What European Neutral Country..

Mankyspuds

Of all the European countries that managed to remain out of the mess that WWII was, which of them would have made the greatest impact (if any) if they had actually took sides.

I am pretty sure the Irish would have been realitive pushovers in pure military terms but I wouldn't have fancied trying to occupy the place being the type of war was fought here in the teens and early twenties.

What of the other countries?

Lets keep it to the first two years of the war (Sept39-Sept41)

LiamMc

I think your question is unfairly limited.


There are many conditions, European, Neutral (whatever that may mean), only between Sept 1939 and Sept. 1941.
I believe hostilities in Europe took place before September 1939, therefore for me the WWII began before Sept. 1939.

I believe there was very few countries in the European theatre that were purely neutral.

Governments, including de facto decision-makers, took different decisions on commitment to hostilities. Every country had a relationship with the Allied or Axis powers. Some countries changed their allegiances as the individual decision-makers changed.



I believe there is a difference between a country deciding not to take part in hostilities unilaterally, a country agreeing with the major parties not to be hostile towards them and a country that fought only after they themselves were invaded.

Regarding Ireland, there would be a very small reliance on the veterans of the hostilities in 'teens and twenties but a far greater reliance on the already mobilised troops in the Allied or Axis armies.


Some countries were surrounded by Allied or in particular Axis Power armies and never got invaded, through the individual countries decision-making and maybe it's perceived difficult terrain. That maybe a clue to how great their resistance may have been. Obviously, I thinking first of Liechtenstein.

Fratton Fred

Although pro Nazi, Spain joining the war could have closed off the Med, which would have meant no relief to El Alamein and the possible loss of North Africa and no invasion of Italy.

Vichy France joining the Axis would have made a huge difference as well, especially if they had, as Churchill feared, turned their fleet over to Germany.

Other than that, neither side particularly respected neutrality, if a country was in their way, or strategically important, they took it.

tac foley

IMO Switzerland, the most heavily armed 'neutral' country, would have given the nazis a real headache. In a country where every male over the age of 18 was complulsorily armed and trained as a soldier, taking Switzerland was never going to be easy and may have resulted in at least 300,000 enemy casualties, according to Swiss post-war studies.

Unlike the other countries in Europe, the Swiss already had a centuries-old fortress mind-set - ALL the tunnels into Switzerland were rigged to blow, as were all the bridge and main access roads - tanks traps are still there, as one fleeing criminal found out fatally a couple of weeks ago by driving into it at over 150kph.

I've spent a lot of time there over the last forty-something years, and have a few good friends there as a result. General Guisan, in charge of the defence of Switzerland during the emergency, told the citizen army 'We shall fight with bullets, then with our bayonets and then with our bare hands - we shall never surrender!!' Sounds familiar? It came two years before Churchill's near identical speech. Guisan left out the beaches - Switzerland has no sea-shores to speak of.

You can bet your life that every male person capable of holding a weapon of some kind would have done so - a casual glance at the geography would quickly show you how the shape of the countryside would channel any enemy invaders into killing zones from the many fortesses buried deep in the mountainsides. The people I usually stay with had no illusions about holding out it it had happened, but the old grandpa, who died in '91, was in charge of a demolition team whose job was to bring down an entire mountainside - about a million tons of it - onto a village bordering Germany that would have been a staging post for any ground forces trying their hand.

The Swiss don't just make watches and chocolate.

Here is an anecdote from around 1910 -

A Swiss infantry colonel was overviewing an exercise of one of his battalions, accompanied by a German general acting as an observer from Berlin. 'All very impressive,' he noted aside, 'but there are not that many of you, are there? What, 350,000 at the most? What if you were to be in invaded, let us say, from Germany - I have about at least twice the number of men in MY army!'

'The Swiss looked at him, cleared his throat, and said in a clear and confident voice, 'Well, General, in that case we would each have to shoot twice.'

tac

'The Swiss - most armed, most free'.

who_me

Ireland's armed forces wouldn't likely have made a massive difference, though as an island it would have been a pain for any occupying force to supply and subdue.

