Go back
If the Spanish Civil War had gone the other way...

If the Spanish Civil War had gone the other way...

Debates

T

Joined
13 Mar 07
Moves
48752
Clock
01 Jun 11
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

What would have been the consequences, for Spain and for Europe, if the Republicans had won the Civil War? Would Spain have remained a democracy? Or would it have become a Communist dictatorship?

And would a Republican victory in Spain have had major consequences for the rest of Europe in the run-up to and during World War II? Would Spain have participated in that war, and if so, what difference would it have made?

no1marauder
Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
Clock
02 Jun 11
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Teinosuke
What would have been the consequences, for Spain and for Europe, if the Republicans had won the Civil War? Would Spain have remained a democracy? Or would it have become a Communist dictatorship?

And would a Republican victory in Spain have had major consequences for the rest of Europe in the run-up to and during World War II? Would Spain have participated in that war, and if so, what difference would it have made?
Kind of depends when the Republic wins the war. A quick crushing of the Fascist rebellion would have had different results than eventual victory in a lengthy bloodbath. Democracy would have almost certainly survived the former.

sh76
Civis Americanus Sum

New York

Joined
26 Dec 07
Moves
17585
Clock
02 Jun 11
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

I don't think they'd have entered the war on the Allied side until, if ever, the war was functionally over in any case (such as 1944). Obviously, they'd not have fought on the Axis side.

I also don't think they'd have ended up as a Communist dictatorship. There's no reason they'd ever have come under Soviet influence/rule. No European country, save perhaps for Yugoslavia became a Communist dictatorship because of anything but brute Soviet force.

Soothfast
0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,

☯️

Joined
04 Mar 04
Moves
2709
Clock
02 Jun 11
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sh76
I don't think they'd have entered the war on the Allied side until, if ever, the war was functionally over in any case (such as 1944). Obviously, they'd not have fought on the Axis side.

I also don't think they'd have ended up as a Communist dictatorship. There's no reason they'd ever have come under Soviet influence/rule. No European country, save perhaps for Yugoslavia became a Communist dictatorship because of anything but brute Soviet force.
I'm more interested in the question of how history might have gone differently if the Anarchists had hung on.

T

Joined
13 Mar 07
Moves
48752
Clock
02 Jun 11
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sh76
I don't think they'd have entered the war on the Allied side until, if ever, the war was functionally over in any case (such as 1944). Obviously, they'd not have fought on the Axis side.

I also don't think they'd have ended up as a Communist dictatorship. There's no reason they'd ever have come under Soviet influence/rule. No European country, save perhaps for Yugoslavia became a Communist dictatorship because of anything but brute Soviet force.
This is a counterfactual speculation by John J. Reilly (by way of a pinch of salt, note that the author is a conservative Catholic and likely to be more sympathetic to the Nationalists than most). Nevertheless, is his theory plausible?

http://www.johnreilly.info/spain.htm

One thing that I think would have been inevitable is that the Soviet Union would, in effect, have a colony in the Western Mediterranean. The front-and-purge policy the Communists used against their rivals in the Loyalist camp was not very different from the one they used in Czechoslovakia just after the Second World War (except, perhaps, that it was much bloodier). Stalin was at all times of two minds about what he wanted to happen in Spain. While he wanted to humiliate the Italians and the Germans, he also had doubts about whether another Communist state so far from his borders was a good idea. He knew that such a state would be difficult for him to control, and that it would offer an alternative focus of loyalty for Communist parties around the world. The Soviet Union's subsequent problems with Yugoslavia and China show that these fears were well founded. However, it would have taken years for a rift to develop. The Spanish Communist Party was devotedly pro-Soviet. The new state would have needed Soviet material support. With the growing threat of a Fascist war, a near-term split with Moscow would not have been in the cards. Spain would become for the USSR something like what Cuba became in the 1960s and Nicaragua in the 1980s.

