Germany's allies during WWII

[rusina]

Can someone tell me who was the most important ally of Germany during World war II. It looks like to me that their allies were pretty much useless and sometimes even harmed the German war effort, for example Italian campaign in Greece.

[Stavroforos]

Errr...Japan.

[Landsknecht_88]

Errr...Japan.

Japan was Germany's strongest ally, but also its most useless ally. Why you might ask?
1.) Neither could assist the other.
2.) It was in Germany's interests to attack Russia, and in Japan's interests to attack the U.S.; Germany had nothing to win from a war with the U.S., just like Japan had nothing to gain from a war with the Russians.
3.) The military alliance ended up dragging Germany into war with the U.S. (though it was also Herr Hitler's fault for honoring the alliance).

Besides, the Japanese would have declared war on the British, Dutch and Americans with or without Germany anyways.

[Tiberios]

You could argue that Denmark was a German ally until 1943 when the Danish government resigned and the danish army and police was disbanded by the Germans.

We did sign the Anti-Comintern Pact in 1941, though we were pressured into it as well.

[Landsknecht_88]

You could argue that Denmark was a German ally until 1943 when the Danish government resigned and the danish army and police was disbanded by the Germans.

We did sign the Anti-Comintern Pact in 1941.

Well, the possession of Denmark was certainly crucial*, and in comparison to the other occupations the one of Denmark was particularly mild. But other than the benefit of sealing off the Baltic, Denmark didn't have much to offer when compared to Italy, Romania, Hungary and Finland**.

* Germany needed to possess Denmark during the war to seal off the Baltic, or they would have a potentially significant long line of coast to properly garrison against the British and later the Americans.
** Denmark was still occupied, so it couldn't be expected that its industrial capacity or manpower could be put to maximum use. Many brave Danes joined the Waffen-SS, but ultimately those numbers were insignificant on the grand scale.

[ShockBlast]

It was Japan hands down but in the European theatre it was Finland and Romania i guess.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Romania was ok, they didn't have a great army but they helped disproportionatly

[Poach]

Italy was by far their worst ally, they were worse than a man short in that war.

Overall I'd say Japan, in Europe both Finland and Romania fought well.

Though unwittingly, I think Sweden was Germany's best ally: their ore was of vital importance and their preference to do business with the Reich meant their mines stayed in neutral territory, preventing British special forces and Norwegian partisans from sabotaging them as they had sabotaged facilities such as the heavy water plant. Forcing an occupation of Sweden would have opened these targets up and tied down hundreds of thousands of German troops.

[rusina]

But what about Japan getting US involved, or was it inevitable?

[conon394]

Italy.

Japan was useless without it Germany would not have declared war on the US, the war Japan started did not sufficiently distract the US and Japan lacked focus so it never did something really useful like establish a presence in the Indian Ocean or turn off the Pacific LL route to Russia.

Without Italy, German would have had almost no ability to really threaten the UK after the failure of the Battle of Britain and the turn Eastward. No Fighting in North Africa and no way to supply and German force sent there. So the UK would have been able to minimize its commitment and thus be both stronger against the Atlantic uboats and against Japan. Plus Japan indirectly via its poor codes allowed the US and UK to accurately track German jet development and thus the western allies did not waste resources overacting to the potential German air threat.

No matter what you think of the Italian military ability thousands of their soldiers occupied eastern and southern Europe for much of the war thus a job Germany did not have to do. Without that Germany would have had to either do it themselves (thus less manpower for the Russian front or risk having a whole series of neutral powers in touch with a British controlled Mediterranean and so again diverting manpower to intimidate and defend against some UK landing.

Finland was a limited ally since it had no desire to to more than recover its own losses to Russia and thus it's well led and able troops were never really say going to aid in taking Leningrad.

[{II}Sovereign]

Italy.

Italy was the axis Achilles heel..

Spain would have most definitely been the strongest allie but it wasn't very likely even if Franco succeeded but still it would have changed the entirety of the war. Regardless I would say Japan..

[Mangalore]

Italy was the axis Achilles heel..

Spain would have most definitely been the strongest allie but it wasn't very likely even if Franco succeeded but still it would have changed the entirety of the war. Regardless I would say Japan..

Spain was in even worse shape to wage a war than Italy given that country had recently come out of a civil war. With even less industrialization than Italy (which had some significant one in the North) it would have been barely useful in a modern war and air and naval war necessitates all these factors even more. Spain was smart in keeping out though it meant Spain wouldn't be "democratized" and had to muddle through those affairs themselves. Less bloody but more time consuming.

