In 1939 which way did these countries lean (Axis vs Allies)?

[Alfatwosix]

Yes, Italy had Lybia in North Africa and in East Africa they had Italian Somaliland comprising of Ethiopia, Eritrea and part of Somalia.

[Mikko H.]

For some reason I'm having difficulties seeing all the replies to this thread, so excuse me if this has already been covered...

I've already determined the following (non-superpowers):

Canada - Allies

Finland - Axis

From late 1939 until summer 1940 Finland would definitely have been Allied. Germany maintained an unfriendly neutrality during the Winter War and it were the British and French who were ready to send troops to aid Finns. It wasn't until August/September 1940 when the Fenno-German cooperation started.

[Tero]

Originally posted by japinard:

Sergei -that map is kind of difficult to read. Does that show the Finnish army on the steps of Leningrad?

Nope. The pre-war border in the Isthmus ran in pretty much the same place

[Sardaukar]

Originally posted by japinard:

So was Sweden in the USSR's "sights" thus the initial reason for the Estonian/Swedish/Finnish alliance?

If not, was Sweden more like Swizerland in profiting somewhat from German wartime needs?

Alfatwosix - I'm enjoying this thread too So fun to learn new things from old history.

Sweden was probably also in Stalin's sights, but Germany would have never allowed that. Swedish iron and other ores were essential for Germany's industry. Sweden did supply a lot of raw material etc. to Germany, but they were never "inclined" Axis way, so comparation with Switzerland is very accurate in many ways.

Cheers,

M.S.

[Tero]

double post

[ January 22, 2004, 06:24 AM: Message edited by: Tero ]

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Abteilung:

Just because the thread is speaking about Axis minors, I had to throw in a plug for Siam / Indochina (sp?) / Vietnam. They were Axis, iirc.

On a side note, I didn't actually do the research to find this out until I saw the movie "We Were Soldiers" and noticed an MG.34. This was intentional, apparently and a direct result of being an Axis power. Heh. Kind of went a long way to explaining the events in the years that followed.

China was partially German equipped and trained... Dunno if an MG34 alone decides which side you are on.

Guess the "minor" Asian countries were more concerned about getting the Allies out (France, Netherlands) than being Axis.

And I doubt Japan was still Axis after signing a non-aggression pact with the USSR in late '41. They had just some common enemies with the rest of the axis.

Gruß

Joachim

[Joachim]

Originally posted by japinard:

Hehe "Marmon-Harrington"

The interesting thing I'm coming to realize here(beyond my previous understanding of WWII history) is many countries would not have supported Germany as actively (or at all) if they hadn't hated/feared the USSR communist effort so much.

If the USSR had remained an Axis "neutral" maybe British and American soldiers would have been fighting alongside Romanians, Hungarians, and Finns...

Germany was a declared expansionist (cf. "Mein Kampf")- towards the east. The USSR was expansionist. Nations caught between had to decide on whom to join. Stalin killed political elites and did not allow national governments (except puppets who were always endangered). Hitler used them. Stalin killed regardless of race. Hitler only one "race". Hitler wanted a vast territory much bigger than the minor countries - if he got it, they might be left alive (German minorities in those countries). Stalin wanted even small countries.

Hitler was not interested in fighting any western Allies. He wanted to avoid a war on two fronts. When he could not get that in '39 as France and Britain declared war on Germany (allies to Poland, which was attacked by Germany _and_ the USSR), he tried to get his back free by reaching some big natural obstacle aka the Atlantic.

There's no such obstacle towards the USSR.

To fight a war, Hitler needed raw materials. He could pay for them... but had nothing to pay with... or try to occupy them (thus attack Russia).

A war between the western Allies and Germany with a neutral USSR? Nuts. Not even a what-if. The only what-if are neutral Western countries (cf. "Fatherland/Vaterland" book and movie).

Gruß

Joachim

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Joachim:

The USSR was expansionist.

That statement can be disputed. With few exceptions (mainly East Prussia, which I suppose could be regarded as a spoil of war), Stalin only annexed lands that were part of pre-Revolution Russia. He did not annex the countries that eventually became the WarPac, although he certainly occupied them and set up puppet governments in them as well as adjusting their borders. But he wanted them to continue to exist as entities in order to provide a pro-Soviet buffer against invasion from the West.

Stalin wanted even small countries.

Only those that had broken away from the Russian Empire. I don't think that makes his actions morally defensible necessarily, but it's important to note that he wasn't just given to indiscriminant land grabs.

Hitler was not interested in fighting any western Allies.

Well, for sure he was looking to fight France. I don't think he saw that fight as avoidable at all. He certainly made no effort to avoid it.

