What if the Republicans won the Spanish Civil War?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Best case scenario (which I think is pretty likely): Spain would've sided with France and the UK and declared war on Germany when Hitler invaded Poland. Spain would also send forces to France since if France fell Spain would clearly be next. Germany fails to take France and is severely weakened preventing it from any further offensives. Spain, France and the UK all march into Berlin and take Hitler out before 1941. The US's war with Japan probably still happens but WWII is halted in Europe before the US even jumps in.

Maybe a little too optimistic, but Germany would've definately fallen sooner.

[Jake]

Spanish troops would've made little difference in the Battle for France if the same Attacks through the Ardennes plan was used. At best they would've provided a place for French troops to retreat through and possibly bolster their defense. With Germany at their border, the Spaniards would most likely cut a deal to deliver any Allied troops and withdraw from the war in exchange for sovreignty. This is all assuming Spain throws its lot in with the Allies rather than stay nuetral of course.

[TX_1824]

I honestly don't think much would have changed, however, I will grant that Germany's invasion of France, and consequently occupation,  would have been considerably more difficult. Also, I doubt the Vichy Government would have established due to Spain's influence.

A pro-allies Spain would also provide many safe harbours for British and American shipping. I think the United States still gets involved and the war ends in January or Febuary 1945 if not the previous December. However, other than what I stated, I don't think much more changes. Remember, France was not prepared for Germany's blitzkrieg. The failure of Neville Chamberlain and the other allies appeasement emboldened Hitler and made the allies appear weak. If I recall, France surrendered in two weaks. I doubt Spain could have helped prevent that.

[WMS]

Sadly, Stalin had plans for this: stage a takover by extreme-left elements in the Republic to topple the more moderate elements of the Republic and establish a Stalinist puppet state. From there, act just as the USSR did: i.e., ally with Hitler until Hitler invades the USSR. After that, I'm not sure just how a Stalinist Spain acts.

[dazzleman]

Sadly, Stalin had plans for this: stage a takover by extreme-left elements in the Republic to topple the more moderate elements of the Republic and establish a Stalinist puppet state. From there, act just as the USSR did: i.e., ally with Hitler until Hitler invades the USSR. After that, I'm not sure just how a Stalinist Spain acts.

I think you captured the most likely scenario, WMS.  People influenced by Stalin were always mindless robots, parroting whatever line the Stalinistic Soviet Union, in its paranoid insanity, was favoring at any given time.  The same was true of the communist sympathizers in the US, though luckily they did not control the government.

During the fall of France, the Soviets were a friendly neutral for Hitler.  It was suicidally stupid, but then it was hard to side with people as weak and hapless as the French.  I don't think the Spanish would have supported the French at that point, regardless of whether the Republicans or Franco forces won.

After the Soviet Union was invaded, the Spanish may have been more active in support of the allies, and that may have helped.

As it turns out, the allies got very lucky with Spain, and may have been better off with things as they were than with a relatively weak and friendly Spain.  Franco knew that Spain was tired of war, and basically refused to help Hitler.  He kept the straits of Gibraltar open to British warships, which was key.  Hitler felt constrained to do anything about it because Spain was a country friendly to Germany.  Had Spain been a hostile country, Hitler could have invaded and subjugated them also, with relative ease, and done himself what he wanted Franco to do.  In 1940-41, who could have stopped him?

[minionofmidas]

Sadly, Stalin had plans for this: stage a takover by extreme-left elements in the Republic to topple the more moderate elements of the Republic and establish a Stalinist puppet state. From there, act just as the USSR did: i.e., ally with Hitler until Hitler invades the USSR. After that, I'm not sure just how a Stalinist Spain acts.

I think you captured the most likely scenario, WMS.  People influenced by Stalin were always mindless robots, parroting whatever line the Stalinistic Soviet Union, in its paranoid insanity, was favoring at any given time.  The same was true of the communist sympathizers in the US, though luckily they did not control the government.

Actually, that's not quite true. Stalin wanted to actually tried to stage a takeover by moderate elements in the Republic to topple the more extreme-left elements in the Republic and establish a Stalinist puppet state.
I don't know how many times I'll have to repeat this, but: The Communist Party in Spain was teeny-weeny-tiny at the outbreak of the war. Revolutionary Socialist sentiment, meanwhile, of both Leninist and Bakunite types, was running very high, but was not associated with the Communist Party. The Communist Party's rise in 1936-8 was due to a) Soviet arms and money pouring in b) Moderates looking for a strong man to protect them from both a social revolution and the Franquist firing squads. When months before the fall of Madrid, Stalin started to pull out, this mushroom growth quickly collapsed.