It could have been a huge strategic benefit though, allowing far better air support of the Atlantic convoys; every mile further West is two miles less for the aircraft to travel and more time out over the ocean. Plus Ireland would have offered airbases and harbours outside the practical range of the Luftwaffe.

Of course, that's assuming Ireland joined the Allies. If Ireland had joined the war on the side of the Axis, then surely the Anglo-Irish air raids would have been a blood-bath, I can't imagine it would have ended well for either side. And - as above - Ireland would be the ideal location for launching attacks on the Atlantic convoys.

Mankyspuds

LiamMc wrote: »

I think your question is unfairly limited.


There are many conditions, European, Neutral (whatever that may mean), only between Sept 1939 and Sept. 1941.
I believe hostilities in Europe took place before September 1939, therefore for me the WWII began before Sept. 1939.

I believe there was very few countries in the European theatre that were purely neutral.

Governments, including de facto decision-makers, took different decisions on commitment to hostilities. Every country had a relationship with the Allied or Axis powers. Some countries changed their allegiances as the individual decision-makers changed.



I believe there is a difference between a country deciding not to take part in hostilities unilaterally, a country agreeing with the major parties not to be hostile towards them and a country that fought only after they themselves were invaded.

Regarding Ireland, there would be a very small reliance on the veterans of the hostilities in 'teens and twenties but a far greater reliance on the already mobilised troops in the Allied or Axis armies.


Some countries were surrounded by Allied or in particular Axis Power armies and never got invaded, through the individual countries decision-making and maybe it's perceived difficult terrain. That maybe a clue to how great their resistance may have been. Obviously, I thinking first of Liechtenstein.

- Well I suppose if we really got into it, well yes of course WWII didn't start in 1939 it just had it's Mt St Helens moment. if we really looked into it quite a few wars and civil wars since 1945 have their roots dating back pre 1939.

- Most governments will not get their nations involved in wars if they can help it. But, the base of my question was 'What If' what would the consequences (if any).

- The irish veterans would be a larger influence than you would think. Thousands and thousands of men in their late thirties to late forties, well versed in guerilla warfare and open warfare would make you think twice of believing that by defeating the country's military would mean a handy enough occupation.

Mankyspuds

Here is an anecdote from around 1910 -

A Swiss infantry colonel was overviewing an exercise of one of his battalions, accompanied by a German general acting as an observer from Berlin. 'All very impressive,' he noted aside, 'but there are not that many of you, are there? What, 350,000 at the most? What if you were to be in invaded, let us say, from Germany - I have about at least twice the number of men in MY army!'

'The Swiss looked at him, cleared his throat, and said in a clear and confident voice, 'Well, General, in that case we would each have to shoot twice.'

Fantastic!!:D

bluecode

[QUOTE=Mankyspuds;81790284 The irish veterans would be a larger influence than you would think. Thousands and thousands of men in their late thirties to late forties, well versed in guerilla warfare and open warfare would make you think twice of believing that by defeating the country's military would mean a handy enough occupation.[/QUOTE]That presupposes all those men would rush to the cause and not join in with the occupation forces which did in fact happen to some extent in other countries. There were a lot of collaborators and many joined the SS to go and fight the Bolsheviks.

Also in the unlikely event of a German invasion it might very well have been sold as a means of 'liberating' us from the British and uniting the country. While it's a charming myth that everyone would take to the hills to fight the Germans. It may not have worked that way. Not only that the Nazis made the Black and Tans look like conscientious objectors.

On the other hand a British 'invasion' might very well be sold as protecting us from German invasion and may not have been as unpopular as some would like to believe.

I agree with Switzerland as the most difficult to any invader. But it was in nobody's strategic interest to invade them. Also the Swedes. Both would have been hard nuts to crack.

Tabnabs

I think the Swiss and Swedes are fine contenders, but the Finns take the prize as they actually got the job done. But in reality, if any of the major powers had turned their might on small "neutral" countries, despite any anecdotes or rhetoric, the result would have been broadly the same.