To fight a war, Hitler needed raw materials. He could pay for them... but had nothing to pay with... or try to occupy them (thus attack Russia).

The ironic thing is, the shipments from German-occupied USSR never matched the shipments from pre-war USSR.

Michael

[Carl Puppchen]

Have any of you played the famous avalon hill board game 3rd reich? They had a very detailed module for all the minor countries listed here to bring them over to the axis or allied sides. They had a large # of factors that impacted their leanings, including whether or not Russia occupied part of Poland and the baltics in their pact w/Hitler, etc...

As far as Ireland - I can't believe they aren't mentioned as being Pro-Axis. I have British friends who swear to this day that the Irish helped German U boats in port (never proven). The Irish were neutral at best and never pro-British on anything. I realize this seems odd today and my wife is Irish but that is the way it was.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Carl Puppchen:

As far as Ireland - I can't believe they aren't mentioned as being Pro-Axis.

Just so. I meant to mention that, but was rushed for time today. I think at an early point the Germans even toyed with landing troops there, expecting a congenial welcome. It might not have been all that congenial!

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Joachim:

And I doubt Japan was still Axis after signing a non-aggression pact with the USSR in late '41. They had just some common enemies with the rest of the axis.

I can't quite make out what you are trying to say here. Hitler & Co. were not at all happy about Japan signing the pact, but they didn't kick Japan out of the Axis over it.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Alfatwosix:

Yes, Italy had Lybia in North Africa and in East Africa they had Italian Somaliland comprising of Ethiopia, Eritrea and part of Somalia.

Minor correction here, Italian Somaliland did not consist of Ethiopia, Eritrea, and part of Somalia. Italian Somaliland was a seperate entity from the other two, though jointly administered as Italian East Africa (to use the English translation).

Michael

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Originally posted by Joachim:

The USSR was expansionist.

That statement can be disputed. With few exceptions (mainly East Prussia, which I suppose could be regarded as a spoil of war), Stalin only annexed lands that were part of pre-Revolution Russia.

By that definition even Finland was expansionistic when we tried to take back what was taken from us in Winter War.

He did not annex the countries that eventually became the WarPac, although he certainly occupied them and set up puppet governments in them as well as adjusting their borders. But he wanted them to continue to exist as entities in order to provide a pro-Soviet buffer against invasion from the West.

I think that that was purely a publicity stunt more than a non-expansionistic behaviour.

Stalin wanted even small countries.

Only those that had broken away from the Russian Empire. I don't think that makes his actions morally defensible necessarily, but it's important to note that he wasn't just given to indiscriminant land grabs.

Remember Afganistan ?

Hitler was not interested in fighting any western Allies.

Well, for sure he was looking to fight France. I don't think he saw that fight as avoidable at all. He certainly made no effort to avoid it.

The war was the result of the Western Allies finally calling his bluff. He did not make an effort to make it go away but then again he though the Western Allies would be sitting on their hands despite the war being deglared.

To fight a war, Hitler needed raw materials. He could pay for them... but had nothing to pay with... or try to occupy them (thus attack Russia).

The ironic thing is, the shipments from German-occupied USSR never matched the shipments from pre-war USSR.

You must remember Stalin went way out of his way to make sure the shipments would be made on time, in full according to the schedule set down in the treaty.

[Alfatwosix]

Correction taken. You are right. I was in the office and did not have my documentation with me....it was out of the top of my head

[stikkypixie]

Originally posted by Joachim:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Abteilung:

Just because the thread is speaking about Axis minors, I had to throw in a plug for Siam / Indochina (sp?) / Vietnam. They were Axis, iirc.

On a side note, I didn't actually do the research to find this out until I saw the movie "We Were Soldiers" and noticed an MG.34. This was intentional, apparently and a direct result of being an Axis power. Heh. Kind of went a long way to explaining the events in the years that followed.

China was partially German equipped and trained... Dunno if an MG34 alone decides which side you are on.

Guess the "minor" Asian countries were more concerned about getting the Allies out (France, Netherlands) than being Axis.

And I doubt Japan was still Axis after signing a non-aggression pact with the USSR in late '41. They had just some common enemies with the rest of the axis.

Gruß

Joachim </font>

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Jarmo:

During the war Britain (and US to some extent) supported finland with weapon and money shipments. It was actually the threat of war with Britain that caused Stalin to agree to a ceasefire.

Now that would have been an interesting what-if... Britain vs USSR while there is still a non-aggression-pact between USSR and GE... Guess that pact would not have lasted for very long...

Either GE joins Britain in '40 and does not need a Western front

Or it overruns France as was, keeps it as a pawn and attacks east ignoring Britain.