As to the original thread question. As usual in these things you can't answer a question like "what would have happened if" without first looking at what might have caused such a course of events.
And the Spanish Republic could not have survived without a French, British and American diplomatic or military initiative in its behalf.
Now, let's look at two scenarios:
I.
The Western countries damn Franco's coup in the strongest terms imaginable early on, offering military help to Spain if it should become necessary. Hitler and Mussolini chicken out of getting involved. The coup fails ignominously. Unfortunately, given the situation in Spain at the time, that's not the end of the story. Same as in real life, in Barcelona, eastern Andalusia etc, the coup's initial defeat is caused by the army's being defeated in the field by the Anarchist goon squads. This causes the next Anarchist attempt at revolution, which the Republic suppresses, relying on the army, noting it can't do without the army. The Civil War, in this scenario, is really just postponed rather than averted (though Franco wouldn't be the man to eventually lead the fascist side). The effect on World War II is possibly minimal.
II.
France and England intervene at some later stage, possibly to counteract rising Soviet influence. (This scenario requires a much higher composite IQ than was actually to be found in the late 1930's British and French administrations. As a result, the Second World War begins much earlier, in ways not planned by Hitler, with the Soviet Union a nominal ally of the West from the start. The war is much shorter, far fewer people die, the Holocaust doesn't happen. It's possible that Japan never gets involved (which would result in a very different postwar balance of power in Asia, and possibly very different wars in the region, 1945 to 1980). It#s possible that Israel would not today exist.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Sadly, Stalin had plans for this: stage a takover by extreme-left elements in the Republic to topple the more moderate elements of the Republic and establish a Stalinist puppet state. From there, act just as the USSR did: i.e., ally with Hitler until Hitler invades the USSR. After that, I'm not sure just how a Stalinist Spain acts.

I think you captured the most likely scenario, WMS.  People influenced by Stalin were always mindless robots, parroting whatever line the Stalinistic Soviet Union, in its paranoid insanity, was favoring at any given time.  The same was true of the communist sympathizers in the US, though luckily they did not control the government.

During the fall of France, the Soviets were a friendly neutral for Hitler.  It was suicidally stupid, but then it was hard to side with people as weak and hapless as the French.  I don't think the Spanish would have supported the French at that point, regardless of whether the Republicans or Franco forces won.

After the Soviet Union was invaded, the Spanish may have been more active in support of the allies, and that may have helped.

As it turns out, the allies got very lucky with Spain, and may have been better off with things as they were than with a relatively weak and friendly Spain.  Franco knew that Spain was tired of war, and basically refused to help Hitler.  He kept the straits of Gibraltar open to British warships, which was key.  Hitler felt constrained to do anything about it because Spain was a country friendly to Germany.  Had Spain been a hostile country, Hitler could have invaded and subjugated them also, with relative ease, and done himself what he wanted Franco to do.  In 1940-41, who could have stopped him?

ah, so unsuprisingly you're a Franco lover.

[dazzleman]

Sadly, Stalin had plans for this: stage a takover by extreme-left elements in the Republic to topple the more moderate elements of the Republic and establish a Stalinist puppet state. From there, act just as the USSR did: i.e., ally with Hitler until Hitler invades the USSR. After that, I'm not sure just how a Stalinist Spain acts.

I think you captured the most likely scenario, WMS.  People influenced by Stalin were always mindless robots, parroting whatever line the Stalinistic Soviet Union, in its paranoid insanity, was favoring at any given time.  The same was true of the communist sympathizers in the US, though luckily they did not control the government.

During the fall of France, the Soviets were a friendly neutral for Hitler.  It was suicidally stupid, but then it was hard to side with people as weak and hapless as the French.  I don't think the Spanish would have supported the French at that point, regardless of whether the Republicans or Franco forces won.

After the Soviet Union was invaded, the Spanish may have been more active in support of the allies, and that may have helped.

As it turns out, the allies got very lucky with Spain, and may have been better off with things as they were than with a relatively weak and friendly Spain.  Franco knew that Spain was tired of war, and basically refused to help Hitler.  He kept the straits of Gibraltar open to British warships, which was key.  Hitler felt constrained to do anything about it because Spain was a country friendly to Germany.  Had Spain been a hostile country, Hitler could have invaded and subjugated them also, with relative ease, and done himself what he wanted Franco to do.  In 1940-41, who could have stopped him?

ah, so unsuprisingly you're a Franco lover.

