What if Nationalist Spain would have joined Axis?

[Traitorfish]

right-wing authoritarianism does not exist. The extreme right would believe in no government, while the far left would believe in Totalitarianism.

You do realise that we're talking about Europe, don't you? We interpret "right-wing" and "left-wing" differently than in the United States, so Spectra's usage is entirely correct in context, which is all the usage of an arbitrary cultural construct can be. "Libertarianism", as understood in the US, is not a philosophy that has ever carried much weight in Europe, and so has it ever warranted such grandeur as a "wing" of it's own.

 

[Karalysia]

Don't bother. There's no real point.

 

[innonimatu]

Fascism is a particular ideology that's very different from right-wing nationalism.

No, that is a personal opinion, yours and of other people, but by no means a "consensus" opinion.

The prime example, which I brought up previously, is the role of the state in the lives of the individual. Authoritarian nationalists like Franco, Pinochet, Pilsudski, Salazar and Petain strictly control the country; but not the same degree as fascists and Stalinists, who use the ruling political party as a religion.

Wrong. Franco and Salazar made a point of having school curricula which praised the ideology of the regime. Of setting up organizations clearly inspired in the Opera Nazionale Balilla and the Hitler Youth (Mocidade Portuguesa and Frente de Juventudes in Portugal and Spain).

As for the state trying to control the social aspects of their citizen's lives, that was a rising trend of the early 20th century which was not exclusive of fascist states. It was common to left and right, social democrats and democrats and liberals and fascists and communists. Check this and the documentation about the unity of purpose shown by all those those otherwise disparate political ideologies in the Berlin World Congress for Leisure Time and Recreation, in 1936. The italian Opera Nazionale Dopolavoro and the german Kraft durch Freude had its counterparts in other european countries. Spain and Portugal invested less in this at the time for one simple reason: in its societies, less economically developed than those of germany and italy, workers had scant leisure time to be controlled! But they would go on to organize also that time, when it finally came to a sizable better-off part of the population, in the 1960s.
All political ideologies of the time wanted to control people, especially their social life. They still do today, only some use more inconspicuous methods.

A Spaniard in Cold War Spain has a great deal of civil freedom, but no political freedom.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Both of those freedoms (if they can ever be separated...) were very restricted. I repeat what I said above, the sole reason why the fascist governments of Spain and Portugal at the time did not made more effort at controlling the private lives/leisure time of its populations through nation-wide organizations was because the population in general had precious little of that. And as most communities lived isolated the reach of the state was limited because it lacked the resources, the bureaucracy, which more developed countries already had built. The spanish and portuguese solution: use the catholic church and local thatchers, and the paramilitary police. "Religious education" was (in practice) mandatory, the local police had virtually unlimited power, the local priest and teacher were authority figures who consciously served the state and were in turn supported by the state, and landlords in the south of the peninsula were another power which could absolutely control whole communities. For lack of education the population followed the lead of these authorities, and they obeyed the orders from the government because they drew their power ultimately from state backing, through the threat posed by the army and police (and political police!) to any "rebels".

 

[innonimatu]

http://warandgame.blogspot.com/2009/05/spanish-military-during-world-war-ii.html

Here is an interesting link. Seems like WW2 Spain was much weaker than I imagined...

Too weak to go on the offensive meaningfully, but strong enough to cause a lot of trouble to any invader, be it the Axis or the Allies. There's a reason why Hitler chose not to invade in order to close the western entrance to the Mediterranean. There ar also several reasons for the spanish reluctance in joining the Axis, but basically they boil down to: they were afraid of the british, knew full well that they'd immediate lose their Atlantic Islands and their little pathetic colonies in Africa, and were not confident in an eventual Axis victory in the end. They figured out that they could wait and see how the war went before joining. What they wanted (another go at annexing Portugal) could wait.

 

[Traitorfish]

Wrong. Franco and Salazar made a point of having school curricula which praised the ideology of the regime. Of setting up organizations clearly inspired in the Opera Nazionale Balilla and the Hitler Youth (Mocidade Portuguesa and Frente de Juventudes in Portugal and Spain).

We use the word "para-fascist" for a reason; these groups appropriated fascisms political mechanics to some degree, that is certainly true, but there always remained stark ideological distinctions.

 

[ParkCungHee]

You make it seem like having Spain in the Axis would be more of a burden than an asset.

That is precisely what it would have been.

The country had a decent industry and manpower and should have been able to put a substantial army, airforce and navy which could have been a valuable help for the Axis in the Mediterranean and African theatre.

