating Italian assistance on Sea Lion, the UK would be kind of busy... or that was the idea.
Whose idea? Not a Spanish idea for sure, for they had a healthy respect for the Royal Navy.
If Spain's entry into the war is intended to facilitate Italian assistance on Sea Lion (in case you are interested, there is a whole thread about that in the what if section: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=134962&hilit=italian+navy ), Spain is going to enter the fray much before the actual launch of Sea Lion, so the UK would be kind of busy... exactly with what?
It would be the only circumstance under which Spain entry would make sense, otherwise it is not worth the cost, and you can see what Hitler thought of the cost...
JAG13 wrote: Yeah, Dakar fell right away, didnt it?
Nay, Madagascar did not fall, did it?
Oh! Madagascar was a fortified naval base? I wasnt aware of that!
Perhaps you can explain what could Spain ask for that you would not consider an attempt to sabotage the negotiations...
Consumable resources were understandable, Germany would have to provide what Spain used to have to import, but weapons and the exorbitant territorial demands? On top of having to supply and arm Spain?

Please...
Last edited by JAG13 on 22 Sep 2019 20:07, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5362
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 10:50
Location: Spain

Re: Hitler's price: Gibraltar?

Post by Ironmachine » 22 Sep 2019 21:25

JAG13 wrote:
Ironmachine wrote:
JAG13 wrote:The 1936 Canarias coastal defense projected specified few 305mm guns, nothing heavier than that...
Yes. But that project was not carried out. During WWII, there was just 4 x 305mm howitzers as the heaviest pieces in the Canaries, and these were of an old design, not the modern Bofors guns of the 1936 project.
So the fact is the Spaniards wanted to improved the defenses. They were satisfied with 305mm guns when they were not contemplating entering a war, and they may have wanted something more powerful in 1940 when they were being asked to join a side in a world war. Now, if you consider that this is trying to sabotage a negotiation....
It is when you dont want to go to war and avoid being obvious about it.
It is not when you are willing to go to war, but you do not want to go to war naked, unarmed and on an empty stomach
JAG13 wrote:
Ironmachine wrote:
JAG13 wrote:With Spain in the war and in control of the strait Cartagena's guns have no job.
That's your opinion. The Spanish Navy may have had a different opinion. And anyway, as I have already told you, heavy artillery was not only needed in the Canaries, but everywhere. If you think that 4 x 381mm guns are enough for that, then you have a problem.
Yeah, so different they were asking for only 4x305mm plus medium guns pre-war when Spain had 18x38cm, if the islands were so critical they would have received some, instead they had 19th century guns...
The Canaries were not critical, or better they were not the most critical area for Spain. So they had to do with 19th century guns. If you think that 18 x 381mm guns were enough to defend one of the longest coast of Europe, with two archipelagos and more territory in another continent while having virtually no Navy, there is nothing more to say. [/quote]
JAG13 wrote:
Ironmachine wrote:
JAG13 wrote:
Ironmachine wrote:Maybe you can tell us how many 381mm guns were at Cartagena? Just 4. How much defense they would have provided in the Canaries? Negligible.
Yeah, and no Spanish coastal position had more than 4, ever... didnt they?
More than the protection planned in the 1936 Spanish project...
Actually, far less tan the protection planned in the 1936 project, because that project asked for 2 x 305mm batteries, 2 x 210mm batteries, 4 x 150mm batteries, plus more batteries of lighter guns and anti-aircraft artillery.
Perhaps you missed the part where we were discussing HEAVY guns? There are a lot of medium French guns and those are far easier to move and set up.
Ferrol and Mahón did have more than 4 guns, at least till some have to be moved to other places because, well, there were not enough guns for everything.
Maybe you are ready to fight the Royal Navy with some medium guns, the Spanish Army had a different opinion at the time, and I think they knew better.
By the way, did the Germas offered those French medium guns?
JAG13 wrote:
Ironmachine wrote:
JAG13 wrote:Spain had plenty of large caliber coastal guns
Plenty is in the eye of the beholder. Spanish opinion at the time was different.
Sure, just let me know what other European country had as many 38cm coastal guns...
Sure, just let me know what other European country was going to fight against the British with such a long coast to defend, with virtually no ships or mines
JAG13 wrote:
Ironmachine wrote:
JAG13 wrote:and at that point aircraft make for a better defense anyway...
So perhaps you can illustrate the number and models of aircraft available in Spain and more specifically in the Canaries in 1939-1940, and how many planes were really needed to make a good enough defense, and how many planes can Spain ask for to Germany before you begin to say the Spaniards are trying to sabotaje the negotiation.
You got me, after all aircraft are immobile and cant be placed somewhere else like heavy cannon, and Spain had no He 111s of their own, like, at all...
Well, perhaps you should look at how many warplanes Spain had at the time (and which models), how many were in the Canaries, how many landing fields were in the islands, how much petrol was available for the planes, how much success high altitude level bombing had against ships during World War II...

