Hi All, As I am studying about World War II, I have come across the Spanish Civil war of 1936 and understand that it is really the first time that Mussolini and Hitler became somewhat united. Also, it was a testing ground for Hitler's weapons and tactics to be used from the invasion of Poland and onward. What I find strange is that this episode seems to be talked about so little, if any, with regard to World War II. Perhaps this is when the European part of World War II actually started rather than 1939 when Hitler invaded Poland? Thanks for your comments on this thought in advance. Bob Guercio
A lot of people maintain that Japan invading china was the real start to the war,or the germans occuping austria and others claim the british and italians skirmishing in north africa pre-war was. The spanish civil war was just a civil war between nationalists and communists and didnt afect the politics of the the rest of europe to any great extent IMO,hitler and stalin even pretended to be friends afterwards while they decided what to do with poland..
But doesn't this beg the question, why not? After the war was over, Spain was a fascist state. Considering what I believe to be the strategic location Spain (Gibraltor and the Mediterranean), how did it manage to stay out of World War II? It seems to me that it should have been forced to be in the thick of it yet it wasn't. To me, IMHO, this seems short of miraculous. Bob Guercio
The Spanish Civil War had a huge political effect on Europe as various nations reacted to what was happening. Embargo, shipments of weapons, the first 'Fascist vs Communist' War, Foreign Fighters, etc. Lots of attrocities were committed too, and Guerrilla Warfare continued into the 1950's (I believe) by the defeated Republican Forces. One group of Guerrilla fighters even fought against the Nazis in France before invading northwest Catalonia before they were finally defeated. Part of the reason Spain stayed out of WW2 was war weariness from years of destructive fighting, plus the continued Guerrilla Fighting, and the reprisals Franco carried out against Republicans post-Victory. The last thing they wanted was to be involved in another war.
When looking up a proxy in politics and war I always like to get right into the background because typically all is not at all what it seems. Franco was a military leader stationed in French Africa. At home a Marxist Party (I've read driven by Basques) won the election over the Conservatives...and promptly began stringing up farmers who refused to collectivise by roadsides as an example to others. The nation was up in arms, but the new government was in now and wasn't about to let its grip loose. There were calls to return the Conservatives back to power. You might say the "Republicans" mirrored Stalinist social policy. Franco decided his duty as a soldier was to protect the population, from its own new government if need be, but obviously felt the old Conservatives had also been left behind for good reason (corruption was rife). This defined him as a Nationalist political figure as he used his forces to turn public discord into a full blown civil war. You might say he was righteous. The Soviets backed the Republicans (Marxist, Basque) to increase influence in western Europe lost since the Russian Revolution. Mussolini saw it as an opportunity to develop his own forces in a contemporary battle, and for international prestige. He counted on little direct support for the Marxists. The world media painted it a Fascist-Republican conflict due to Italian expansion interests in Africa (which included atrocity). Then Hitler jumped in, partly because it faced off against Communism, partly because it was the right thing to do believe it or not. I mean he was a violent moron, but this was one occasion he actually played the good guy, just before megalomania completely took hold (following the remilitarisation of the Rhineland and the Czech debarcle).
Did Hitler ever think about Spain for his own strategic advantages? I would think that control of Spain would have pretty much cut Britain off from the Mediterranean. And if not, why not? Thanks, Bob
Most especially, the bombing of the town of Guernica by the Luftwaffe (the Condor Legion) and the Italian air force.
[rant] This is untrue. The elected government had little to do with anything at that time. Most of the stringings were perpetuated by self acclaimed "anarchist" groups who believed they knew what was best for everybody. And they weren't so masive as some people tend to believe (believe it or not, workers were happy with the collectivisation of factories and the agricultural reforms) and it's quite amusing that the worse pre-war atrocities were comited by the right wing parties (miners' revolt in northern Spain and riots in Madrid). Also, Soviet aid to Spain was half hearted and while most nations said they wouldn't meddle, the truth is quite the opposite. Franco had an easier access to weapons than the Republican, democraticly elected, goverment. Also, the Soviet aid was half hearted as the ELECTED prime misister and fututre president Manuel Azaña was for more than one time, against the PCE or CPS (comunist party of Spain - the blokes who recieved orders from the Comitern). For example, the option of Cataluñia and the Basque country becoming independent from the central government was something the Republican (who were, if you weren't paying atention, democraticly elected) goverment was willing to discuss and pursue. This upseted the soviets so much, that all the weapons they sent to Republican Spain, had to be paid pronto with the gold held in the national bank whilst Hitler and Mussolini weren't so eager to recieve money from the nationalists. Also, compare the 12,000 German soldiers to the 700 Soviet ones... Who were they fighting? Comunists?? Well, it appears Commies were hard to find in Spain by that time... Also, Republican Spain had no choice but to accept the weapons from the Soviet Union due to that mild inconvenience of the weapons embargo that France and England held in place. I actually find your ill-informed post in which you seem to hold the notion that a violent rebelion perpetuated by people who later on are responsible for thousands of people missing and countless massacres against a (what was it? Oh I remember!!) democraticly elected government, was "the right thing to do". trully. I found your post to be over simplistic and without a pint of truth in it. What are your sources? Spain's right wing movements? You have Orwell personal opinion over what was being lived in Spain if you want a good read on what was actually going on. You can also find a lot of dedicated literature including Richard Overy's "Spanish Civil War" or something like that. Tough you might find something discussing extensivelly the pre-war period (like Orwell's book http://www.amazon.com/dp/0156421178...iveASIN=0156421178&adid=1GV2WTY1M2GJJDRCF7PE& more enlightning). [/rant - but just because...] Cheers...