Spain did not have a decent Navy since the Spanish American War. It's army, manpower and industry were nearly completely wiped out in a civil war that ended months before the outbreak of the Second World War and it's Airforce was practically non-existent. Meanwhile it had hundreds of miles of coastline to guard, massive political instability and opportunity for the allies to organize partisans, and would have drawn Portugal into the Allied camp. Any single one of these issues Spain would have required German aid to deal with. Together, it would have meant Spain would need Germany to do virtually everything for it from day one.
Methinks that yes, you have been playing too much Hearts of Iron 2.

 

[Racsoviale]

I agree with a lot of the posters saying Spain would have been a burden more than a contributing member of the axis alliance. For obvious reasons a lot of the more well informed posters have already stated.

And in addition to that, I believe Franco was too good a diplomat on the international scene to be swayed by the axis. I also recall having read about the extensive infiltration of the nazi leadership, to the point that Franco knew exactly what to demand from Hitler for joining their side. Demands the nazis had no way to meet.

From the Ministry of Truth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain_in_World_War_II

Alas the page seems to be badly sourced, but I believe to have read it somewhere else as well.

Furthermore I think the costs of an even longer atlantic wall would have increased dramatically. production and costs would be enourmous considering the huge coastline of Spain.

I couldnt find any hard sources on the investments the nazis put in the defences, but this website breaks down the parts of the wall concerning Denmark, and I think it goes without saying that the resources used on just that part of the wall would be many times more in the case of fortifying Spain.

In english
http://www.atlanticwall.dk/

Just by skimming through the extensive coastal defences it seems that the inclusion of Spain would divert even more resources, which could be better used elsewhere.

 

[innonimatu]

Well, I think that the allies did consider invading Europe through Spain instead of France, but by that time they figured that it would be too much trouble, fighting the spanish and then trough the Pyrenees and all of France.

 

[LightSpectra]

Wrong. Franco and Salazar made a point of having school curricula which praised the ideology of the regime.

Yes, and? There's a bit of a difference between this and the way the Nazis and National Fascists propagandized themselves. The ruling party in totalitarian countries constitute every fiber of their constituents' being, in an Orwellian fashion. There's a grave difference between this and authoritarian countries; while the dictator may use government funds to portray himself in a positive manner, it's not brainwashing around every corner.

As for the state trying to control the social aspects of their citizen's lives, that was a rising trend of the early 20th century which was not exclusive of fascist states.

I didn't say it was. The difference between totalitarianism and authoritarianism is to what degree the party interferes with their citizens' lives.

I repeat what I said above, the sole reason why the fascist governments of Spain and Portugal at the time did not made more effort at controlling the private lives/leisure time of its populations through nation-wide organizations was because the population in general had precious little of that.

The bolded sentence is grammatically ambiguous, so I feel like I'm missing the important point of this paragraph. They "had precious little of that?" Could you possibly rephrase that?

And as most communities lived isolated the reach of the state was limited because it lacked the resources, the bureaucracy, which more developed countries already had built. The spanish and portuguese solution: use the catholic church and local thatchers, and the paramilitary police. "Religious education" was (in practice) mandatory, the local police had virtually unlimited power, the local priest and teacher were authority figures who consciously served the state and were in turn supported by the state, and landlords in the south of the peninsula were another power which could absolutely control whole communities.

The fact that it was not the party that had complete control but simply the local government is the defining difference between totalitarianism and authoritarianism!

 

[LightSpectra]

[double post.]

 

[GhostWriter16]

You do realise that we're talking about Europe, don't you? We interpret "right-wing" and "left-wing" differently than in the United States, so Spectra's usage is entirely correct in context, which is all the usage of an arbitrary cultural construct can be. "Libertarianism", as understood in the US, is not a philosophy that has ever carried much weight in Europe, and so has it ever warranted such grandeur as a "wing" of it's own.

Fair enough. I'm not even sure what the majority of Americans believe, but I do know that in American usage at least, Fascism is also left wing.

 

[Jos Ballenbak]

butterfly effects are too unpredictable to be guessed.

 

[sophie]

Fair enough. I'm not even sure what the majority of Americans believe, but I do know that in American usage at least, Fascism is also left wing.

It's all arbitrary anyways. I consider fascism to be fiscally right, socially authoritarian.

 

[Traitorfish]

Fair enough. I'm not even sure what the majority of Americans believe, but I do know that in American usage at least, Fascism is also left wing.

Well, perhaps Strasserite Nazism is, but Fascismo and Hitlerite Nazism are both essentially "radical authoritarian centralist" under the model you seem to propose.