JAG13 wrote:
Ironmachine wrote:
JAG13 wrote:Spain's entry into the war would be predicated into facilitating Italian assistance on Sea Lion, the UK would be kind of busy... or that was the idea.
Whose idea? Not a Spanish idea for sure, for they had a healthy respect for the Royal Navy. If Spain's entry into the war is intended to facilitate Italian assistance on Sea Lion (in case you are interested, there is a whole thread about that in the what if section: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=134962&hilit=italian+navy ), Spain is going to enter the fray much before the actual launch of Sea Lion, so the UK would be kind of busy... exactly with what?
It would be the only circumstance under which Spain entry would make sense, otherwise it is not worth the cost, and you can see what Hitler thought of the cost...
I can see what Hitler thought of the participation of the Regia Marina on Sea Lion, and what he thought of Sea Lion itself. So who really had no interest in the negotiations?
JAG13 wrote:
Ironmachine wrote:
JAG13 wrote:Yeah, Dakar fell right away, didnt it?
Nay, Madagascar did not fall, did it?
Oh! Madagascar was a fortified naval base? I wasnt aware of that!
No, it was an island! Just like the Canaries! And Coastal Defence at Diego Suarez had four 305 mm guns, four 240mm guns, and four 138mm guns. Did not make the French any good.
Ironmachine wrote:
JAG13 wrote:Perhaps you can explain what could Spain ask for that you would not consider an attempt to sabotage the negotiations...
Consumable resources were understandable, Germany would have to provide what Spain used to have to import, but weapons and the exorbitant territorial demands? On top of having to supply and arm Spain?

Please...
Your own source (Germany and the Second World War, Vol III) shows that Germans were not able or willing to supply even the consumable resources, so... please you.

User avatar
JAG13
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 23 Mar 2013 01:50

Re: Hitler's price: Gibraltar?

Post by JAG13 » 22 Sep 2019 22:23

Ironmachine wrote:
22 Sep 2019 21:25

It is not when you are willing to go to war, but you do not want to go to war naked, unarmed and on an empty stomach
Spain had an army and some weapons, lacked consumables but in top of that asked for way too much when it wouldnt be bringing much to the table.
The Canaries were not critical, or better they were not the most critical area for Spain. So they had to do with 19th century guns. If you think that 18 x 381mm guns were enough to defend one of the longest coast of Europe, with two archipelagos and more territory in another continent while having virtually no Navy, there is nothing more to say.
The time of coastal guns was long past...
Ferrol and Mahón did have more than 4 guns, at least till some have to be moved to other places because, well, there were not enough guns for everything.
Maybe you are ready to fight the Royal Navy with some medium guns, the Spanish Army had a different opinion at the time, and I think they knew better.
By the way, did the Germas offered those French medium guns?
The RN learned its lesson at Norway... it would be forced to operate under enemy air assets at Dunkirk and Crete and didnt like the experience one bit, and did ut because it had no choice.
Sure, just let me know what other European country was going to fight against the British with such a long coast to defend, with virtually no ships or mines
By then Germany had a far larger coast to defend...
Well, perhaps you should look at how many warplanes Spain had at the time (and which models), how many were in the Canaries, how many landing fields were in the islands, how much petrol was available for the planes, how much success high altitude level bombing had against ships during World War II...
At the Islands? 2.

Few modern aircraft, among those Hs 123, Ju 87s and He 111s that could be adopted to launch torpedoes, all three far better assets than the RA or RAF had to attack ships.
I can see what Hitler thought of the participation of the Regia Marina on Sea Lion, and what he thought of Sea Lion itself. So who really had no interest in the negotiations?
Hitler wanted to strike a blow to force the British to negotiate, Spain's price was way too high for that as i said earlier. My point was, Spain's price would only be worth had Hitler believed BOTH on Sea Lion and the RM being trustworthy... and we know how that really was.
No, it was an island! Just like the Canaries! And Coastal Defence at Diego Suarez had four 305 mm guns, four 240mm guns, and four 138mm guns. Did not make the French any good.
And so high was their fighting spirit they allowed a DD and 50 men to enter the port causing the defense to collapse, so your poit is the Spanish soldiers would collapse just as easily as the mostly african troops there?
Your own source (Germany and the Second World War, Vol III) shows that Germans were not able or willing to supply even the consumable resources, so... please you.
Heh.

