What if the Republicans won the Spanish Civil War?

[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.

[minionofmidas]

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

[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.

[Erc]

Well, it obviously depends on how the Republicans win.

If the Republican trend towards Communism continues, you could have either:

A) A Stalinist Puppet State

B) A crazy revolutionary-anarchist state that even Stalin's lost control over.

If, as the Republicans do better, they regain sanity, then you just have a hard-left state, probably too far out of the clutches of Stalin to be in his grasp (I defer to Lewis Trondheim on this question).

Then there's the possibility of Anglo-French intervention, but that opens up a completely different can of worms which we probably shouldn't go into.

Come 1940...

The Stalinist puppet state would probably not declare war on Germany (under pressure from Stalin).

The anarchist state would probably declare war on Germany instantly, much to the embarassment of France and England.  Assuming they even stayed intact until June of 1940, Hitler sends in a couple of Panzer Divisions and crushes the Anarchists (who are presumably so disorganized, hated, and war-weary at this point that Hitler would have little trouble installing Franco [or, even better, re-install Alfonso XIII or his son]).

The Social Democrat state would either be too war-weary to think about declaring war on Germany--and if they did, I bet that a strong show of force and the fall of France would force them to withdraw from the war.  Hitler's generally stupid, but I still don't think he'd want to get involved in another Peninsular War if he doesn't need to.  Spain probably reenters the war in '44 (perhaps providing a compromise springboard for re-entry into Europe?).


In the first and third scenarios, Hitler will have to deal with Spain at some point...whether in '41 (in the first), or in '40/'44 (in the third).  Spain, despite its immense size and mountainous terrain, would not be too much of a challenge for the German Army in '40 or '41 (if Hitler decides to knock out Spain as part of the greater Southern European Cleanup, which could only delay Barbarossa more).  Holding it is a different story...whether it would prove a bigger thorn than Yugoslavia...and what role it plays in the Allies' return to Europe--are questions for a later day.

[minionofmidas]

Well, it obviously depends on how the Republicans win.

If the Republican trend towards Communism continues, you could have either:

A) A Stalinist Puppet State

B) A crazy revolutionary-anarchist state that even Stalin's lost control over.

If, as the Republicans do better, they regain sanity, then you just have a hard-left state, probably too far out of the clutches of Stalin to be in his grasp (I defer to Lewis Trondheim on this question).

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No...the whole exercise is totally pointless without that can of worms.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Remember that Stalin withdrew from what was effectively a Stellvertreterkrieg (damn, is there an English equivalent to that term?) with Germany in Spain before the civil war ended, and months before the Hitler-Stalin Pact. A Communist victory in Spain - no matter how unlikely, of course, maybe Hitler noticed there's no Jews in Spain, or Franco publicly slapped Mussolini or whatever - in all likelihood means no Hiter-Stalin Pact either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Anarchist state would be much too involved in deconstructing itself. Something similar actually happened in Spain in the 1870's (under the "Federalists", whose ideology bore some resemblance to Anarchism). Anyways they'd fail to see much of a difference between France and Germany.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem would not be to get in immediately, but to stay in. As Napoleon learned the hard way 130 years previously, as Hitler learned the hard way at the same time in the Balkans, as indeed the Spanish governments themselves had been learning the hard way for ages. It's "the classical country of insurrections".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[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.

[minionofmidas]

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. 

Exactly. That's what I've been preaching all the time. You can't just assume they won, you need to present what conditions change...since that will also affect the continuation of the story.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nobody quite acceptable to the Anarchists would be quite acceptable to the Communists' middle class supporters. Anyways the Left side had too many leaders, not too few...Largo Caballero is probably the closest you'll get.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, yes, that would have happened.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A disunified Right would have meant no civil War, and a Republican Spain. That's true. It's also the reason why there was no disunified Right. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Depends...

[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.

[minionofmidas]

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?

[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.

[minionofmidas]

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.

[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.

[minionofmidas]

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.

[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.

[minionofmidas]

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.

[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.

[minionofmidas]

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.

My bad on NATO...
There was a vote on the monarchy thingy some point in the 60s or 70s, pretty much the only one during Franco's time in office. It was won by monarchy because of opposition support.

[minionofmidas]

There were two referenda that I got mixed up. One in 1948 on the monarchy (after Franco's death), and one in 1966, nominally effective immediately, on splitting the offices of head of state and head of government. The Prime Minister (sheet, why didn't I take down the name), the man Franco handpicked to hold all power after him, was assassinated by ETA in 1973.
Spain was not a member of NATO until 1982, but the US have maintained military bases there since 1959, and it got US aid based on the Marshall Plan structure, but not under the same legislation and not to the same amounts as many other Western european countries, since 1953.
Spain's economy didn't start seriously booming (the way most of Western Europe's had in the 50s and 60s) until the 60s and 70s.
It hasn't been mentioned in this thread yet, but it's an interesting detail, that small scale guerilla warfare resurfaced in parts of Spain in the mid-40s.
I haven't found any evidence of "sanctions" against Spain in the 40s and 50s.
Now, obviously Franco showed great skill in getting into office and holding it down for so long...I think we're quite united on that point actually...and also on evolving to the position of sole undisputed leader of the coup - that wasn't quite obvious at the time the war started. Franco was nothing more than military commander of the Canaries or something. In fact, it might not have happened if several of his co-coupists hadn't been killed.

[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.