Or it overruns France, gives it back and joins Britain.

Or it signs an armisitce, keeping Poland and waits for Britain and the USSR to bleed...

Now that would have been interesting!

Gruß

Joachim

[Jarmo]

To make it even more interesting.

The swedes were adamantly against the british moving to the aid of finland through sweden. Even if that was the only practical route.

This played a major part in the final decision that britain would not send troops to finland. "Securing" the swedish ore on the way, was one key element for britain considering to aid finland.

[Publius Cornelius Patton]

Originally posted by A.E.B:

Iraq - Axis

Actually, Iraq (I think) was sort of independant, sort of owned by Britain at the time- I do recall some pro-Axis Arabs unsuccessfully attacked the British garrison at Baghdad.

God bless,

Publius Cornelius Patton

[JasonC]

"Was indochina axis? Was Vietnam axis? I'm sorry i'm very ignorant about this, but i find this hard to believe"

Before the war Vietnam was French Indochina, occupied and administered by France. In 1940 France was conquered, and Vietnam was under Vichy control. The Japanese negotiated their way in, and the local administration, with no prospect of help from France itself, felt powerless to stop them. The Japanese stationed divisions in Hanoi and Saigon. They constructed large airbases around Saigon and stationed hundreds of planes there. De facto, they occupied the country. The French forces there were not at that time disarmed, but did not interfer with anything the Japanese wanted to do. This was before the war with the US (Japan had of course been at war with China for several years already).

At the time of Pearl Harbor the Japanese used the forces in Indochina to launch invasions of both Thailand and Malaysia, aiming eventually for Rangoon and Singapore. It was planes from Saigon that sank the Prince of Wales and the Repulse off the coast of Malaysia in the first days of the war.

Japanese land forces invaded Thailand soon after Pearl Harbor. The Thais initially fought against them. But they then made a deal, ceased their resistence, and joined the Japanese side. Their troops retained their arms as a result. They helped the Japanese make it to Burma, driving the British out.

The Japanese also went after Dutch controlled Indonesia, which is where the real prize of the whole southward grab was located - the oil. The Dutch administration faced the same occupied home country problems as the French in Indochina, but elected to fight with the Allies. But the fleet gathered to defend Java from invasion was hopelessly outclassed by the Japanese and quickly destroyed.

The native population of Indonesia welcomed the Japanese. The Thai authorities made their separate peace deal. Elsewhere throughout southeast Asia the Japanese spread their propaganda about a "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere", peddling Asian racial pride against white imperialist outsiders. This was reasonably popular everywhere except the Philipines. (MacArthur promised Philipine independence after the war, in return for support during the war. Nationalist sentiment in the Philipines was therefore wholeheartedly pro US. The French weren't half as smart about Indochina).

At first. Experience of actual Japanese rule, however, left rather less enthusiasm for the idea by a few years later. Japan was transparently interested only in stripping the southern territories of raw materials and ruled with the hauteur they had previously shown in China.

In Indochina, nationalist resistence against the French continued, but the Japanese were not interested in losing their bases there. If they were smarter they might have put up a puppet government of their own and deposed the French. But they didn't want to complicate relations with Germany by making trouble with Vichy-Free French political issues and they didn't want to fight the French forces there, already paralyzed by diplomacy.

When Allied forces finally reached the country there was debate about what to do with the Japanese soldiers stationed there. If they were disarmed, it was feared the locals would have a nationalist uprising and might slaughter them and the French, both.

In a boneheaded move for long term politics that undoubtedly seemed expediant at the time, the Allies let the Japanese keep their weapons and even used them to police some of the locals. There were people in the OSS who saw this as stupid and said so (they had been working with Ho and the resistence during the war, trying to use them against the Japanese for intel etc), but their views did not prevail. One of them was assassinated by the Viet Minh right after the war.

De Gaulle wanted to keep the French empire together. US policy had been against that, but they let him have his way. So a couple of years after the war the French were fighting for the place, tainted by previous accomodation with the Japanese. The French seemed not to mind any sort of imperialism and to be willing to back anyone to keep the natives down, while also being too weak to hold the place themselves. It was not an auspicious political position from which to begin a guerilla war.

[ January 23, 2004, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[stikkypixie]

Originally posted by JasonC:

"Was indochina axis? Was Vietnam axis? I'm sorry i'm very ignorant about this, but i find this hard to believe"

Before the war Vietnam was French Indochina, occupied and administered by France. In 1940 France was conquered, and Vietnam was under Vichy control. The Japanese negotiated their way in, and the local administration, with no prospect of help from France itself, felt powerless to stop them. The Japanese stationed divisions in Hanoi and Saigon. They constructed large airbases around Saigon and stationed hundreds of planes there. De facto, they occupied the country. The French forces there were not at that time disarmed, but did not interfer with anything the Japanese wanted to do. This was before the war with the US (Japan had of course been at war with China for several years already).