He tought about it but when promped to go war by Hitler, Franco simply asked too much. And having Franco in the war would be more of an hindrance than an advantage. the extra milles of shore you had to protect with a nation battered to ruin economically would end in germany sustaining Spains war effort and they had trouble sustaining their own. Cheers...
Well it seems to me that once Franco declared that Spain was a neutral country, that opened up a real can of worms for Hitler. Neutrality was a legal, recognized position for a country to take. Had Hitler attempted to invade, it would have violated this position (not that it stopped him in other places), but also it would have opened another front. I don't imagine the Spanish would have been thrilled with a German invasion, and resistance was not out of the question. Portugal probably would have declared for the Allies, then who knows what comes next. I would think the cost would have outweighed any benefit.
Spain,ireland,sweden and switzerland all remained nuetral through the war,all would have been useful. Mussolini:the war didnt start because of atrocities although i did hear that the communists did kill a third of all priests and nuns,it started because the basques wanted to break away from spain and form their own country,this can still be seen with ETA today.
I never claimed it started because of Atrocities, just that Atrocities did occur during the Civil War on both sides, executing civilians etc like we would see happen during WWII. The Spanish Civil War did not start because of the Basques either - I think they tried to start their own revolution to do so, but were also quelled by Francos forces.
Iceland declared itself neutral but was "invaded" by Britain in 1940 and British troops were replaced by American troops in 1941. What other neutral countries, if any, had their neutrality violated? Thanks again. Bob Guercio
Iceland was invaded due to the threat it would Pose to the UK if Germany Invaded it (as it had just invaded Denmark and Norway, and Iceland still had ties to Denmark - pre-invasion, 1941 was the year in which Iceland would be allowed to break all ties with Denmark and truly be independent). Iceland also would help secure the North Atlantic shipping route, so ~800 British Marines landed in Iceland unopposed. Icelandic Government didn't resist but requested reparations for all damage done, and British Troops arrived later for the occupation before being replaced by American Troops. But lets stay on topic here and keep talking about the Spanish Civil War. Spain was too devastated by the Civil War and the ongoing Guerrilla Fighting (I think the movie 'Pans Labryinthe' is set during this period, during WW2 in Spain w/ Guerrilla Warfare continuing) to be stable enough to send its armies to war once more. The economy couldn't afford it, plus the Spanish Coastline is huge and liable to invasion.
Belgium and holland were both nuetral but ended out being attacked. Hitler would have needed additonal armies to attack spain,armies he didnt have and i guess he didnt want to push spain too hard in case he pushed them over to the allied side. Perhaps if hitlers ideas on attacking russia had been different he would have considered spain.
If we think of netrals invaded by the western allies Iran was neutral and invaded and San Marino was bombed while neutral , also the Germans beat the Brits in Norway by a matter of days. The list for the Axis is a lot longer Belgium, Holland, Luxemburg, Denmark, Norway, Greece, Yougoslavia ... just for starters. Back to the Spain topic, IMO Franco realized he had nothing to gain and a lot to loose by joining the axis, even in case of an axis victory, that was a possible scenario after the fall of France and before US entry, he would probably get very little after Hitler and Mussolini had taken their share. On the other hand, due to British naval superiority, he was almost sure to loose all overseas teritories and colonies, except possibly Morocco, immediately after entering the war, and an allied victory would be very bad for him personally. As Hitler could not attack a fellow dictator he had helped to create without loosing an enormous amount of face, something dictators are very reluctant to do, he got away with it.
Yes I gave a simplistic, but accurate rendition. But opinions will vary. I guess we don't vote the same you and I. Please continue to patronise that your political views are more informed than other political views.
Speaking from opinion as to Hitler's state of mind during this period I suggest European political concerns directly related to ancestral emphasis of nationalism, that is, the heritage of mediaeval European empires (most specifically the Holy Roman Empire during the period of Germanic centralisation) was foremost in conscious thought. At this time Hitler completely ignored national borders in preference for the labelling of earlier period regional provinces (Bohemia, Gaul, Brandenburg, etc.). He tied regional classifications more directly to folkish populations than to adjustments produced by centuries of warfare, industrialist interests and transient politics. In my opinion Hitler was reviewing future strategic concerns with far less importance than his own political emphasis of folkish interests.
Yes my political views (which is not what is being debated) are better. And my FACTS about the Spanish civil war are also a lot better. At least I try to inform myself on more than one source. And a source which at least presents documents to prove what their saying. Or that actually lived there and is coherent with what other people who lived there say. Cheers...
This thread is in danger of being closed, with warnings/cooler time issued if it continues along the current line of bickering and personal attacks.
