Españoles en Vietnam: Franco's last war.

1. The beginning.
I've been thinking about this small experiment for the last two weeks, and finally, after hesitating a bit, here you have this first bit of a not to lengthy exploration of this what if (what if Franco had joined the USA in Vietnam). I hope it's not too ASB.


1. The beginning.

When Lyndon Baines Johnson began his search for allies after the Gulf of Tonkin incident, one of the of most improvable and, at the same time, most likely, was Francisco Franco, who, by then, had been directing the fate of Spain for the last twenty nine years with the help of his wits, cunning and "the Grace of God".

Known for his hatred towards anything that smelled to Communism, Franco answered with his habitual calm to the first request made by the White House, pointing out at the troubles that fighting a guerrilla war meant. However, in spite of his reluctance to take part in the brewing conflict, when Johnson pressed Franco again asking him to contribute a military contingent to the war effort, the Spanish dictator, that had resisted Hitler's charm in Hendaya, gave in (1). Perhaps the influence of his Minister of the Army, General Muñoz Grandes (2), and his pro-US stance played some role in Franco's final decision. Perhaps it was Franco's hatred towards Communism. Whatever the cause, by joining Johnson, Franco settled his fate.

Muñoz Grandes had close contacts with the US military, and had negotiated agreements with Washington. He saw Spanish participation in the war as an opportunity to further strengthen ties with the United States. But Franco was even more cautious in committing himself to the US cause than he was about Hitler's. In the end, he finally decided to send a medical team which were destined to the Truong Cong Dinh hospital in the Go Gong district, about 45 kilometers from the capital, Saigon (3).

It was late August 1965 (4) when the first Spanish medical team arrived to Go Cong, in the area of the IV Corps Tactical Zone (IV CTZ), hardly a few days after the end of Operation Starlite, the first US major action in Vietnam. They were to be followed, in October, by twenty-five Army engineers. Based at My Tho, the capital of Dinh Toung Province, these engineers were engaged in reconstruction projects, such as road and bridge building. The first Spanish combat troops were to arrive later on (December 11th, 1965, just six days after Operation Tiger Hound began to interdict the flow of supplies through the Ho Chi Minh Trail).



(1) Here you have the POD.
(2) The first commander of the Blue Division in Russia.
(3) That's true. From 1966 to 1971 nearly 100 Spaniards worked at the hospital of Go Gong, even if the activities of those soldiers were kept under secret and the first book about them was not published in Spain until 2006.
(4) IOTL, this event took place in September 1966.
 
Fascistic Spain aiding the Vietnam War effort against the Vietcong? That cannot be good, considering that it would end providing ammo to Soviet and North Vietnam propaganda and to the idea that anti-communism is the same as pro-fascism.
 
Fascistic Spain aiding the Vietnam War effort against the Vietcong? That cannot be good, considering that it would end providing ammo to Soviet and North Vietnam propaganda and to the idea that anti-communism is the same as pro-fascism.

Yes, when good old LBJ contacted Franco, I wondered what he was thinking by then. Sometimes I wonder, too, if the Spanish medical mission to 'Nam was kept so secret because of Franco's fears or LBJ's ones...

Now Paraguay needs to send troops to Vietnam as well... :p

A pity that Trujillo was done by then. Franco, Salazar, Stroessner and him would have made a wonderful pack :p

In other words, just like OTL?:p

x'D

Franco, my dear, I don't give a 'Nam.

(Not a good joke. But this is literally the only context in which it can exist.)

Never mind, I like that joke!

Ha, suspect they're going to be more on the Korea, Thailand end than the Australian side of the COIN spectrum.

That's a good question. Bearing in mind the COIN experience that Spain had (Morocco, mainly), I'm still thinking about what will they do there...
 
Last edited:
This surely gives even worse reputation for Vietnam War. Fascist nation as ally. Altough LBJ asked help of Spain even in OTL but Franco refused. Now Franco is ally so this not mean good anyone.
 
This surely gives even worse reputation for Vietnam War. Fascist nation as ally. Altough LBJ asked help of Spain even in OTL but Franco refused. Now Franco is ally so this not mean good anyone.

Yes, it may not be too good about PR matters. Well, if Ike manage to survive hugging Franco in front of the cameras, LBJ can cope with Vietnam, Franco and the negative comments from the press for a while.

I must confess I'm most interested in the side-effects in Spain about this intervention...;)
 
This surely gives even worse reputation for Vietnam War. Fascist nation as ally. Altough LBJ asked help of Spain even in OTL but Franco refused. Now Franco is ally so this not mean good anyone.

To paraphrase an introduction to the Penguin Books edition of "1984", The Free World was not free in the political sense or the sense of liberty. It was only free from Communism.
 