What makes you think that?  I couldn't care less about Franco; I was just pointing out that the fact that he didn't cooperate with Hitler was a very good break for the allies.

Of course, if he had been a communist hostile to the US during the Cold War, you'd love him.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You basically are syaing it's better than Franco won.

Considering that at the time the Republicans were pro-US and Franco was anti-US, this does nullify your utterly asinine and ridiculous claim that I support all anti-American governments and that I'm a seething American hater who will support anyone who is anti-American no matter what, despite the many examples to the contrary. You also failed to back up a claim I made earlier that I would suppor Pinochet if he was identical except anti-American. I'm interested in hearing your backing for this.

[Vincent]

   I haven’t read to extensively but IIRC, the popular front was comprised of leftist Militias and Political Parties that hated each other.

So if they when, there is another civil war between the various Republican factions. This war could potentially last long after the battle of France occurs, thus giving Hitler the opportunity to conquer a divided Spain.

I have no idea how likely this is, so if someone with more knowledge on the subject could give their viewpoints it would be appreciated.   

[J. J.]

You basically are syaing it's better than Franco won.

I would say that it might have made no difference who won.  Hitler tried to court Franco after France fell.  He failed. 

1.  I'm not entirely sure that a Republican Spain would have joined the Allies.

2.  I am fairly sure that a Republican Spain a target ripe for the picking after the fall of France.  Spain was no shape to resist the Nazis; there were a lot of Franco supporters that might have been willing to stage a takeover.  You could add a few 100,000 Spanish toopes to the Axis and a probable takeover of Gibralter.

It might have been good for the Allies, in the long run, that Franco won.

[dazzleman]

You basically are syaing it's better than Franco won.

Considering that at the time the Republicans were pro-US and Franco was anti-US, this does nullify your utterly asinine and ridiculous claim that I support all anti-American governments and that I'm a seething American hater who will support anyone who is anti-American no matter what, despite the many examples to the contrary. You also failed to back up a claim I made earlier that I would suppor Pinochet if he was identical except anti-American. I'm interested in hearing your backing for this.

Read J.J.'s quote.  He makes a good point about the effect on the allies of a Franco victory vs. a Republican victory.

Franco held off Hitler possibly better than the Republican government could have.  For that reason alone, it may have been better that Franco won.  I make no comment on his internal policies, which seem to concern you far more than the effect of a potential Nazi victory.  You're not too good at looking at the big picture.  You might want to hone your skills in that area.

[Banana Republic]

Even if the Republicans had won, there still would have been a massively bloody civil war that would have left Spain in no position to fight, let alone make a difference, in WWII.

And yes, it was better that Franco won. You would have to be gravely naive to think that Spain would have become a centre-left state and not a sovietesque communist one.

[minionofmidas]

You basically are syaing it's better than Franco won.

Considering that at the time the Republicans were pro-US and Franco was anti-US, this does nullify your utterly asinine and ridiculous claim that I support all anti-American governments and that I'm a seething American hater who will support anyone who is anti-American no matter what, despite the many examples to the contrary. You also failed to back up a claim I made earlier that I would suppor Pinochet if he was identical except anti-American. I'm interested in hearing your backing for this.

Read J.J.'s quote.  He makes a good point about the effect on the allies of a Franco victory vs. a Republican victory.

Franco held off Hitler possibly better than the Republican government could have.  For that reason alone, it may have been better that Franco won.  I make no comment on his internal policies, which seem to concern you far more than the effect of a potential Nazi victory.  You're not too good at looking at the big picture.  You might want to hone your skills in that area.

Neither of you seems to be.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

And yes, it was better that Franco won. You would have to be gravely naive to think that Spain would have become a centre-left state and not a sovietesque communist one.

As Lewis pointed out, the communists had very little support prior to the war. It was just an excuse Franco and his fascist buddies used when it basically just came down to wanting to seize power.

To use a kind of over the top but valid example, it's as if the CDU were to win the next elections in Germany, but was in coalition with the NPD, and a bunch of communist elements in the country announced that the country was going to fall to a Nazi government so they needed to take over.

[WMS]

Touched off a debate, I see.

