Spain in Transition (1975)

[Racsoviale]

But the nazis hadnt been fighting a civil war against the communists. Also I think there is a difference between Hitlers Germany and Francos Spain

 

[Lord Baal]

But the nazis hadnt been fighting a civil war against the communists. Also I think there is a difference between Hitlers Germany and Francos Spain

Of course there was. But Spain in 1945 was very different from Spain in 1939. For that matter, so were all the other players in WWII. Franco's political supporters would hardly have considered joining the Allies as requiring them to side with the USSR, after all. It wouldn't have been difficult for Franco to portray declaring war on the Axis as a necessary step to keep the Soviets from taking control of Europe. This is a line De Gaulle used to gain the allegiance of many far-right Frenchmen when he cooperated with French Communists and had very cordial relations with Stalin. It would have been more difficult for Franco, certainly, but he still could have gained some American and British goodwill - and possibly a few Italian possessions in the Mediterranean, though most of those went to Greece. It might also have entitled Spain to Lend-Lease assistance. Still, there wouldn't really have been that much to gain for Spain in joining the Allies. It would simply be a case of there being nothing for them to lose.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

Spain was not permitted to join the Allies. UN General Assembly Resolution 32(I) cites a decision of the Potsdam Conference that Spain was ineligible for membership because of "its close association with the aggressor states." UN General Assembly Resolution 39(II) went further and condemned "the Franco regime" as "a fascist regime patterned on, and established largely as a result of aid received from, Hitler's Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Fascist Italy". It only allowed UN members to have limited diplomatic relations with Spain.

This may seem strange now, when we think of the UN as a body for humanitarian aid, technical questions and blue-helmeted soldiers who run away when the bullets start to fly. However, the "United Nations" was originally the formal, legal name for the Allies, and the original plan for the post-war UN looked more like NATO, with permanent military forces. Indeed, that's pretty much how things worked in the Korean War.

Spain was a pariah state after World War 2, seen as a hangover from a previous era in the same way that the Western media portray Cuba and North Korea today. It didn't join the UN until 1955. The friend of my enemy is my enemy....

 

[LightSpectra]

Those UN decisions were dictated by the Soviets, who had no interest in supporting a state that they thought could still be toppled by the underground republicans in the near future. The Western Allies had little problem with allying with Franco, which is why Spain became close to the post-war United States.

 

[Lord Baal]

Spain was not permitted to join the Allies. UN General Assembly Resolution 32(I) cites a decision of the Potsdam Conference that Spain was ineligible for membership because of "its close association with the aggressor states." UN General Assembly Resolution 39(II) went further and condemned "the Franco regime" as "a fascist regime patterned on, and established largely as a result of aid received from, Hitler's Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Fascist Italy". It only allowed UN members to have limited diplomatic relations with Spain.

This may seem strange now, when we think of the UN as a body for humanitarian aid, technical questions and blue-helmeted soldiers who run away when the bullets start to fly. However, the "United Nations" was originally the formal, legal name for the Allies, and the original plan for the post-war UN looked more like NATO, with permanent military forces. Indeed, that's pretty much how things worked in the Korean War.

Spain was a pariah state after World War 2, seen as a hangover from a previous era in the same way that the Western media portray Cuba and North Korea today. It didn't join the UN until 1955. The friend of my enemy is my enemy....

I didn't actually know this. Interesting. I also find LightSpectra's post incredibly easy to believe.

 

[innonimatu]

Well, I don't buy it, and I'm the one who's supposed to be cynical! Even I would not say that Spain became a close ally of the US. In fact, the spanish government under Franco kept asking (very discreetly, so as to not have a public rejection) that it be accepted on NATO, and kept being rejected, right until the regime fell. More due to opposition from the erupeans, true, but it looks like even the US regarded Franco as personna non grata.