At the time of Pearl Harbor the Japanese used the forces in Indochina to launch invasions of both Thailand and Malaysia, aiming eventually for Rangoon and Singapore. It was planes from Saigon that sank the Prince of Wales and the Repulse off the coast of Malaysia in the first days of the war.

Japanese land forces invaded Thailand soon after Pearl Harbor. The Thais initially fought against them. But they then made a deal, ceased their resistence, and joined the Japanese side. Their troops retained their arms as a result. They helped the Japanese make it to Burma, driving the British out.

The Japanese also went after Dutch controlled Indonesia, which is where the real prize of the whole southward grab was located - the oil. The Dutch administration faced the same occupied home country problems as the French in Indochina, but elected to fight with the Allies. But the fleet gathered to defend Java from invasion was hopelessly outclassed by the Japanese and quickly destroyed.

The native population of Indonesia welcomed the Japanese. The Thai authorities made their separate peace deal. Elsewhere throughout southeast Asia the Japanese spread their propaganda about a "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere", peddling Asian racial pride against white imperialist outsiders. This was reasonably popular everywhere except the Philipines. (MacArthur promised Philipine independence after the war, in return for support during the war. Nationalist sentiment in the Philipines was therefore wholeheartedly pro US. The French weren't half as smart about Indochina).

At first. Experience of actual Japanese rule, however, left rather less enthusiasm for the idea by a few years later. Japan was transparently interested only in stripping the southern territories of raw materials and ruled with the hauteur they had previously shown in China.

In Indochina, nationalist resistence against the French continued, but the Japanese were not interested in losing their bases there. If they were smarter they might have put up a puppet government of their own and deposed the French. But they didn't want to complicate relations with Germany by making trouble with Vichy-Free French political issues and they didn't want to fight the French forces there, already paralyzed by diplomacy.

When Allied forces finally reached the country there was debate about what to do with the Japanese soldiers stationed there. If they were disarmed, it was feared the locals would have a nationalist uprising and might slaughter them and the French, both.

In a boneheaded move for long term politics that undoubtedly seemed expediant at the time, the Allies let the Japanese keep their weapons and even used them to police some of the locals. There were people in the OSS who saw this as stupid and said so (they had been working with Ho and the resistence during the war, trying to use them against the Japanese for intel etc), but their views did not prevail. One of them was assassinated by the Viet Minh right after the war.

De Gaulle wanted to keep the French empire together. US policy had been against that, but they let him have his way. So a couple of years after the war the French were fighting for the place, tainted by previous accomodation with the Japanese. The French seemed not to mind any sort of imperialism and to be willing to back anyone to keep the natives down, while also being too weak to hold the place themselves. It was not an auspicious political position from which to begin a guerilla war.

Ah thanks Jason, i think i see the subtle difference, because i find it a bit odd, after the stories i've heard about Japanese rule, that the population would support them.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Originally posted by Joachim:

Stalin wanted even small countries.

Only those that had broken away from the Russian Empire. I don't think that makes his actions morally defensible necessarily, but it's important to note that he wasn't just given to indiscriminant land grabs.

Remember Afganistan ?

What does that have to do with this discussion? The 1979 invasion of Afghanistan occurred 34 years after the end of WW II and 26 years after the death of Stalin. Don't muddy the waters.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Joachim:

Either GE joins Britain in '40 and does not need a Western front

Or it overruns France as was, keeps it as a pawn and attacks east ignoring Britain.

Or it overruns France, gives it back and joins Britain.

Or it signs an armisitce, keeping Poland and waits for Britain and the USSR to bleed...

Joachim, what have you been smoking??? None of those things was at all likely in 1940. At this point, the only terms Britain would have accepted for peace is that Germany return to its pre-1938 borders and oust the Nazis, neither of which was going to happen.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Publius Cornelius Patton:

...I do recall some pro-Axis Arabs unsuccessfully attacked the British garrison at Baghdad.

I don't believe there was a British garrison at Baghdad. There was one at Basra and a smaller one at the airfield at Habbaniyah.

Michael

[klapton]

Originally posted by japinard:

Emrys - you recall how long that Authoritarian rule lasted in Portugal? Seems like they were like that for several decades thereafter.

It ended in 1974

[Europa]

Hi!

I would set Sweden as neutral and to be honest I would set Denmark and Norway as allies. To put Finland as axis is correct as long as they fight as German allies but besides then they ought to be neutral or allies too.