Another again. . . What if

[suprise attack]

Thanks and yes it is.
I love the “what ifs”
I thought of one today
What if the Island of Peenemunde was never bombed would it have made a difference in their Technology development

[CWO Marc]

@suprise:

What if the Island of Peenemunde was never bombed would it have made a difference in their Technology development

It would possibly have made some sort of difference, but I doubt it would have made a significant difference; by “significant”, I mean “having the potential to alter the course of WWII in a major way.”

Consider a variation of the question: did the V1 and V2 programs, which actually did produce weapons which were used in combat, cause WWII to turn out differently than would have been the case if those programs hadn’t existed?  I don’t think they did.  The V1s and V2s did kill an appreciable number of people in Britain, did cause an appreciable amount of damage there, and did require the Allies to devote resources (such as reconnaissance and bombing campaigns against Peenemunde) that otherwise could otherwise have been used elsewhere, but the V1s and V2s came nowhere near to having the war-winning effect that Hitler hoped they would.

If Germany’s A-bomb program had started five to ten years earlier and had had major resources (roughly on the scale of the Manhattan project) allocated to it, then the V2 project would have had the potential to alter the course of WWII, depending on how many A-bombs Germany managed to manufacture.  Which leads to a question that’s hard to answer: while a single German A-bomb, used as a V-2 warhead, could have destroyed the centre of London at one blow, how many A-bombs would Germany have needed to persuade the Allies, i.e. the US, the UK and the USSR and everyone else who was fighting the Axis, to surrender?  Remember that the US, for all of its massive efforts, had only produced three A-bombs by the war’s end…and the first one of those was expended in the Alamagordo test rather than being used in combat.

[Karl7]

The Pyrenees would have proven a formidable defensive obstacle to the Allies pushing up through the Iberian Peninsula. So even if they could conquer Spain, I think the long term strategic value would have been questionable.  Much like Italy, as others have said.

But I agree, otherwise Spain would have been toast.  Sure maybe some of the fanatical fascist units fight on.  Sure, the Germans roll in to provide support.  But fighting in central Spain probably would have been a war of attrition that would obviously favor the Allies.  Imagine the battle of Madrid being a massive siege costing hundreds of thousands of lives…. on both sides.  Not the kind of fight the Germans would want to be in.

Also note, that the US Army was pretty dysfunctional in 1942. Read “Army at Dawn” about Operation Torch and it is clear that dedicating a larger force to a much more ambitious operation like invading Spain in 1942 would have cost the US a lot more casualties.  Operation Torch was really a debugging campaign where the US army started to get its act together after many successive screw ups.  Indeed, if the resistance in North Africa had been more than token in the initial landings, things would have gone differently, I think.

[Caesar-Seriona]

@Karl7:

The Pyrenees would have proven a formidable defensive obstacle to the Allies pushing up through the Iberian Peninsula. So even if they could conquer Spain, I think the long term strategic value would have been questionable.  Much like Italy, as others have said.

But I agree, otherwise Spain would have been toast.  Sure maybe some of the fanatical fascist units fight on.  Sure, the Germans roll in to provide support.  But fighting in central Spain probably would have been a war of attrition that would obviously favor the Allies.   Imagine the battle of Madrid being a massive siege costing hundreds of thousands of lives…. on both sides.  Not the kind of fight the Germans would want to be in.

Also note, that the US Army was pretty dysfunctional in 1942. Read “Army at Dawn” about Operation Torch and it is clear that dedicating a larger force to a much more ambitious operation like invading Spain in 1942 would have cost the US a lot more casualties.  Operation Torch was really a debugging campaign where the US army started to get its act together after many successive screw ups.  Indeed, if the resistance in North Africa had been more than token in the initial landings, things would have gone differently, I think.

Well of course the Army was A$$ in 42, we haven’t seen war since 1918 which tactics were different. I think the actual eye opening was Kasserine Pass that sweet little defeat for us.

[ABWorsham4]

@Gargantua:

Spain would have just been a speed bump on the road to victory, and probably a better/earlier doorway to Europe than Normandy.  Had they joined the war I would have suspected a late 42 landing in Spain by the allies.

Fighting would have been like it was up the boot of Italy.  Brutal but consistent.  It would then be considered a liberation of spain, and the allies would have turned the spanish people against themselves, propping up a new spanish regime.  This spanish beachhead would then have allowed massive allied armies to arrive and organize, supported by naval and air assets to rolling up the coast.  Franco and his men likely would retreat to central spain.   Cut off and surrounded it would only be a matter of time before total collapse.

Allies would have reached Berlin in 44.

With the rich history of the Duke of Wellington’s Peninsula War the British would not doubt  brought the War to Spain. If Italy was the soft underbelly of Europe, Spain would be the shriveled lifeless arm of “Fortress Europe.”

[Caesar-Seriona]

@ABWorsham:

@Gargantua:

Spain would have just been a speed bump on the road to victory, and probably a better/earlier doorway to Europe than Normandy.  Had they joined the war I would have suspected a late 42 landing in Spain by the allies.

Fighting would have been like it was up the boot of Italy.  Brutal but consistent.  It would then be considered a liberation of spain, and the allies would have turned the spanish people against themselves, propping up a new spanish regime.  This spanish beachhead would then have allowed massive allied armies to arrive and organize, supported by naval and air assets to rolling up the coast.  Franco and his men likely would retreat to central spain.   Cut off and surrounded it would only be a matter of time before total collapse.

Allies would have reached Berlin in 44.

With the rich history of the Duke of Wellington’s Peninsula War the British would not doubt  brought the War to Spain. If Italy was the soft underbelly of Europe, Spain would be the shriveled lifeless arm of “Fortress Europe.”

I’d argue that Spain would put up more of a fight than Italy and it would be easier for Germany to reinforce it vs what they did in Italy.

[bgugs]

I am not sure whether or not Germany would reinforce Spain, or rather get in the same situation that they did with Italy. It would be very draining to fight throughout Spain. I think they would likely just hold the line in the Pyrenees over the mountain passes similar to the way they did in Northern Italy. Maybe supply some resistance groups in hopes that it drains the allies of more resources

[Caesar-Seriona]

History argues against that as Germany committed to the full defense of Italy and Franco was on better terms with Hitler so I can easily see German units in Spain.

[bgugs]

That may be true. I think it would have been another situation where Hitler and his generals disagreed on what was most strategically beneficial. But we saw who generally made the decisions despite disagreement, so you may be right.

[Caesar-Seriona]

More than likely German High Command would argue against it as defending France is more important and Hitler kicks a door and says yes and the Wehrmacht rolls out the next day.