The French would not have been pleased by this turn of events. French governments have traditionally aligned themselves with whatever regime ruled Russia in order to counterbalance the powers of Middle Europe. They would have found this harder to do, however, if the Russians acquired a base adjoining French territory. The advantage to a Russian alliance, after all, is that Russians are too far away to be a menace themselves. There was no way the French could have thrown their support to Germany. It would have been politically impossible, and it would have been strategic suicide. However, the proximity of Soviet Spain would have made France much more reluctant to engage in any major war, anywhere. It is not just that Spain could eventually become a military threat. The Communist Party in France would have been so emboldened by their southern colleagues' success that would have started looking for revolutionary opportunities. A lost war, or even a stalemated war, would do just nicely. Knowing this, the French government would have been much less likely to declare war on Germany in 1939 after the invasion of Poland. Indeed, it might not have been possible to do so, since the Hitler-Stalin Pact was in effect, and the French Left would have made quite a fuss about entering the war, even if they hoped to benefit from the outcome.

Thus, one result of a Loyalist victory could have been that Hitler would not, at the outset, have had to fight a war on two fronts. If the French did not declare war, the British could not have, either. Where would they have put their army? In his pre-war alliance negotiations with Mussolini, Hitler seemed to be contemplating a general war for 1942 or 1943. He would have been able to pick a fight in the West at his leisure, probably much better prepared than he was in 1939. In this war, the desperate French might have accepted an alliance with Soviet Spain, provided Stalin relented. Certainly Spain would have been a reasonable base for the French to retreat to, after losing Paris. Even if Soviet Spain had chosen Franco's policy and attempted neutrality, it is unlikely that Hitler would have accepted it. He could not have. His goal in World War II was the conquest of Russia, something he could not have accomplished with a Soviet ally in his rear. The conquest of Spain could have been part of his initial western campaign, or it might have waited a year or two, but it would have been inevitable.

A Nazi campaign would have had several things working against it. For one thing, the supply lines were long enough to create formidable logistical problems, never the strong suit of the Nazi military. Assuming the English were still in the war, Hitler, like Napoleon, would have found just how accessible Spain is from the sea. On the other hand, the Spanish Soviet government would have been unlikely to be very popular by this time, assuming it had continued with the process of Stalinization. If the Germans concluded their campaign by taking Gibraltar, whose British base was (and is) a long-standing affront to Spanish pride, the Germans could have been accepted as liberators. The loss of Gibraltar could have cost the British effective control of the Mediterranean. The resupplying, not just of Egypt, but of India and Australia, would have become immensely more difficult.

In sum, then, a Loyalist victory in the Spanish Civil War could have lost the Allies the Second World War. I, for one, find this conclusion paradoxical.

sh76
Civis Americanus Sum

New York

Joined
26 Dec 07
Moves
17585
Clock
02 Jun 11
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Teinosuke
This is a counterfactual speculation by John J. Reilly (by way of a pinch of salt, note that the author is a conservative Catholic and likely to be more sympathetic to the Nationalists than most). Nevertheless, is his theory plausible?

http://www.johnreilly.info/spain.htm

One thing that I think would have been inevitable is that the Soviet Union w have lost the Allies the Second World War. I, for one, find this conclusion paradoxical.
This is one of the most bizarre and ill conceived pieces of WWII speculation I've ever seen. He makes baseless assumption after baseless assumption to build a baseless pyramid of wild speculation. I could take it apart piece by piece, but I don't have time right now. Suffice it to say that while I suppose his string of event is possible most of his assumptions are dubious and his conclusions are complete unwarranted and unlikely.

BTW, just to cite one tiny example, England declared war before France.

T

Joined
13 Mar 07
Moves
48752
Clock
02 Jun 11
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sh76
I could take it apart piece by piece, but I don't have time right now. Suffice it to say that while I suppose his string of event is [b]possible most of his assumptions are dubious and his conclusions are complete unwarranted and unlikely.[/b]

Oh go on, it would be great fun if you did!

BTW, just to cite one tiny example, England declared war before France.

On the same day, though! Wasn't this co-ordinated?

T

Joined
13 Mar 07
Moves
48752
Clock
02 Jun 11
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
Kind of depends when the Republic wins the war. A quick crushing of the Fascist rebellion would have had different results than eventual victory in a lengthy bloodbath. Democracy would have almost certainly survived the former.
Excellent point.

sh76
Civis Americanus Sum

New York

Joined
26 Dec 07
Moves
17585
Clock
02 Jun 11
3 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Teinosuke
Originally posted by sh76
[b]I could take it apart piece by piece, but I don't have time right now. Suffice it to say that while I suppose his string of event is [b]possible
most of his assumptions are dubious and his conclusions are complete unwarranted and unlikely.[/b]

Oh go on, it would be great fun if you did!