 

[Lord Baal]

Franco was unwilling and unable to join the Axis in WWII. His country had just fought a devastating civil war, and while Franco's side had won it was far from secure in power. A large-scale mobilisation of the military away from Spain would have encouraged the Republicans who'd gone underground to rise again. It would also have encouraged Franco's own allies, the Falange, monarchists and other conservatives to attempt to seize power themselves. Similar attempts were made in other Axis nations, notably by the Iron Guard in Romania and the military in Italy; none of these nations had leaders in so precarious a position as Franco.

Disregarding the threat of internal revolt, we must look to see if Franco had anything to gain from entering the war on the side of Germany. Hitler offered to give Franco Gibraltar after a combined Spanish-German force took it, or a German force transited through Spain to assault it from the land. Neither option was particularly appealing to Franco. While retaking Gibraltar was indeed a stated goal of Franco's regime, a military strike at Gibraltar would be tantamount to sacrificing Spain's few other remaining overseas possessions, such as Tangiers and Spanish Sahara, which would almost certainly be seized by the British in retaliation.

The only thing that may have made the loss of these territories worthwhile - or potentially avoidable - to Franco would be the acquisition of North African territory from Vichy France. But even a theoretically neutral and disarmed Vichy regime was still a more important - and stronger - ally for Germany than Spain, so Hitler was unwilling to pressure Petain into relinquishing such territory, even if the Marshal would have gone along with it - and even a traitor and French Nazi like Petain's Prime Minister, Laval, would have balked at such concessions, so it's doubtful Petain would have agreed.

The most important reason for Franco to do what Hitler asked was fear. It had worked wonders on regimes that disliked Germany before, such as Romania, Czechoslovakia and Sweden, all of which gave in to Nazi demands to some extent. But Spain was protected by its previous good relations with the Axis, making an attack on Franco by Germany shockingly difficult to countenance to the general public. It was also protected by the Pyrenees, making an invasion of its territory problematic. This would also have put Germany's other allies, such as Italy and Hungary, on edge. They'd be unlikely to assist Germany if it pulled anything like an invasion of Spain. And while Finland may have joined Germany in attacking the USSR out of fear of the latter, Spain had no similar reason to fear its neighbours.

In short, there were no good reasons for Spain to enter the war on the side of the Axis, and plenty of good reasons not to. An interesting sign of the dire straits that Spain was in at this time can be seen by Franco's demands in exchange for an attack on Gibraltar. He demanded Gibraltar itself be returned to Spain - Hitler ad no problem with this - roughly half of French Morocco - Hitler had a definite problem with this - and huge amounts of grain. Hitler couldn't provide this last if he'd wanted to, and it was the demand Franco was least willing to back down on. If he wanted to stay in power he needed to feed his people, and three years of civil war had devastated his country - never rich to begin with - to the point that he couldn't do it without help. The Spanish people were hungry as neutrals. They'd have starved as belligerents.

Then there's the fact the Abwehr, a haven of military resistance to the Nazis, was funneling Franco information that made it clear Germany would lose the war anyway, but this is a non-issue. Even without Kanaris's information, there was simply no chance in hell that Franco would join the war on Germany's side. There was a greater chance of him entering on the Allied side towards the end of it, but Spain was still too weak and didn't have enough to gain from such an alliance.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Fair enough. I'm not even sure what the majority of Americans believe, but I do know that in American usage at least, Fascism is also left wing.

That's highly debated and generally a politically motivated definition. Basically, the right wing doesn't want fascism to be included amongst their half of the spectrum (and, I guess, the left wing doesn't either). In reality, it's all but impossible to break things down into left vs. right. For example, in the United States, most anarchist and communist movements tend to ally with each other. Therefore, anarchism should be left wing, not right wing. Libertarianism (which is very moderate, but on the path of anarchism) tends to ally itself with the right wing because of attempts to protect property rights. In the end, none of it makes sense. But you can't put fascism definitively in the left wing (especially because much of its ideology favors conservative interests).

BTW, the debate about whether Falangist Spain was fascist is an interesting discussion, but certainly tangential to the issue. Hitler supported Franco in Spain. The assumption many probably made at the time is that Franco would return the favor. The question here is what would have happened if he had. IMO, it wouldn't have helped much. It would have created a Spanish front over Gibralter, but, as long as the British maintained it, not much else would change (the vital issue was keeping Egypt, actual conquest in Spain would be unimportant).

 

[innonimatu]

It would have created a Spanish front over Gibralter, but, as long as the British maintained it, not much else would change (the vital issue was keeping Egypt, actual conquest in Spain would be unimportant).