Well, I was going from my memory of a rather good article on it in, no kidding, Vanity Fair from a few years ago. In essence, while the Stalinists were not initially capable of seizing control of the Republic, they gained power during the Civil War because the Soviet Union denied many of its military supplies to the Republican government, redirecting them instead to organizations friendly to or controlled by the Soviet Union - including the Abraham Lincoln Brigades, which had morphed from independent leftist anti-Fascists to near-Soviet puppets due to Stalin's influence on their leadership. Actually, the role of the ALB was what got Vanity Fair started on their story, anyway...there were some eerie interviews with surviving ALB-ers in which they admitted that back then, they would have done whatever the Stalinists had told them to do. So despite the lack of popular support for the Stalinists, they would've staged a left-wing military coup once the Nationalists had been defeated.

Lewis, I don't know enough about your statement that the moderates were the ones being backed by Stalin - how do you get more left-wing than the Stalinists?

[minionofmidas]

Touched off a debate, I see.

Well, I was going from my memory of a rather good article on it in, no kidding, Vanity Fair from a few years ago. In essence, while the Stalinists were not initially capable of seizing control of the Republic, they gained power during the Civil War because the Soviet Union denied many of its military supplies to the Republican government, redirecting them instead to organizations friendly to or controlled by the Soviet Union - including the Abraham Lincoln Brigades, which had morphed from independent leftist anti-Fascists to near-Soviet puppets due to Stalin's influence on their leadership. Actually, the role of the ALB was what got Vanity Fair started on their story, anyway...there were some eerie interviews with surviving ALB-ers in which they admitted that back then, they would have done whatever the Stalinists had told them to do. So despite the lack of popular support for the Stalinists, they would've staged a left-wing military coup once the Nationalists had been defeated.

This is, by and large, all very true.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Communists did not demand immediate collectivization of farmland. The Communists went on and on about having to win the war first and deciding the state of the economy afterwards.
The Anarchists, and much of the Socialist base too, meanwhile, tried to effect a social revolution during the war.
Stalin effectively served as protector of Spain's lower middle classes in 1937, and it was they who made up the bulk of the Communist membership in those years.
You can look it up in any lengthy history of the war.
Of course Stalin's support of capitalism in Spain was tactical. But then pretty much anything Stalin ever did was tactical. He didn't have much of an ideology beyond his own paranoia.

[WMS]

Touched off a debate, I see.

Well, I was going from my memory of a rather good article on it in, no kidding, Vanity Fair from a few years ago. In essence, while the Stalinists were not initially capable of seizing control of the Republic, they gained power during the Civil War because the Soviet Union denied many of its military supplies to the Republican government, redirecting them instead to organizations friendly to or controlled by the Soviet Union - including the Abraham Lincoln Brigades, which had morphed from independent leftist anti-Fascists to near-Soviet puppets due to Stalin's influence on their leadership. Actually, the role of the ALB was what got Vanity Fair started on their story, anyway...there were some eerie interviews with surviving ALB-ers in which they admitted that back then, they would have done whatever the Stalinists had told them to do. So despite the lack of popular support for the Stalinists, they would've staged a left-wing military coup once the Nationalists had been defeated.

This is, by and large, all very true.

Yay! So the article was pretty accurate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Communists did not demand immediate collectivization of farmland. The Communists went on and on about having to win the war first and deciding the state of the economy afterwards.
The Anarchists, and much of the Socialist base too, meanwhile, tried to effect a social revolution during the war.
Stalin effectively served as protector of Spain's lower middle classes in 1937, and it was they who made up the bulk of the Communist membership in those years.
You can look it up in any lengthy history of the war.
Of course Stalin's support of capitalism in Spain was tactical. But then pretty much anything Stalin ever did was tactical. He didn't have much of an ideology beyond his own paranoia.
[/quote]

Working-Class Stalinists - Truth is Stranger than Fiction, I suppose.
And yeah, Stalin was all about his own power.

[Banana Republic]

And yes, it was better that Franco won. You would have to be gravely naive to think that Spain would have become a centre-left state and not a sovietesque communist one.

As Lewis pointed out, the communists had very little support prior to the war. It was just an excuse Franco and his fascist buddies used when it basically just came down to wanting to seize power.

To use a kind of over the top but valid example, it's as if the CDU were to win the next elections in Germany, but was in coalition with the NPD, and a bunch of communist elements in the country announced that the country was going to fall to a Nazi government so they needed to take over.

The communists had little support "prior" to the war. Thier support grew by leaps and bounds as the war went on. So much so that if the Republicans had won Spain would have become a communist state. We aren't talking about whether or not the army should have revolted, we are talking about what would have happened if the loyalists had won.