Merch

LiamMc wrote: »

I think your question is unfairly limited.


There are many conditions, European, Neutral (whatever that may mean), only between Sept 1939 and Sept. 1941.
I believe hostilities in Europe took place before September 1939, therefore for me the WWII began before Sept. 1939.

I believe there was very few countries in the European theatre that were purely neutral.

When are you saying the war started? do you mean Austria and Czechoslovakia? Before that there wasnt really a shooting match between and large power other than the Spanish civil war.
Technically I think it began with the invasion of Poland (Sept 1st 1939) although many events led up to it including other wars such as the Spanish civil war and the Japanese in China.
But its almost like an extension of the first world war, so Versailles or 1933 when Hitler came to power even?

Tzar Chasm

Spain openly declaring for the Axis powers would hae been a gamechanger, They would have taken gibralter which would have changed the dynamic in the Med, it would have also given Rommel a Secure if somewhat ineficent supply line across the top of North Africa, with more supplies ha may have ben able to break the allies at El Al, especially if the axis controlled the Med.

taking Egypt would mean a short stroll to the Saui oilfields, this would have relaxed pressure to capture the caucas oilfields and maybe the Axis could have bluffed the Soviets along for another winter.



holding North Africa and the Med would also make the invasion of Sicilly impossible, so the Germans wouldnt have been bogged down in Italy, and the Italians would have ben 'less likely' to abandon them.

The Only other country which could have had as Massive an impact would be Turkey, althoug not technically a European Country their entry into the War would have been a serious headache for the Soviets and could, with the turks onboard there would hae been no need to send ArmyGroup South to the Caucass in such numbers, as the invasion could have been asembled from Turkey and pushed on through the oilfields to isolate Stalingrad, approaching from the south the would have cut off the vital resupply lines before they even reached the city, thus making the outcome of a siege markedly diferent.

thats just my thoughts on the question

Merch

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

Spain openly declaring for the Axis powers would hae been a gamechanger, They would have taken gibralter which would have changed the dynamic in the Med, it would have also given Rommel a Secure if somewhat ineficent supply line across the top of North Africa, with more supplies ha may have ben able to break the allies at El Al, especially if the axis controlled the Med.

taking Egypt would mean a short stroll to the Saui oilfields, this would have relaxed pressure to capture the caucas oilfields and maybe the Axis could have bluffed the Soviets along for another winter.



holding North Africa and the Med would also make the invasion of Sicilly impossible, so the Germans wouldnt have been bogged down in Italy, and the Italians would have ben 'less likely' to abandon them.

The Only other country which could have had as Massive an impact would be Turkey, althoug not technically a European Country their entry into the War would have been a serious headache for the Soviets and could, with the turks onboard there would hae been no need to send ArmyGroup South to the Caucass in such numbers, as the invasion could have been asembled from Turkey and pushed on through the oilfields to isolate Stalingrad, approaching from the south the would have cut off the vital resupply lines before they even reached the city, thus making the outcome of a siege markedly diferent.

thats just my thoughts on the question

I agree with all of this, with Gibraltar the British had free access to the Med, Im not sure it would have been an easy nut to crack.
Not really sure why Germany (Hitler) placed such an emphasis on a direct almost frontal assault on Russia and didnt play the game like the allies did, building support and strength. Im suprised the Germans didnt have more exchange of technology with the Japanese in some sort of effort to encourage them to maintain at least the presence or pretence of another possible front on Russia's east.

While I think the Russians even then were better equipped to fight the Japanese, it would have either tied up troops, equipment and resources, or they may simply have allowed that part of the country to fall and retreat (or stood, fought and won), it certainly would have made resupply by the USA across the Pacific more difficult, although it may have been a reason for the US to go to war with the Japanese if merchant marine supplying the Soviets were attacked or sunk (assuming the Japanese hadnt fallen for the US ploy and didnt attack Pearl Harbour).