In the event of a spanish-german alliance the british had no chance whatsoever of retaining Gibraltar against a determined siege. It had very good fortifications, but it's tiny. It's not even in the best position to close the straits - the british chose to keep it after conquest because it was the best defensible position in the area, not the best to control shipping. A spanish-german alliance would be able to close the western entrance to the Mediterranean without even taking Gibraltar, british resistance there would be a drain to the Royal Navy (risking ships in supplying a garrison).

 

[rollo1066]

I don't think it would have substantially changed the result of the war. It probably would have brought about Franco's fall when the Allies won. I also don't think that an Axis victory would have helped Spain much if any. Probably this is why Spain stayed out of WWII.

 

[Lord Baal]

In the event of a spanish-german alliance the british had no chance whatsoever of retaining Gibraltar against a determined siege. It had very good fortifications, but it's tiny. It's not even in the best position to close the straits - the british chose to keep it after conquest because it was the best defensible position in the area, not the best to control shipping. A spanish-german alliance would be able to close the western entrance to the Mediterranean without even taking Gibraltar, british resistance there would be a drain to the Royal Navy (risking ships in supplying a garrison).

Agreed on all points. Even drained though, the Royal Navy was still strong enough to keep the Straits open.

 

[Arwon]

I've posted on this before, I'll repost as it adds an interior and post-war dimension to complement the strategic considerations posted above (with which I do not disagree).

Spain wasn't big enough to make a difference to the overall outcome of the war, and given that it was desperately poor, racked with social strife and mostly pretty much pre-industrial it just wasn't in a position to have any impact. The most interesting facet of the question, I think, is the post-war.

Spain entering the war would have led to a temporary exchange of territory between the UK and Spain, as Spain and Germany take Gibraltar whilst the allies take the Canary Islands. The loss of Gibraltar might have made the North African campaign and Mediterranean naval war more difficult, but not significantly so.

Then we get to the end of the war. There's a case for Spain being a weak underbelly into Europe compared to France, with a weak Spain becoming a drain on Axis resources and an eventual path into France for the allies. So Spain's entry could have possibly changed the way D-Day and subsequent events unfolded, but I suspect the terrain is too difficult and Iberia too far away for such an alternative European landing to make much sense. However a landing in Catalonia could have been a counterpart to the landing in Italy... the way into France is easier on that side of the peninsula, I think.

There's no telling what the consequences of entering the war would have been for the Franquist regime itself. Maybe it would survive the war, but given that they would have inevitably lost, there could have been a coup against Franco like what happened in Italy against Mussolini.

What happens when Germany loses? Spain entering the war would have gotten the regime irrevocably identified with fascism, essentially confirming the widely held view that the Civil War was a rehearsal of WW2, and the view propagated by the Republicans that the Franquists were pure fascism... and I can't see the allies allowing Franco's regime to remain in power for this reason alone. Even though the war may have conceivably ended with Germany defeated but Spain not being invaded, I'd assume there'd be a surrender and occupation.

Assuming Franco is actually defeated and removed, rather than ignored and left in power after an armistice, the rest of Western Europe becomes a pretty good guide as to what happens next. Basically, the post-war would probably have been similar to the situation in France or Italy - strong left-wing parties, fascist parties (the Falange) banned, some regime elements becoming rehabilitated as conservative patriotic or Christian democratic parrties. However, given the terrible state of the country, I suspect that politics in a post-war Marshall Plan-receiving Spain would have been less smoothly democratic than in other West European countries: maybe following something closer to Latin America's development, more authoritarianism, greater risk of social revolution, etcetera. The social cleavages that played such a role in the Civil War weren't really healed, the country was still very poor and unindustrialised, and dominated by extremely conservative and elitist aristocrats and churchmen.

There's every chance that independent Basque and/or Catalan states may have resulted in the ensuing mess, given that these parties and movements would have been reliable, relatively conservative, non-communist anti-fascists. As for the rest of the country, the moderate conservative analogue to the Christian Democrats in Germany, or the French MRP, would probably have to be people like CEDA - the Catholic centre-right umbrella party from before the war, who backed the Franquists in the civil war but before that were relatively democratically minded. Maybe they would re-emerge as something prefiguring the modern Partido Popular, as eventually happened after Franco died. Maybe former CEDA head José María Gil Robles returns from exile and becomes the Spanish Konrad Adenauer.

Monarchy or republic? Open question, could have gone either way as in Italy.

Incidentally, while we're on the subject, I also wrote in some detail in a different thread about the possibilities of a Repbulican Spain in the same era.