[dazzleman]

You basically are syaing it's better than Franco won.

Considering that at the time the Republicans were pro-US and Franco was anti-US, this does nullify your utterly asinine and ridiculous claim that I support all anti-American governments and that I'm a seething American hater who will support anyone who is anti-American no matter what, despite the many examples to the contrary. You also failed to back up a claim I made earlier that I would suppor Pinochet if he was identical except anti-American. I'm interested in hearing your backing for this.

Read J.J.'s quote.  He makes a good point about the effect on the allies of a Franco victory vs. a Republican victory.

Franco held off Hitler possibly better than the Republican government could have.  For that reason alone, it may have been better that Franco won.  I make no comment on his internal policies, which seem to concern you far more than the effect of a potential Nazi victory.  You're not too good at looking at the big picture.  You might want to hone your skills in that area.

Neither of you seems to be.

My only point was that Franco may have been better positioned, as a nominal friend of Hitler, to resist Hitler's desired moves with respect to the Iberian peninsula and the Straits of Gibraltar than a victorious but depleted Republican Government that was hostile to Hitler.  This is particularly true with Spain being bordered by a prostrate and German-occupied France, and being exhausted by civil war, and not all that strong to begin with.

That's what I consider the big picture, not whether my personal preference would have been for Franco or somebody else without regard to its effect on one of the most seminal conflicts in recorded history.  At the time, I probably would have hoped for a Republican victory because I wouldn't have expected Franco to diss Hitler, but I'm glad he did.  I'm surprised Hitler didn't just invade Spain anyway.

[J. J.]

Just for the record, I'm not a Franco fan.

Still, there is a question if, in 1940, Hitler would have been willing to let a Pro-Allied Republican Spain sit on his western flank.  We might have seen the "Spanish War" phase of WW II in 1940-41.  The French would have been of little help.  The English were in no shape to send troops to Spain.  There would have Fascist collaborators in Spain to serve as a "Fifth Column."

The Soviets might have attacked, but it's unlikely that they would have had any long term gains.  By 7/42, you have very well seen Hitler reviewing the Wehrmacht in Red Square.

Franco's victory might have been a victory for the Allies.

[dazzleman]

Just for the record, I'm not a Franco fan.

Still, there is a question if, in 1940, Hitler would have been willing to let a Pro-Allied Republican Spain sit on his western flank.  We might have seen the "Spanish War" phase of WW II in 1940-41.  The French would have been of little help.  The English were in no shape to send troops to Spain.  There would have Fascist collaborators in Spain to serve as a "Fifth Column."

The Soviets might have attacked, but it's unlikely that they would have had any long term gains.  By 7/42, you have very well seen Hitler reviewing the Wehrmacht in Red Square.

Franco's victory might have been a victory for the Allies.

There have been greater ironies in history.  I think you may very well be right.

[Beet]

The leap here is between "Hitler takes over Spain" and "Hitler reviews the troops in the Red Square".

The invasion of Spain would have taken a massive amount of manpower and resources, especially since the Vichy government occupying southern France at the time was in no position to carry out the invasion itself. Germany would not only have had to occupy Spain but also southern France. As we saw in RL, Italian defeats in Albania and the Serb uprising forced Hitler to critically delay operation Barbarossa, which he needed to launch as quickly as possible as work was moving rapidly on the Stalin line. In spring 1941 Hitler would have likely been forced with one of two choices: Operation Barbarossa or the invasion of Spain. Had he chosen the second, easier path, there virtually no way he could have pulled off Operation Barbarossa until spring 1942... which would have given the allies more time to consolidate and by that time which the United States might already have been in the war. The real wild card here is whether Germany would even have launched Barbarossa in 1942 if they had been at war with the United States. Either way, Hitler would have been in a far worse position.

[J. J.]

The leap here is between "Hitler takes over Spain" and "Hitler reviews the troops in the Red Square".

The invasion of Spain would have taken a massive amount of manpower and resources, especially since the Vichy government occupying southern France at the time was in no position to carry out the invasion itself. Germany would not only have had to occupy Spain but also southern France. As we saw in RL, Italian defeats in Albania and the Serb uprising forced Hitler to critically delay operation Barbarossa, which he needed to launch as quickly as possible as work was moving rapidly on the Stalin line. In spring 1941 Hitler would have likely been forced with one of two choices: Operation Barbarossa or the invasion of Spain. Had he chosen the second, easier path, there virtually no way he could have pulled off Operation Barbarossa until spring 1942... which would have given the allies more time to consolidate and by that time which the United States might already have been in the war. The real wild card here is whether Germany would even have launched Barbarossa in 1942 if they had been at war with the United States. Either way, Hitler would have been in a far worse position.