ATP45

Banned
This surely gives even worse reputation for Vietnam War. Fascist nation as ally. Altough LBJ asked help of Spain even in OTL but Franco refused. Now Franco is ally so this not mean good anyone.
Franco had fascist coworkers,but was not fascist himself.He was catholic - and in Vietnam catholics was prosecuted by communists.Anyway,reds cry about fascist anyway,so why bother? Moreover - communist kill more than 100 millions,when Mussolini and other fascist less than million.Hitler was socialist,not fascist.
 
Franco had fascist coworkers,but was not fascist himself.He was catholic - and in Vietnam catholics was prosecuted by communists.Anyway,reds cry about fascist anyway,so why bother? Moreover - communist kill more than 100 millions,when Mussolini and other fascist less than million.Hitler was socialist,not fascist.

The Orwellianism is at play here. No, no. Hitler was very much a fascist. Among the many persecuted groups by the Nazis were socialists, communists and the left wing. Nazism viewed socialism as "Judeo-Bolshevism", and reviled it. Nazism hated the idea of the rights of the individual, despite the fact that Marxists never actually defended the rights of the individual while promoting the lie to themselves and their societies that they were. Nazism arose out of an authoritarian German traditionalism, terrified and in total revulsion of liberalism, socialism, and communism. Franco arose out of an authoritarian Spanish traditionalism, equally terrified, and enforcing the State over everything with no illusion of democracy or freedom. Franco was very much in the fascist mold, and if it walks, talks and looks like a duck, it may be a platypus, but I'm gonna venture it is probably a duck. The argument is not whether Franco was a fascist, and certainly not if Hitler was a fascist. You can split hairs on Franco, but the duck quacks. The argument I will make is that all totalitarianism, regardless of what it names itself or professes to believe, is the same. The shades and nuances are a red herring and ignoring the forest for the trees, because the issue is totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is so radical, such that totalitarianism is all the same.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
Franco had fascist coworkers,but was not fascist himself.He was catholic - and in Vietnam catholics was prosecuted by communists.Anyway,reds cry about fascist anyway,so why bother? Moreover - communist kill more than 100 millions,when Mussolini and other fascist less than million.Hitler was socialist,not fascist.
Having the word socialist in your party name does not mean you are socialist.
 
Having the word socialist in your party name does not mean you are socialist.

There were many nuances to this and different opinions in the Nazi party, but this was a party that basically rejected socialism as Judaism, reviled the Enlightenment and liberal democracy, reviled individualism, while promoting the idea that they were an violently anti-socialist, non-socialist "socialism", which rejected Christianity as a Jewish religion and a distortion while promoting the "true" Germanic Jesus, with blond hair and blue eyes depending on the person with that idea, and all sorts of things like that. If your argument is that Nazism is fucked in the head six ways to Sunday, no one will disagree. But it was fascist. If you disagree with that, I'm sorry, but you are promoting a form of revisionism which no mainstream historian believes, based on anti-Marxism taken to the absurd, and possibly as a mental defense of personal political opinion where you are throwing up a gigantic wall against the idea that Nazism (an extremist, totalitarian, far right wing ideology) was actually anywhere on the right wing. Marxism is bad enough. It does not need to be thought that the Nazis were Marxists, especially when their entire rise was based on anti-Marxism, and their goal was to kill all Marxists and destroy Marxism. The easy historic benchmark is that the more moderate Nazis were the Strasserists, whom Hitler kicked out of the party because he was the leader of the right wing faction of an already right wing party.

There is a problem in historiography where enough time passes, and it all becomes like it never really happened. It's a fairy tale, a story, a movie no more real to the person who learns it and holds the information over the years than any form of fiction in terms of how it feels. And then it is open to revisionism as if it were some story where a new author could put a new spin on it. But I cannot allow that to stand. It ignores the context and the reality of the times, and all the blatant reality that was so bold, it was like breathing air to understand it as truth.
 
Last edited:
How about the fact that Nazi Germany had an extremely left wing economic policy?

Only if active collusion with major corporate players, crushing organized labor, and enslaving people in occupied territories counts as left wing.

So not at all really.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
How about the fact that Nazi Germany had an extremely left wing economic policy?
I don't know much about Nazi economics, but I think the only "left-wing" part about it was the nationalization of industry, government intervention in economy, and protectionism, and those policies are not exclusive to socialism.
 
Only if active collusion with major corporate players, crushing organized labor, and enslaving people in occupied territories counts as left wing.

So not at all really.
They also expanded the German welfare state (at least until they started losing the war), crushing small business and banks and the fact that the entire economy ran on state spending.
Enslaving people?
Why they're subhumans and thus no different from machines, both used to improve the life of the German Proletariat.
Okay the Nazis of OTL didn't use rhetoric like that but if the Strasserites took power that's what it would have sounded like.
Also corporatism is just Stalinist economics with some captislism theatre (but that's a story for another day)
 
I don't know much about Nazi economics, but I think the only "left-wing" part about it was the nationalization of industry, government intervention in economy, and protectionism, and those policies are not exclusive to socialism.
Don't forget expanding the welfare state (for Aryans)
 
Top