BTW, just to cite on ...[text shortened]... England declared war before France.

On the same day, though! Wasn't this co-ordinated?[/b]
Well, for starters, his thing about Spain being a Soviet colony is far fetched. The biggest indictment is the one he brings up himself. Spain is too far away and not connected to any Soviet territory. The USSR would have no way to control Spain. They controlled Czechoslovakia by rolling tanks into Prague. How, exactly, would they have rolled tanks into Madrid. Cuba had a colossal enemy 40 miles away and Castro needed USSR support for his regime to survive. I can't imagine that Spain would have wanted to become a Soviet vassal when it certainly didn't have to.

Second, the thing about the French being threatened by some internal Communist insurgency or the speculation of some war with Spain (I guess that's what he's saying though it's hard to tell) is unfounded. The factors that led to the Spanish civil war had little to do with France. As it is, Spain had almost no impact on WWII and I don't see why that would have been different if they were ruled by Communists.

Third, England had plenty of independent reasons to fight Germany even had France not done so. Germany was a threat to the British Empire and it was Britain, not France, who took the lead in opposing Hitler (however ineffective a job they did at it...) After France fell, the British had the option of keeping their overseas Empire if they were willing to allow Hitler hegemony on the continent. Hitler offered as much. This would have been similar to what might have happened had Britain never declared war in the first place. Britain had no interest in a peace that allowed Hitler to dominate Europe in 1940 and there's no reason to believe that they had any more such interest in 1939.

Where would they have put their army?


Wow, that's a bizarre claim for a historian. Britain continued to fight Germany after France fell with no European army to speak of. They fought in the air, on the sea and in north Africa. That they couldn't have landed in France doesn't mean they couldn't have fought Germany. You can blockade. You can bomb. You can (eventually) assist the Russians. Eventually, with American help, you can land in Norway and then Denmark and then invade from the north. If you control the North Sea, you can land in the low countries or near Hamburg. France makes a nice invasion point because it's so close across the Channel and offers a nice, flat road to the Rurh, but it's hardly the only way to fight Germany.

Certainly Spain would have been a reasonable base for the French to retreat to, after losing Paris


What??? This guy is too used to war game simulations. You don't "retreat to Spain" when you lose France. If Germany controls France, the war is over. You can't simply retreat to someone else's country and thus not lose the war. That doesn't make sense. Why didn't the Nazis simply "retreat" to Sweden in 1945? 🙄

He could not have. His goal in World War II was the conquest of Russia, something he could not have accomplished with a Soviet ally in his rear.


What???? He attacked Russia with the British Empire as his enemy in his rear. He's telling me he wouldn't have done so because he'd be worried about Spain? Spain?? More so than Britain??

The conquest of Spain could have been part of his initial western campaign, or it might have waited a year or two, but it would have been inevitable.


Wrong. Hitler had no reason to invade Spain. In the event, he really could have used Spain's help in securing Gibraltar to cut off British shipping through the Med. Nevertheless, he respected Franco's wishes to stay out of it. Is he saying that Hitler would having launched a major invasion to accomplish what he was unwilling to put a little pressure on Franco to do?

Look at Spain on a topographical map. It's a very mountainous country; probably the most mountainous major country in Europe save for Switzerland and maybe some Balkan countries. It would not have been an easy blitzkrieg, even if Spain could not have matched them militarily. There's no way Hitler would have invaded Spain in 1939 or 1940 absent some compelling circumstance. He says all of this in his piece, but uses this as a reason it would have been tough to Germany, not as a reason for the more obvious conclusion that Germany would not have done it.

Oh, and the point about the amphibious invasion of Spain completely ignored the Hitler military mindset. Hitler botched the planning of Sea Lion, a 40 mile cross channel invasion of a decimated England. Would Hitler have eschewed a war with the USSR, his one consistent historical aim, to subdue Spain by sea?? Highly doubtful.