If the Med was cut off at Gibraltar, and presumably Malta isolated (or occupied) then north Africa, the Suez and beyond would seem to have been in the hands of the Afrika Corps.
It seems more likely that the Vichy Navy would fall more directly under the control of the Germans or be encouraged to use also, it may have staved off the need to build other large ships.
It would have ended the urgent need for oil from the Caucasus region, and the urgency to invade Russia, at least in a full on frontal assault.
If germany forstalled an invasion of Russia, and war was still likely with the Soviets, they could very likely have defended against an attack with a smaller force and had good reason to then press home an attack, from different directions.
Also I think Germanys combined operations efforts were not as effective and certainly the use of aircraft against shipping in conjunction with naval efforts (like the japanese) didnt seem to have been exploited fully by them to offset their disadvantage against the superiority of the Royal Navy, aircraft such as the Condor may well have operated in reconnaissance and attack (Id have to check how much, but I dont think it was to the level of combined effort by the fleet air arm and the RN).

I also think that without air support, German efforts building prestige ships such as the Bismark, Tirpitz, were a bit of a waste without air support from at the minimum land based aircraft. I dont think an aircraft carrier would have been a good idea either, but more submarines would have.
While these ships could perform valuable uses, they were effectively given away in suicide missions, why the Bismark was not supported from the air when it got closer to France I cant understand, that should have been an opportunity for submarines and aircraft to pounce on some of the large RN ships, enough at least to concern them.

Bluefoam

Didn't Britain invade Iceland to force them into the war?

Merch

Mankyspuds wrote: »

Of all the European countries that managed to remain out of the mess that WWII was, which of them would have made the greatest impact (if any) if they had actually took sides.

I am pretty sure the Irish would have been realitive pushovers in pure military terms but I wouldn't have fancied trying to occupy the place being the type of war was fought here in the teens and early twenties.

What of the other countries?
Lets keep it to the first two years of the war (Sept39-Sept41)

As for an answer to this, Id say what country could affect one side may not affect the other.

If Sweden had taken the German side the effect may not have been significant, but if they took the British side, well German sourced Iron ore from Sweden, so that could have created problems.

If Switzerland took the German side the effect may not have been significant (possibly) although their large army could have been put to use.
But if they had taken the side of the British or even the Czechs, then thats on the doorstep of Germany, maybe that would have been a show of strength too much for Hitler to gamble on early on.
Although its possible they could have been contained as easily as they themselves could keep out invaders.

Merch

Bluefoam wrote: »

Didn't Britain invade Iceland to force them into the war?

They certainly invaded nuetral Norway, I wasnt sure about Iceland until i looked it up and apparently they did.

I knew it was occupied by US forces but didnt realise it was still while they were neutral themselves.

invalid

Iceland was part of Denmark. The UK invaded after the fall of Denmark with the approval of the Danish Government in exile, the US took over to free up UK military assets.

jmayo

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Although pro Nazi, Spain joining the war could have closed off the Med, which would have meant no relief to El Alamein and the possible loss of North Africa and no invasion of Italy.

Vichy France joining the Axis would have made a huge difference as well, especially if they had, as Churchill feared, turned their fleet over to Germany.

Other than that, neither side particularly respected neutrality, if a country was in their way, or strategically important, they took it.

Have to agree.
Spain could have sealed off the Med and made life almost impossible for Malta and the North African campaign would have been very different.
The convoy that relieved Malta in August 1942 when they were starving came out of Gibraltar.
The only alternative supply line was from Alexandria and if that was under threat from Rommel then Malta would have folded through starvation and lack of supplies, meaning Rommel's supply lines would have been further increased and protected.

tac foley wrote: »

IMO Switzerland, the most heavily armed 'neutral' country, would have given the nazis a real headache. In a country where every male over the age of 18 was complulsorily armed and trained as a soldier, taking Switzerland was never going to be easy and may have resulted in at least 300,000 enemy casualties, according to Swiss post-war studies.

Unlike the other countries in Europe, the Swiss already had a centuries-old fortress mind-set - ALL the tunnels into Switzerland were rigged to blow, as were all the bridge and main access roads - tanks traps are still there, as one fleeing criminal found out fatally a couple of weeks ago by driving into it at over 150kph.