My quote mentions most could be provided, the issue was grain and oil, which is what I said eralier, Germany imported those from the USSR and could hardly provide them.

And given how little actual support Spain could provide to the war effort compared to the price, it wasnt worth it.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23291
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Re: Hitler's price: Gibraltar?

Post by David Thompson » 23 Sep 2019 03:03

Several unsourced repartee posts from JAG13 were removed, pursuant to forum rules:
When a person becomes an advocate, he has the burden of providing evidence for his point of view. If he has no evidence, or doesn't provide it when asked, it is reasonable for the reader to conclude that his opinion or viewpoint is uninformed and may fairly be discounted or rejected.

Undocumented claims undercut the research purposes of this section of the forum. Consequently, it is required that proof be posted along with a claim. The main reason is that proof, evidence, facts, etc. improve the quality of discussions and information. A second reason is that inflammatory, groundless posts and threads attack, and do not promote, the scholarly purpose of this section of the forum.

This requirement applies to each specific claim.
The research sections of the forum are meant for persons who are fairly well-informed on the topics being discussed, and our discussions are not directed at the lowest common denominator of readership. Rural customs of discourse, such as feigned ignorance, pettifogging, playing at peek-a-boo, fact-free repartee, redundant and uninformative posts, and/or "stonewalling" denials of facts well-known to most informed persons, are strongly disfavored here.

The object of the research sections of the forum is to exchange information, not to engage in dim wrangling as a form of diversion. Our readers are intelligent people, who have already taken the time to inform themselves on the topic under discussion and don't have a lot of time to waste playing games. Shrill and highly polemical posts are also strongly disfavored.
app.php/rules

Thread warning - Civility is a requirement here. Taunting posts are strongly disfavored. "Lol" posters may find the joke is on them.

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5362
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 10:50
Location: Spain

Re: Hitler's price: Gibraltar?

Post by Ironmachine » 23 Sep 2019 07:41

JAG13 wrote:Spain had an army and some weapons, lacked consumables but in top of that asked for way too much when it wouldnt be bringing much to the table.
Spain had an army and some weapons in OTL. Spain would have had an army and some weapons even in an alternative timeline where they were armed with swords and shields. In both cases, it would have been not a great idea to combat against a modern army.
And Spain was not bringing much to the table? According to your words, Spain was bringing to the table the only possible way to take Gibraltar, thus the only possible way for the Regia Marina to take part in Sea Lion, thus the (only?) possible way to have a chance of success in the invasion of England, thus the most quick and reasonable way to defeat Great Britian... Nah, Spain was not bringing much to the table.
JAG13 wrote:The time of coastal guns was long past...
Tell that to the British at Gibraltar.
Or to the Swedes:
After a reduction in units after the 1925 defence proposition, there was a significant expansion of all the branches of the Swedish Armed Forces. In particular, the artillery in the Coastal Artillery was modernised and new materiel made in Sweden and imported (from e.g. Czechoslovakia) were introduced. The defense line built on the coast of Skåne during World War II was called the Per Albin Line. The detachment in Gothenburg was reorganised and expanded into the Älvsborg Coastal Artillery Regiment in 1942. During World War II and onwards, about 60 coastal artillery batteries were built along the Swedish coast.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_C ... rld_War_II
Or to the Germans in Normandy in 1944.
Or to the United States that, despite their Navy and air forces, as soon as WWII broke out began to reequip existing harbour defenses and to build new batteries (and if 381mm guns seems like too much for you, just think they were using 16-inch and 14-inch guns).
Yes, the time of coastal guns was long past... If only they'd known that at the time! :roll:
JAG13 wrote:The RN learned its lesson at Norway... it would be forced to operate under enemy air assets at Dunkirk and Crete and didnt like the experience one bit, and did ut because it had no choice.
It would not be forced to operate under enemy air assests if attacking the Canaries because there were not any enemy air assests there. The RN could have also attack most of the Spanish coast without worrying about enemy air assests due to the same reason. Only if the Germans provide airplanes.... Oh, wait, that would be asking too much and trying to sabotage the negotiations...
JAG13 wrote:
Ironmachine wrote:Well, perhaps you should look at how many warplanes Spain had at the time (and which models), how many were in the Canaries, how many landing fields were in the islands, how much petrol was available for the planes, how much success high altitude level bombing had against ships during World War II...
At the Islands? 2.
2 planes? 2 landing fields? 2 liters of oil? 2 successes in high altitude level bombing against moving ships?
JAG13 wrote:Few modern aircraft, among those Hs 123, Ju 87s and He 111s that could be adopted to launch torpedoes, all three far better assets than the RA or RAF had to attack ships.
Spain had no Ju 87s and only 14 x Hs 123s and about 60 x He 111s. Unless Germany provides... No, that would be asking too much and trying to sabotage the negotiations...
And any adaptation for carrying torpedoes would have to be made by the Germans. Would that be asking too much of them?
JAG13 wrote:Hitler wanted to strike a blow to force the British to negotiate, Spain's price was way too high for that as i said earlier. My point was, Spain's price would only be worth had Hitler believed BOTH on Sea Lion and the RM being trustworthy... and we know how that really was.
If Hitler was not really interested, it really doesn't matter if Spain was trying to sabotagethe negotiations or not, does it?
On the other hand, It's clear that Germany could not pay Spain's price, so Hitler's interest (or lack of it) is of no consecuence.
JAG13 wrote:
Ironmachine wrote:No, it was an island! Just like the Canaries! And Coastal Defence at Diego Suarez had four 305 mm guns, four 240mm guns, and four 138mm guns. Did not make the French any good.
And so high was their fighting spirit they allowed a DD and 50 men to enter the port causing the defense to collapse, so your poit is the Spanish soldiers would collapse just as easily as the mostly african troops there?
That incident happened at Antisarane, with the Britihs already on the island and having taken the town of Diego-Suarez. Destroyer incident or not, it was just a matter of time for the French to surrender. In a similar situation, with the British already on land on the Canaries (which would have been easy, given the state of the islands' defences) and with no hope at all of any help from the Peninsula, then yes, my point is that Spanish soldiers would collapse just as easily.
JAG13 wrote:
Ironmachine wrote:Your own source (Germany and the Second World War, Vol III) shows that Germans were not able or willing to supply even the consumable resources, so... please you.
Heh.