During 1945 what Franco feared the most was that the allies would make a quick excursion to Madrid and kick him out of power. If Franco sent his troops into Spain anytime during the final months of WW2, it was guaranteed that a portion of the french army, itself having a few thousand former republican combatants, would attack them. Not only that, but De Gaulle would be hard pressed to counter that and would probably instead declare war on Spain and drag the US and UK to finish it off quickly.
De Gaulle eventually ended that menace to Franco in December 1945 when he had the spanish combatants in France disarmed, signaling that Franco would be tolerated by victorious the allies, but until then that was a very real option kept on the table.

 

[Racsoviale]

Lord Baal: I dont have much to argue about, just want to say it was a good post and makes a lot of sense which I had'nt thought of. Especially the analogy to De Gaulle.
Come to think of it we had a bit of the same conundrum(?) with the communist resistance movement here in DK where they were told from Moscow to coorporate with the germans, which changed the moment the Nazis attacked the USSR. So changing policies regarding ones arch enemy dont seem too groundbreaking.
This is mostly concerning the changing of soviet policy towards the nazis, where the communists were told on different occasions how to coorporate/oppose the nazis

 

[LightSpectra]

Well, I don't buy it, and I'm the one who's supposed to be cynical! Even I would not say that Spain became a close ally of the US. In fact, the spanish government under Franco kept asking (very discreetly, so as to not have a public rejection) that it be accepted on NATO, and kept being rejected, right until the regime fell. More due to opposition from the erupeans, true, but it looks like even the US regarded Franco as personna non grata.

The U.S.'s relations with Spain were not quite so two-dimensional, especially since different administrations treated Franco differently. Eisenhower visited Spain in 1953 and 1959, and between those two visits was the Pact of Madrid in 1955, which was an economic and military semi-alliance. Roosevelt and Truman were a bit less sympathetic to Franco, though, and I can't tell you much about the period between Kennedy and Ford.

 

[Lone Cat]

Well, I don't buy it, and I'm the one who's supposed to be cynical! Even I would not say that Spain became a close ally of the US. In fact, the spanish government under Franco kept asking (very discreetly, so as to not have a public rejection) that it be accepted on NATO, and kept being rejected, right until the regime fell. More due to opposition from the erupeans, true, but it looks like even the US regarded Franco as personna non grata.

During 1945 what Franco feared the most was that the allies would make a quick excursion to Madrid and kick him out of power. If Franco sent his troops into Spain anytime during the final months of WW2, it was guaranteed that a portion of the french army, itself having a few thousand former republican combatants, would attack them. Not only that, but De Gaulle would be hard pressed to counter that and would probably instead declare war on Spain and drag the US and UK to finish it off quickly.
De Gaulle eventually ended that menace to Franco in December 1945 when he had the spanish combatants in France disarmed, signaling that Franco would be tolerated by victorious the allies, but until then that was a very real option kept on the table.

Does the option means that Alphonso descendant should be Franco successor and not anyone within Falange nor Carlos line?
i'm not sure that Juan Carlos was in France during that time or where was he?

 

[innonimatu]

Does the option means that Alphonso descendant should be Franco successor and not anyone within Falange nor Carlos line?
i'm not sure that Juan Carlos was in France during that time or where was he?

What do you mean, in the event of an allied invasion in 1945? The republic would be restored, no monarchy.

 

[Lone Cat]

ok thanks if you said that 1945 option was a possible restoration of a republic.
But what happened to the Republicans after they returned from exile? how well do they do in the first election of the Juan Carlos's reign? or did they split or merged with other parties?

 

[innonimatu]

ok thanks if you said that 1945 option was a possible restoration of a republic.
But what happened to the Republicans after they returned from exile? how well do they do in the first election of the Juan Carlos's reign? or did they split or merged with other parties?

You better wait for a spaniard to answer that. But the two of the main three spanish parties do claim "descent" from groups going back to the republic and beyond (PSOE and PCE). The right-wing one, PP (formerly AP), was created mostly from groups supportive of Franco's dictatorship.
Franco's dicatorship was seen by some republicans as a kind of interruption, with the monarchy under Juan Carlos (little more than a figurehead, as with other european monarchs) an acceptable compromise for making the francoists play democratically without major fighting against them.