I've spent a lot of time there over the last forty-something years, and have a few good friends there as a result. General Guisan, in charge of the defence of Switzerland during the emergency, told the citizen army 'We shall fight with bullets, then with our bayonets and then with our bare hands - we shall never surrender!!' Sounds familiar? It came two years before Churchill's near identical speech. Guisan left out the beaches - Switzerland has no sea-shores to speak of.

You can bet your life that every male person capable of holding a weapon of some kind would have done so - a casual glance at the geography would quickly show you how the shape of the countryside would channel any enemy invaders into killing zones from the many fortesses buried deep in the mountainsides. The people I usually stay with had no illusions about holding out it it had happened, but the old grandpa, who died in '91, was in charge of a demolition team whose job was to bring down an entire mountainside - about a million tons of it - onto a village bordering Germany that would have been a staging post for any ground forces trying their hand.

The Swiss don't just make watches and chocolate.

Here is an anecdote from around 1910 -

A Swiss infantry colonel was overviewing an exercise of one of his battalions, accompanied by a German general acting as an observer from Berlin. 'All very impressive,' he noted aside, 'but there are not that many of you, are there? What, 350,000 at the most? What if you were to be in invaded, let us say, from Germany - I have about at least twice the number of men in MY army!'

'The Swiss looked at him, cleared his throat, and said in a clear and confident voice, 'Well, General, in that case we would each have to shoot twice.'

tac

'The Swiss - most armed, most free'.

To some the Swiss were Hitler's secret ally.
True he never put Operation Tannenbaum into action, but he didn't have to bother.
It is probably true as referenced above that they would have put up a stiff fight.
They would have destroyed the tunnels, bridges, etc which was their real strategic value and secondly if they engaged in mountain warfare the Germans/Italians would have sustained heavy losses for not a lot of gain.

But why invade someone that is actually already very benefical to you.
Like Sweden the Swiss readily supplied Germany.
But Switzerland went way fruther than the Swedes.

An independent report in the 90s found that the Swiss government helped to finance the Nazi war effort by extending export credits to firms supplying arms and vital materials to Germany and Italy,

They did a deal where they allowed their railways be used as a conduit between Germany and Italy.
Indeed during the war more than 40 per cent of Italy's coal supplies passed through Switzerland.

The Swiss supplied Germany with electricity even after the Germans cut their supply of coal to Switzerland.

AFAIK Switzerland supplied ammuniton and arms to Germany as well as precision tools including bomb sight components.

And that is not even mentioning the fact they acted as the world biggest fence and banker for the Nazis.
It took looted Nazi gold and gave them Swiss Francs to be used in trade.

Switzerland did take in some 55,000 civilian refugees, but approximately 20 to 25,000 refugees were rejected at the border, which probably meant sure death for most of them.
Also for the 20,000 Jews taken in AFAIK Swiss Jews were charged a tax for them.
The Swiss authorities even refused normal diplomatic protection for Swiss citizens of Jewish faith in Germany and occupied countries.

What is even worse is their behaviour after the war where they tried to hang on to all the loot.
Just remember they refused to repatriate the money that Jews and others had actually lodged in their banks pre world war II, until a campaign in the late 1990s led by a New York senator D'Amato finally pushed them with the threat of the removal of their their lucrative New York banking licenses.

Whilst one may admire Swiss military determination I find little else of their wartime behaviour to laud.

tac foley

The Swiss optical instrument companies, Wild and Kern of Aarau, provided the British government with their unique stereo-comparators and stereo-viewers, via Sweden, enabling the photo-interpreters at Nuneham Park Medmenham to examine masses of aerial reconnaissance imagery in 3-D, providing totally mind-blowing amounts of photographic intelligence that allowed the RAF, Army and RN PIs to identify targets in extreme detail. Those four machines - apart from those in Switzerland, the only ones EVER built at that time - were based for a time after the war at the Royal Military School of Survey at Hermitage, and I have used them in demonstrations of technique to visiting students on a number of occasions in my former life.

tac