My quote mentions most could be provided, the issue was grain and oil, which is what I said eralier, Germany imported those from the USSR and could hardly provide them.
Heh.
The issue was grain and oil. Food and oil. Yes, let's go to war without food and oil, because it's just so great an idea. And do not ask for grain and oil, because you would be trying to sabotage the negotiations.
Germany can not even provide the food and oil that Spain needs, and you think that Spain asked for heavy guns to sabotage the negotiations... :roll:
JAG13 wrote:And given how little actual support Spain could provide to the war effort compared to the price, it wasnt worth it.
Given the little support Spain could provide to the war effort, it wasn't worth at any price.
Given how much burden to German war effort Spain would make, it wasn't worth at any price.
But Spain provided opportunities (be they great or small) to defeat the British, something the Germans were short of. Whether this was worth the price or not, it was for the Germans to answer. But as they could not pay the price, the question has no value.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 6861
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Hitler's price: Gibraltar?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 23 Sep 2019 14:18

Hi Ironmachine,

You reminded me of our earlier discussion, which was one of the most informative that I have had on AHF. I learnt a lot from it:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=177255&hilit=Sid+Guttridge

Do you have any information on the tankers you say Spain hired from other countries to import oil during the war? On the face of it, this would appear to be against Allied policy.

Cheers,

Sid.

ROLAND1369
Member
Posts: 976
Joined: 26 May 2007 15:22
Location: USA

Re: Hitler's price: Gibraltar?

Post by ROLAND1369 » 23 Sep 2019 15:24

Just for Historical correctness Diego Suarez had no 305 nor 240 MM coastal guns. It was defended by 4-164.7 MM M93 96 on Affut C m23, 4-138 MM M 1881 on Affut M1917, a and 100 MM M1897-17 on Affut M1897 PC. While the heavier batteries may have been planned they were never funded.

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5362
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 10:50
Location: Spain

Re: Hitler's price: Gibraltar?

Post by Ironmachine » 23 Sep 2019 20:34

Hi Ironmachine,

You reminded me of our earlier discussion, which was one of the most informative that I have had on AHF. I learnt a lot from it:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=177255&hilit=Sid+Guttridge

Do you have any information on the tankers you say Spain hired from other countries to import oil during the war? On the face of it, this would appear to be against Allied policy.

