Republican Victory in Spanish Civil War

Arctofire

Banned
Not when the country is split apart and worn out from 4 years of continuous war.

Blitzkreig will not work on Spain, due to the heavy natural defence that the Pyrenees give the country. Italy, ignoring for a second its terrible results in the war when their objectives were in comparison far easier, would have to launch a full scale naval invasion from Sardinia, which would pose a major challenge. With Greece they were able to take out Albania first, but with Spain it would be much more difficult because there is no weak country they can just invade and launch a land invasion of.

Yes, Spain will be tired, but if they have won the war, which will be possible by early intervention by the navy, the country will be less damaged as in OTL. There would also still be a strong will to fight fascism a second time if they have beaten it a first, and Germany does not factor Spain into their plans. Hitler's priority was Russia, and he was even prepared to forget about Britain for this, which poses far more of a threat then a war damaged Spain. I think they either wouldn't bother, or attempt to invade, run into serious difficulty, and then postpone it or abandon it entirely.
 
The people who supported the nationalists were very few in number, virtually none of the working class.

Ok. Wow. That is quite the claim. Geographically and statistically, yes, the Republicans at the outset of the war numbered more people in their territory than the Nationalists. But that doesn't tell the whole story. People supported both sides for lots of reasons, including just literally being in a Nationalist or Republican area when the war broke out. It is nowhere near as clear cut as that.

Despite the result of the 1936 elections being pretty neck to neck, the establishment will 'always' have a significant advantage against the underdog. The campaign expenditure for the nationalists was 5 times more than the Republicans, and yet the Popular Front still won. Most people voting Nationalist did so sub-consciously and in the spur of the moment, and would most definitely have withdrawn any support they'd had for them when they rounded up, tortured, and shot civilians as well as seeking to end democracy. Nationalist soldiers in most cases fought because they didn't have a choice.

This is really loaded analysis. You ignore the religious, the Carlists, the fervently anti-socialist, the traditional, and all sorts of other motivations for joining the Nationalist cause. You can't in good faith claim that all these people were tricked or duped into doing what they were doing, it just isn't that simple. Besides, equating the election with support in the Civil War isn't a good comparison - a decision to vote and a decision to take up arms are very different. Its worth pointing out that many on the Republican side were horrified by the outrages of the militia and others in desecrating churches, shooting political enemies, etc. And a good deal of Republican soldiers were conscripts, especially as the war went on.


An election is also just snapshot of actual public opinion, and only around 70% of the population voted at all. It is similar to modern elections, why do people so often vote against what is in their best interests by voting Conservative in Britain for example? It's because lots of people aren't invested in politics, and these tend to be the people who either don't vote, or vote how they are told to vote by the establishment.

I really don't think you can equate this with voting in the present day UK, and to be honest your understanding of why people vote Conservative [they are stupid or tricked or both] is pretty insulting. People vote for all sorts of reasons, and popular conservatism has been a major part of modern Britain. Think about this - the Conservative Party was in power for the majority of Britain's c20th during a period where up to the 1980s the vast majority of the population described themselves as working-class and to vote Conservative would have been, in your analysis, 'against their best interests'. Do you really think that for the majority of elections in British history the Conservatives have simply been able to dupe people, or is it more likely that some working-class people were genuinely won over to the cause?

However, military coups and the threat of dictatorship almost always unite the populace overwhelmingly on the side of democracy.

OP - the very Civil War you are talking about disproves that statement. This is the conflict that gave us the very term ''Fifth Column'' the idea that a place behind your own lines, in this case Madrid, would harbor a significant number of the populace actively prepared to overthrow your regime. Yes it was a propaganda ploy by the Nationalists, but contemporary accounts talk of plenty of pro-Nationalist groups behind Republican lines in Madrid, Valencia, and even Barcelona.


