What if the Republicans won the Spanish Civil War?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[J. J.]

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.

You seem to have a major misunderstanding of the scenarion.  In 1940 the Soviet Union attacks Nazi Germany, because the Nazis invaded Republican Spain.

Now, let's assume that there is a Republican victory in 1939.  The Falangists still have support, in their core area.  Spain has Soviet infuence, but not Soviet domination; the Republican government is strongly anti-Fascist.  In 1939, they join the Allies and declare war on the Third Riech.  Perhaps they send some troops (25-50K).

The Nazis still invade on 5/10/40.  At best, the Spanish troops delay the advance by a few days.  The Nazis reasch the Atlantic coast on the 25 and by July 1, the French sign the the armistice at Compiegne.  Hilter turns his attention to Spain, with lure of Gibraltar.

In the meantime, all of Spain's continental allies, except the Soviet Union, are defeated.  Falangist groups, in the northeast and the southwest Spain become active.  In October, Hitler begins a full invasion of Spain.

Now, at this point, the Soviet Union decides whether or not to support Spain.  If not, the Republican are is reduced to what it was at the end of 1936.  This would occur by December 1 of 1940.  A "Nationalist Government" would be set up in these areas.

If the Soviets decide to take action, what can they do?  Attack Germany in the east.  The was some speculation that the Soviets were planning for that in 1941.  Initially, there is some success, due to numbers, but the Red Army is the same Red Army that was overrun in the Summer of 1941.

Germany fights a defensive war in the east for 4 months, November 1940 to February 1941 and then falls on the Red Army in the Spring of 1941; Hitler pulls troops out of France and Spain.  It is a worse disaster for the Red Army than Barbarossa.  It's here that you have the "Second Tannenburg."  The Red Army cannot launch any offensive operations and retreats accross the Ribbentrop/Molotov line.  Germany redeploys to end the western front.

In the late summer of 1941, a combind Falangist/German force moves out of Old Castille and rapidly takes the area the Nationalist held by the end of 1938.  In October of 1941 Gibraltar falls after heavy bombartment.

By December 1, 1941 that last of the Republicans are ousted and an anti-Communist Caudillo rules Spain.  The new Caudillo will aid the German offesive against the Soviets in the Spring of 1942.

Because the Soviets are now substantially weaker, the spring eastern offesiive is successful; by December of 1942, Hitler is reviewing the troops in Red Square.

[J. J.]

Your scenario is based on a lack of any sort of understanding of Spain. It doesn't work without that.

Of course it didn't work that way, because the Republicans lost in real life.  I'm assuming a Republican victory at roughly the same time the Nationalists lost, which would have put the end of the Civil War in the Spring of 1939.  I've also been looking a Nationalist support areas.

Assuming that there was a victory of the Republicans, there still would have been a lot of Nationalist sympathizers around, just like there were a lot of Republican sympathizers around in 1940.  I have not even considered the possibility that Nationalist forces would probably not have been ousted from North Africa and there probably would have been a much more organized resistence to the Republicans.

[J. J.]

There is, quite literally, no way (short of divine intervention) for the Republicans to win unless you change the foreign involvement parameters. It's no coincidence that the Republicans never, in the entire course of the war, conquered a single major city. 

Lewis, we are looking at a "counterfactual" here.  The conditions change to result in a Republican victory.  Here is a scenario:

1.  Franco cannot hold his coalition together; it was diverse and it was Franco that the could all agree on.  He may just not have been quite so charismatic or he may have been killed or injured in 1936, and not able to lead (I believe several of his co-commanders were killed).  There was no strong Nationalist leader to take his place.

2.  The Republicans become more unified; a leader comes forward who does for the Republicans what Franco does for the Nationalists.

3.  The Soviets continue to aid the Republicans, especially if they start winning.

Now, a unified Left, a disunified Right, and continued aid may have produced a Republican Spain.  It might have produced a Soviet puppet state, but with a strong Republican leader, that would be unlikely.

[J. J.]

Here is a scenario:

1.  Franco cannot hold his coalition together; it was diverse and it was Franco that the could all agree on.  He may just not have been quite so charismatic or he may have been killed or injured in 1936, and not able to lead (I believe several of his co-commanders were killed).  There was no strong Nationalist leader to take his place.

Several of his co-commanders were indeed killed. Alas, the "it was Franco that they could all agree on" part is pretty much bollocks. In the early part of the war at least, someone else would have stepped into his shoes without the slightest problems...and after that period (after there's an established front), the chance of Franco getting killed drops dramatically.