Cheers,

Sid.
I took that information from original documents available online in the link I posted in that thread. Unfortunately, the link is not working now (it takes you to another webpage). However, I take some notes at the time and here is everything (I think!) that was there about that subject, which admittedly is not much:
En 1942 CAMPSA efectuó fletamientos de buques propios al Instituto Portugués de Combustibles, a CEPSA, a la Oficina Suiza de Transportes y a la Compañía Transmediterránea, para el transporte de productos petrolíferos entre América, las Islas Canarias y los referidos países. Estos fletes continuaron en 1943.
En los inicios de 1944 se suspendieron durante más de 3 meses las cargas de productos petrolíferos en América, lo que provocó la baja en las existencias españolas, obligando al Gobierno a adoptar restricciones máximas del consumo. A partir de junio se consiguió el restablecimiento de los cupos convenidos, a través de la Misión Petrolífera Anglo-Norteamericana en España. En noviembre cesó el recargo establecido por los Estados Unidos sobre los precios en origen de los productos. Este año se fletaron algunos barcos de CAMPSA a la Compañía Española de Petroleos, a la Sociedad Petrolífera Española y a la Oficina Suiza de Transportes.
Last edited by Ironmachine on 23 Sep 2019 20:44, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5362
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 10:50
Location: Spain

Re: Hitler's price: Gibraltar?

Post by Ironmachine » 23 Sep 2019 20:43

ROLAND1369 wrote:Just for Historical correctness Diego Suarez had no 305 nor 240 MM coastal guns. It was defended by 4-164.7 MM M93 96 on Affut C m23, 4-138 MM M 1881 on Affut M1917, a and 100 MM M1897-17 on Affut M1897 PC. While the heavier batteries may have been planned they were never funded.
I took that information from this thread: viewtopic.php?f=56&t=98066&p=872049&hil ... ar#p872049
but it seems it was wrong.
Thank you for providing the correct data.

User avatar
JAG13
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 23 Mar 2013 01:50

Re: Hitler's price: Gibraltar?

Post by JAG13 » 23 Sep 2019 21:06

David Thompson wrote:
23 Sep 2019 03:03
Several unsourced repartee posts from JAG13 were removed, pursuant to forum rules:
When a person becomes an advocate, he has the burden of providing evidence for his point of view. If he has no evidence, or doesn't provide it when asked, it is reasonable for the reader to conclude that his opinion or viewpoint is uninformed and may fairly be discounted or rejected.

Undocumented claims undercut the research purposes of this section of the forum. Consequently, it is required that proof be posted along with a claim. The main reason is that proof, evidence, facts, etc. improve the quality of discussions and information. A second reason is that inflammatory, groundless posts and threads attack, and do not promote, the scholarly purpose of this section of the forum.

This requirement applies to each specific claim.
The research sections of the forum are meant for persons who are fairly well-informed on the topics being discussed, and our discussions are not directed at the lowest common denominator of readership. Rural customs of discourse, such as feigned ignorance, pettifogging, playing at peek-a-boo, fact-free repartee, redundant and uninformative posts, and/or "stonewalling" denials of facts well-known to most informed persons, are strongly disfavored here.

The object of the research sections of the forum is to exchange information, not to engage in dim wrangling as a form of diversion. Our readers are intelligent people, who have already taken the time to inform themselves on the topic under discussion and don't have a lot of time to waste playing games. Shrill and highly polemical posts are also strongly disfavored.
app.php/rules

Thread warning - Civility is a requirement here. Taunting posts are strongly disfavored. "Lol" posters may find the joke is on them.
Unsourced? I was the only one providing sources and civility is a 2-way street, bye!

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 6861
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Hitler's price: Gibraltar?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 24 Sep 2019 09:45

Hi Ironmachine,

Thanks, I will try to follow them up.

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. The following link implies that Portugal had no tankers of its own at the start of WWII and was probably not able to spare any for Spain:

https://restosdecoleccao.blogspot.com/2 ... meiro.html

The following link implies the same, though Portugal did acquire three small coastal tankers immediately after WWII, which may have been hired off Sweden during it.

http://faroefaro.blogspot.com/2011/02/s ... rinha.html

It seems that Portugal built one tanker during the war and otherwise hired neutral tankers, apparently off Sweden.

P.P.S. Page 6 of the following link to a 1942 document seems to say that Spain was leasing tanker space to Portugal and Switzerland, which would confirm it had some tonnage to spare:

https://campsa.cnmc.es/sites/default/fi ... 201942.pdf

Return to “Spanish Civil War & Legion Condor”