I don't really know how much one can call the Japan <> Germany axis an alliance since it was actually formed against the Soviet Union (against which it might have been useful), but Japan pretty much did its own thing by attacking South and Germany seemed to join more because of a kneejerk reflex of Hitler. As both parties were in no position to provide significant support to each other and actually did not fight the same main enemies (US navy and Red army) it was pretty worthless in a mlitary sense regardless of the cordial partnership between Germany and Japan overall which had been so for decades.

Now had Japan attacked the Soviet Union that would have been interesting though Siberia plainly didn't have and accessible oil at that time and Japan's self confidence concerning land warfare had been severly dented because of the border clashes a few years earlier.


Problem for germany was really that she had no actual allies. Sure, several countries joined the fray on her side and she virtually controlled several others (aka could batter those regimes in doing what she wants) but the main allies all had own agendas. Far more so than Britain and France had or latter the US and Britain.
So there was no strategic consensus.

[HansDuet]

Spain was in even worse shape to wage a war than Italy given that country had recently come out of a civil war. With even less industrialization than Italy (which had some significant one in the North) it would have been barely useful in a modern war and air and naval war necessitates all these factors even more. Spain was smart in keeping out though it meant Spain wouldn't be "democratized" and had to muddle through those affairs themselves. Less bloody but more time consuming.

Civil war surely took its toll but on the other hand Spain would have had lots of civil war veterans who could have been effective in early days of war. And on the other hand it is true that Spain was poorly industrialized and when war goes on and on it starts to show with inability to produce weapons and ammunition. But they did the smart thing and stayed out.

Cant decide which Axis ally was the most important one. Japan was surely the most powerful but on the otherhand had little to none cooperation with Germany.

[Poach]

Though the UK could not hope to go toe to toe with the Wermacht in France. Without Italy, German soldiers would never have been drawn into the Balkans or North Africa, and could instead be used to either further dissuade the UK from landing in France or against the Red Army.

Churchill was already trying to convince the US to join the war, might she have come in eventually anyway? The USN was already fighting a de facto war against the U-Boats.

[Darkhorse]

Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania were important on the eastern front. I always wonder how Franco's Spain would have affected the war. And what, if anything, would have made them join. For a start the UK's Mediterranean position would be weakened, with Gibraltar gone. Spain could have aided in the capture of France and Morocco, and the French Fleet might have actually been captured before the British had a chance to sink it.

[torongill]

Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania were important on the eastern front. I always wonder how Franco's Spain would have affected the war. And what, if anything, would have made them join. For a start the UK's Mediterranean position would be weakened, with Gibraltar gone. Spain could have aided in the capture of France and Morocco, and the French Fleet might have actually been captured before the British had a chance to sink it.

I have to correct you, Bulgaria had no forces on the eastern front.In fact, Bulgaria maintained diplomatic relations with the USSR until September 1944.

[YuriVII]

I would have to say Romania had the best impact. Sure Finalnd's troops were very well trained, equipped, and led. But they were restrained by their number and their conservative objectives. Romania on the other hand contributed naval, air, and ground forces in the Southern theater of Eastern Front. They basically took Odessa, participated in the Battle for Crimea, Stalingrad, and the drive toward the Caucuses. Also, lets not forget the effect of Romanian oil, probably their biggest contribution to Nazi Germany.

Italy helped a lot but became more and more and more of a liability, I think their overall effect would have been better on Germany if they just stayed neutral.

[Poach]

The Spanish have tried to take Gibraltar in the past and failed, despite attacking from land and sea. The RN could have kept Gibraltar supplied and a small garrison could've held it for the whole war.

[Numenor]

The Spanish have tried to take Gibraltar in the past and failed, despite attacking from land and sea. The RN could have kept Gibraltar supplied and a small garrison could've held it for the whole war.

not with german help you wouldnt...

[Darkhorse]

I'm not so sure, Singapore would be a comparable situation. If nothing else the Spanish could have shelled Gibraltar, and the straits themselves. Without Gibraltar we could not have controlled the Med, and our armies in Greece, Crete, Malta, and north Africa would have fallen for definite. Even with a strong RN presence there. Once the French had fallen, and their armies and possible relief in North Africa had surrendered and gone to Vichy, I don't think we could have held.