During the July Days, there was major conflict between the right wing Republican government and the grassroots CNT, UGT, and POUM. Barcelona more than anywhere had completely abolished capitalism, and destroying the communes and re-asserting government and capitalist control greatly demoralised the Republican cause. The working classes overwhelmingly supported the CNT and collectives, and had the POUM managed to persuade the CNT, UGT, PSOE left, and the Socialist and Libertarian Youth organisations, they would have had complete support from the populace, who wanted to completely do away with capitalism to a greater or lesser extent depending on area.

But you haven't answered by basic question of HOW. Yes, if the POUM could get every other major left-wing faction to support them they could gather a united front [although this would mean compromising their own ideology as part of a coalition] but that is like saying that if Bernie Sanders had been able to get every faction of the Democratic Party behind him he would have won the primary. Yes, of course he would, but the question again remains HOW would he do that, particularly as OTL many factions had no interest in supporting his agenda as it stood. This is before you even tackle how a POUM left-coalition would take power from the current Republican Government. Uprising? Coup? Further dividing the fragile defence of the Republic?

The lack of arms from the Soviet Union would be a disadvantage yes, but the USSR in doing that made it conditional on essentially maintaining capitalism in Spain. Weapons were withdrawn from the populace post 1937 and only given out to the official Republican army. When numerous leftists have been tortured and executed by the side you are fighting for, what difference does it make who's side you're on if they're both the same? This is the conclusion many made and it led to many desertions.

If the Communist International refused to help the Spanish, they would be exposed and Stalin would be considered a traitor to the revolution. If initially International Brigades are set up, I doubt the whole thing would just stop if the Kremlin withdrew its support, rather support for the Kremlin would dwindle.

Just to be clear we are talking about 700 tanks, 300 armored cars, 500,000 rifles, 29 tonnes of ammo, etc etc. This isn't a disadvantage, its a disaster. 1000 qualified and trained pilots, for example, and the tutors to train more as well as the c250 planes they flew. That basic stat alone should terrify you, it makes the Nationalist advantage in the air go from ''superior'' to ''overwhelming''. The Condor Legions terror bombing can go completely unchecked, shattering Republican Morale.

You are misunderstanding my post. Without the Comintern supporting the war effort, which won't happen if the POUM purge the PCE from their side, their WILL BE NO INTERNATIONAL BRIGADES. The entire thing was a Communist project. You'll get a trickle of volunteers coming anyway, but nothing like the organized flood of recruits, trained officers, and prestige.

Also don't underestimate how easy it would be for Stalin to wash his hands of Spain and still retain goodwill on the International stage among left-wing groups. Communist Parties across Europe basically were run from Moscow in this period - the PCF, much bigger than its Spanish counterpart, willingly endorsed the Stalinist line in all matters. Stalin can wring his hands and say ''Well, isn't it awful. We're abiding by the rules of the Non-Intervention committee like Britain and France and we stand together denouncing the aggression of Italy and Germany in killing civilians in Spain. I'm sure the small shipment of medical supplies we sent in accordance with the non-intervention rules will help and shows our solidarity with Spain's workers. Internally, he can point to the POUM and say 'See, this is why you can't trust Trotskyists and Anarchists. Instead of putting all their efforts into fighting the rebels they are busy purging the small and inoffensive PCE that was trying to fight by their side'. There will be a little backlash internationally for sure, but not anywhere near what you think, and that still doesn't make up for all that lovely equipment from Russia not coming to your POUM.

If the Navy swoops in at the start of the war to destroy the Moorish invasion, then the rest of the war would have been much easier for the Republicans, as they really only have to deal with Castile and western Spain, which is isolated and surrounded. If the POUM had followed the approach of the PCE with a centralised army, but fought the war on an anti-capitalist basis, that would have bolstered morale considerably. They also could have produced their own ammunition factories in Spain, rather than the USSR making them entirely dependent on their aid.

I mean, yes, this is often one of the ways it is argued the Republic could have won, but nothing in your scenario suggests why the navy is more active ITTL, nor deals with the bigger problems of intervening with the Army of Africa's transfer - such as the British naval ships that actively shielded the nationalist vessels from Republican fire at several points.