Well, I'm considering that the USSR might attack  Germany, if the Nazis would attack Republican Spain.

The thing about this hypothetical Republican Spain is that it probably would not be too stable.  There would be a of  Falangists out there who would likely side with the Nazis.  Spain would fall rapidly, perhaps as quickly as France did. 

Now there are several possibilities.

1.  A French retreat into Spain.  This takes the Nazis a bit longer, but by 1/1/41, Spain falls.  Gibraltar is threatened and taken by 3/1/41.  The british no longer control the Western Mediterranean (west of Malta).

2.  The USSR seeing the invasion, opens a second front.  There is another Tannenburg (remember, the purges had just been finished).  There is no 1941 Balkan campaign with Italy invading.  Hitler spends the first half of 1941 taking Spain and fighting a defensive front.  After Spain is occupied, they start their "Eastern offensive."  The Soviets are in much worse shape than they were in 1941.  On 12/7/41 , the Nazis, with their Spanish and Rumanian Allies, take Moscow.

[Beet]

The leap here is between "Hitler takes over Spain" and "Hitler reviews the troops in the Red Square".

The invasion of Spain would have taken a massive amount of manpower and resources, especially since the Vichy government occupying southern France at the time was in no position to carry out the invasion itself. Germany would not only have had to occupy Spain but also southern France. As we saw in RL, Italian defeats in Albania and the Serb uprising forced Hitler to critically delay operation Barbarossa, which he needed to launch as quickly as possible as work was moving rapidly on the Stalin line. In spring 1941 Hitler would have likely been forced with one of two choices: Operation Barbarossa or the invasion of Spain. Had he chosen the second, easier path, there virtually no way he could have pulled off Operation Barbarossa until spring 1942... which would have given the allies more time to consolidate and by that time which the United States might already have been in the war. The real wild card here is whether Germany would even have launched Barbarossa in 1942 if they had been at war with the United States. Either way, Hitler would have been in a far worse position.

Well, I'm considering that the USSR might attack  Germany, if the Nazis would attack Republican Spain.

The thing about this hypothetical Republican Spain is that it probably would not be too stable.  There would be a of  Falangists out there who would likely side with the Nazis.  Spain would fall rapidly, perhaps as quickly as France did. 

Now there are several possibilities.

1.  A French retreat into Spain.  This takes the Nazis a bit longer, but by 1/1/41, Spain falls.  Gibraltar is threatened and taken by 3/1/41.  The british no longer control the Western Mediterranean (west of Malta).

2.  The USSR seeing the invasion, opens a second front.  There is another Tannenburg (remember, the purges had just been finished).  There is no 1941 Balkan campaign with Italy invading.  Hitler spends the first half of 1941 taking Spain and fighting a defensive front.  After Spain is occupied, they start their "Eastern offensive."  The Soviets are in much worse shape than they were in 1941.  On 12/7/41 , the Nazis, with their Spanish and Rumanian Allies, take Moscow.

Well, both of these are really the same scenario, and rely on a number of highly speculative assumptions, including the lack ofa  Balkan revolt, Hitler invading Spain, Hitler's easy conquest of Spain ala northeastern France, Hitler immediately swinging east afterwards, eschewing the Battle of Britain, a highly doubtful Soviet offensive of 1941, and "another Tanenburg". All of these are highly speculative events. I'm not convinced any number of those things would necessarily happen.

The only thing we know that is invading and occupying southern France and Spain would have required troops, time, and attention. We also know that in real life, Hitler did not have enough of any of these resources in 1940-1941 sufficient to launch his Russian operation as we know of it today, until June 22 1941. Whether or not the Balkan revolt would have occured, there is no way he could have both invaded Spain and had enough resources and time to make a stronger Barbarossa assault than he actually did. And we know that his actual assault failed, so the evidence tends to suggest Hitler would have been in an even weaker position with such an invasion, much as Napoleon was. Note, control of Iberia was not really much of an asset. Its industrial capacity was weak and the troops requirement for occupation would have been substantial. Once Germany became involved in the eastern front, there is virtually no way it could have defended the entire Iberian coastline. The allies did not want to attack Franco and make themselves a new enemy; this would not have been the case in a German-occupied Spain.