Without that compromise they probably could not have gotten away with overthrowing francoism so soon after the death of the dictator. The spanish military, or at least its odfficer corps, was still throughly francoist. Juan Carlos got his own position strengthened by opposing an attempted military cup. It it also probably helped that the basque blew up Carrero Blanco, or Juan Carlos would probably never have gotten a crown in the first place.

 

[Lone Cat]

OK Those 'coup leaders' might suffer a hearthbreak since Juan Carlos turned them down and let their 'sworn enemy' to return and grant their 'fair political stage' which those officiers fear most.

 

[Arwon]

I can answer that.

First here's an article I wrote about the Communists in the transition to democracy, arguing that if they'd been less cooperative, they couldn't have achieved more success.

Basically in the transition itself there was a focus on negotiating a pact between all the major players, including the communists and the unions as well as other newly legalised parties (including the regional nationalists) and regime elements. It wasn't really "the republicans" returning, that's too simplistic a view of a complex society in which the war had been over for forty years.

Rather, it was all sorts of opposition figures emerging, and most importantly, Juan Carlos and the prime minister Suárez managed the transition well enough that opposition groups never really had the initiative or power to demand a more radical transition.

The dominant party in the first two elections was Suárez's party, the Union of the Democratic Centre (UCD), an alliance of people self-identifying as liberals, conservtives and social democrats. It got about 35% to the PSOE's 28% and the communists' and Alianza Popular's (later PP) 9%. Nationalist parties also got some seats in their regions.

The UCD basically existed as a manifestation of the transition process, overseeing the reforms, the writing of the constitution, etc. Its own internal political contradictions made its fragmentation inevitable, once normal politics was established. It disbanded in 1983, just after the socialists won government convincingly.

After the UCD dissolved the AP (then PP) moved from the hard right towards the centre. A lot of the UCD members and supporters moving immediately across to them. Somewhere in the 1980s Suárez also ended up leader of the Democratic and Social Centre (CDS), a vaguely progressive liberal party which polled about 10% at its peak. The CDS ended up merging into the PP.

The Communists, meanwhile, struggled to gain ground and ended up merging into the Izquierda Unida (united left) which still exists now. Some small republican groups are also members of the IU.

The Falange and the Carlists are tiny remnant parties, I believe there's at least 3 Falange groups and 2 Carlists grops, and that some of them are radical leftists now..

 

[Lone Cat]

some of Carlists became lefts?
because they were fed up with Franco regime due to succession thing? or simply because those lefts joined them sometimes ago?

 

[Arwon]

Different people, maybe? I have no idea, they're a fringe party, or fringe parties, with no relevance at all.

 

[Josu]

some of Carlists became lefts?
because they were fed up with Franco regime due to succession thing? or simply because those lefts joined them sometimes ago?

Yep, Some carlist became lefts.
I will try to explain in my poor English. It would be better for me in Spanish or Basque

During 1931 the Carlist party merged in to Comunión Tadicionalista. A new party formed by the Carlist Party, Partido Católico Nacional (National-Catholic Party) and Partido Catolico Tradicionalista (Catholic & Traditionalist).
After civil war, Comunión Tadicionalista was forced to be integrated in Falange Española Tradicionalista de las JONS, later known as Movimiento Nacional.
Some people inside Carlist Party disagreed with all these unions and during the early 60's they started a journey to a comunism close to "Titoism" (Yugoslavian Tito).

Peole who became left were integrated in Partido Carlista and people who remain in right were integrated in Comunion Tradicionalista Carlista.

However, the Partido Carlista (the lefts) where not legalized during transition, so most of members moved to some left or basque nationalist movements.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

Thank you for explaining this, Josu, and welcome to CivFanatics!