T

Joined
13 Mar 07
Moves
48752
Clock
02 Jun 11
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sh76
Well, for starters, his thing about Spain being a Soviet colony is far fetched. The biggest indictment is the one he brings up himself. Spain is too far away and not connected to any Soviet territory. The USSR would have no way to control Spain. They controlled Czechoslovakia by rolling tanks into Prague. How, exactly, would they have rolled tanks into Madrid. ...[text shortened]... onsistent historical aim, to subdue Spain by sea?? Highly doubtful.
This is all splendid! Maybe you should send it to John J. Reilly.

sh76
Civis Americanus Sum

New York

Joined
26 Dec 07
Moves
17585
Clock
02 Jun 11
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Teinosuke
This is all splendid! Maybe you should send it to John J. Reilly.
That's okay. I don't think it's necessary to go picking fights with miscellaneous internet authors. 😉

no1marauder
Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
Clock
02 Jun 11
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sh76
Well, for starters, his thing about Spain being a Soviet colony is far fetched. The biggest indictment is the one he brings up himself. Spain is too far away and not connected to any Soviet territory. The USSR would have no way to control Spain. They controlled Czechoslovakia by rolling tanks into Prague. How, exactly, would they have rolled tanks into Madrid. ...[text shortened]... onsistent historical aim, to subdue Spain by sea?? Highly doubtful.
I disagree with the point about Hitler not invading Spain after a victorious campaign against France IF Spain was ruled by leftists. I think he almost certainly would have for both strategic reasons (taking Gibraltar seriously inhibits British naval capabilities in the Med) and ideological ones. A country being mountainous and geographically somewhat on the fringe didn't stop the Nazis from attacking Yugoslavia in 1941 when they put in an unfriendly to Nazi aims' government.

sh76
Civis Americanus Sum

New York

Joined
26 Dec 07
Moves
17585
Clock
02 Jun 11
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
I disagree with the point about Hitler not invading Spain after a victorious campaign against France IF Spain was ruled by leftists. I think he almost certainly would have for both strategic reasons (taking Gibraltar seriously inhibits British naval capabilities in the Med) and ideological ones. A country being mountainous and geographically somewhat on ...[text shortened]... zis from attacking Yugoslavia in 1941 when they put in an unfriendly to Nazi aims' government.
Perhaps, but Yugoslavia was in a much more strategic position. With his main oil source in Ploesti, Hitler couldn't afford unrest in the Balkans. Between that and Moussilini stirring the pot with his ill fated invasion of Greece, Hitler had the "pacify" the Balkans before Barbarossa could be launched.

no1marauder
Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
Clock
03 Jun 11
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sh76
Perhaps, but Yugoslavia was in a much more strategic position. With his main oil source in Ploesti, Hitler couldn't afford unrest in the Balkans. Between that and Moussilini stirring the pot with his ill fated invasion of Greece, Hitler had the "pacify" the Balkans before Barbarossa could be launched.
Hitler regarded Spain as important enough to deploy a panzer brigade and enough combat air to tip the balance in Franco's favor. I think the chances of him leaving a hostile state unoccupied in Europe was remote.

Kunsoo

Joined
03 Feb 07
Moves
199241
Clock
03 Jun 11
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Teinosuke
What would have been the consequences, for Spain and for Europe, if the Republicans had won the Civil War? Would Spain have remained a democracy? Or would it have become a Communist dictatorship?

And would a Republican victory in Spain have had major consequences for the rest of Europe in the run-up to and during World War II? Would Spain have participated in that war, and if so, what difference would it have made?
Communists were just a part of the Republican coalition. Basically, it probably would have remained a parliamentary democracy.

The biggest impact however, might have been outside Spain. Maybe Hitler would have been less emboldened had the other democracies not been so apathetic towards what was essentially a prolonged military coup. If they had matched Hitler in terms of weaponry and aid (and Italian troops), a message might have been sent which would have deterred future aggressive actions. And the Republicans would not have been as beholden to the Soviet Union, who did provide the Republicans with aid.

Now, maybe we should speculate on what might have altered history had Abraham Lincoln been able to turn invisible and had an alien robot friend.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.