Lewis, the question is, in 1936, would the Franco successor be able to unify the force and complete the war.  Franco pulled it off; I'm far from certain that any successor could have.   You might have very well seen a fractured right in Spain without Franco.

[J. J.]

Here is a scenario:

1.  Franco cannot hold his coalition together; it was diverse and it was Franco that the could all agree on.  He may just not have been quite so charismatic or he may have been killed or injured in 1936, and not able to lead (I believe several of his co-commanders were killed).  There was no strong Nationalist leader to take his place.

Several of his co-commanders were indeed killed. Alas, the "it was Franco that they could all agree on" part is pretty much bollocks. In the early part of the war at least, someone else would have stepped into his shoes without the slightest problems...and after that period (after there's an established front), the chance of Franco getting killed drops dramatically.

Lewis, the question is, in 1936, would the Franco successor be able to unify the force and complete the war.  Franco pulled it off; I'm far from certain that any successor could have.   You might have very well seen a fractured right in Spain without Franco.

Probably yes, they would. After all, what was the alternative?

You could ask the same thing of the Republicans; the alternatives were that they lose.  Yet, through their actions, that was the alternative that they chose.

[J. J.]

This is because the leadership of either camp functioned very differently, and because the different Republican groups had much more to distrust each other about, had much less of a history of cooperation, and much less to lose. They're not really comparable.

One of the reason Franco was able to stay in power was that he could manage the factions within the Nationalists.  It is far from probable that someone else could have done it.

[J. J.]

Anyone as long as he was seen as winning. These are Conservatives we're talking about, after all. Also, look just at the 15 years that went before, Gil Robles, Primo Rivera. If Primo Rivera could keep the Spanish right united for years, then so could your hamster.

On this I wholeheartedly disagree.  I'm looking at Franco's learership, not only in the Civil War, but afterward.  He not only led a military group that was reasonably diverse, but he led a government that was fairly diverse, for more than three decades.  No other rightest government of the period did anything like that.

Franco is unique for several reasons:

1.  He governed, as opposed to German and Italian, and even Soviet dictatorships, with a coallition.

2.  Unlike the other Fascist government of the period, Franco survived much longer.

3.  Franco's chosen successor, if not his policies, survived his death and is still there!  Excepting Lenin, he left a constitutional framework that survived him; it has almost survived for as long as his personal reign.  No other rightist did that.

Even comparing Franco with Lenin, it is impressive.  Lenin's Soviet Union lasted from 1917 to 1990, 83 years.  Franco's has lasted from 1939 until today, and is likely to break the 83 year mark.  Further, Lenin's designated heir, Trotsky, didn't rule; Franco's designated heir, Juan Carlos II, has now for 30 years.

You strongly underestimate the role of Franco.

[J. J.]

Franco's designated heir was assassinated in 1969 IIRC. (And Trotski wasn't Lenin's "designated heir" by any sort of yardstick.)
Not to mention that the dictatorship was dismantled after Franco's death, and few (but not none) politicians associated with it have wielded any sort of power in Spain after ca.1980.
And no, Spain's constitutional framework now bears no resemblance with that of Franco's lifetime. It's one of the most devolved countries in Europe now; it was one of the most centralized under Franco.
It's true that Franco held power for 35 years after 1939, and he must've been doing a couple of things right to do that - these were mostly foreign politics things though, like keeping the straits of Gibraltar open during WWII, signing up for Marshall Plan aid, getting into NATO.

Spain wasn't in NATO untill after Franco died (the Cotes voted on it in late 1981) and wasn't even into the UN until 1955.  There were sanctions from the Allies after WW II.

Franco, in the "Law of Succession of the Head of State," acually envisioned a monarchy.  This was 1947.

Your entire concept doesn't mesh with the facts.

[J. J.]

That would have been the Admiral Carrero Blanco assassination.  However, that was 1973.  The first refendum on the "Law of Succession" was 1947, and Prince Juan Carlos (as he was them) was being groomed for succession in the late 1960's.

The sanctions were basically a blacklisting after WW II and can be seen in the rather late UN membership for Spain (1955).  Originally, the UN was made up of victors in WW II.

The Eisenhower state visit to Spain in the 1950 marked an opened in US Spanish relations, but the Spanish largely were without US aid, especially the Marshall Plan.