The key problem here is that it really wasn't insufficient will to fight that caused the Republican defeat. There were a lot of problems - strategic, logistical, international, and, yes, political - that your scenario doesn't address.
 

Arctofire

Banned
This is really loaded analysis. You ignore the religious, the Carlists, the fervently anti-socialist, the traditional, and all sorts of other motivations for joining the Nationalist cause. You can't in good faith claim that all these people were tricked or duped into doing what they were doing, it just isn't that simple. Besides, equating the election with support in the Civil War isn't a good comparison - a decision to vote and a decision to take up arms are very different. Its worth pointing out that many on the Republican side were horrified by the outrages of the militia and others in desecrating churches, shooting political enemies, etc. And a good deal of Republican soldiers were conscripts, especially as the war went on.

Of course there were opponents of the socialists in the civil war, or else there wouldn't have been a civil war. What I am saying is that it was only the petite bourgeoisie, church, capitalists, and some brainwashed peasants who genuinely supported the Nationalists. The rest were manipulated into voting for the nationalists, like what is always the case under capitalist democracy, and you hit the nail right on the head when you said 'there is a difference between supporting a cause and taking up arms for it.' Most Nationalist soldiers were just fighting for survival and trying not to get killed, I think if the tide had turned they would have mutinied.

The nature of the Popular Front's votes were more conscious, because it takes organisation and courage to vote for something which goes 'against' the status quo. Therefore, generally votes for the left will always be more significant than votes for the right, especially since the nationalist campaign had 5 times more campaign money. It takes real popular will to still get more votes, however small a margin, against a campaign which is vastly larger and better funded than your own.

And by the way, about that remark regarding the Conservative Party, may I remind you of some basic facts:

During the Post-War Era of 1945 to 1979, the Conservatives was vastly more compassionate and socially minded than today. They didn't really differ from Labour in any major way, as both supported the Keynesian consensus.

In 1983, Margaret Thatcher was able to use the Falklands war as a temporary boost to her popularity, as well the split in Labour being disastrous. In 1987 the economy was doing fairly well and Labour wasn't offering much of an alternative to Thatcherite policies. It was the same in 1992, and also due to the fact that Kinnock had completely neglected the Anti-Poll Tax Campaign and built no support amongst the electorate. Bear in mind that in all of these instances, the Murdoch owned press had utterly denounced Labour, and wrote headline after headline condemning and slandering them.

You have to look at what is behind those electoral results. Working class people who vote Conservative will usually be doing so on a spur of the moment whim based on their insecurities and 'better the devil you know' mentality. But this is another discussion.
 
What I am saying is that it was only the petite bourgeoisie, church, capitalists, and some brainwashed peasants who genuinely supported the Nationalists.

And I'm asking you for evidence to back this up. This is a huge assertion without evidence. Here are a few that might help prove it isn't so black and white.

Hundreds of thousands of Spaniards served on both sides of the Civil War and the majority of both Republican and Nationalist fighters were conscripts. [James Matthews- Reluctant Warriors, 1-3]

One of the biggest mobilizing factors for the Nationalist side was the appeal of the church to tens of thousands of ordinary Spaniards. This wasn't part of the initial rising propaganda, but instead stemmed from the fear of many Catholics, supported by the Church authorities, that a radical left Republic would mean the slaughter of the faithful. [Gabriele Ranzato - The Spanish Civil War, 72-75]

As many Spaniards had deep ideological problems with the liberal Republic of 1931-1936 as supported it, and this was further deepened by the war. [Michael Seidman - The Victorious Counterrevolution, 17]

And by the way, about that remark regarding the Conservative Party, may I remind you of some basic facts:

During the Post-War Era of 1945 to 1979, the Conservatives was vastly more compassionate and socially minded than today. They didn't really differ from Labour in any major way, as both supported the Keynesian consensus.

As for this, I don't know what to say. You can only remind people of basic facts if you have them right. Which you don't. Yes, both Parties roughly supported a post-war consensus of Keynesianism. But that is to gloss over the thousands of differences in defense policy, industrial relations, spending, taxation, school policy, women's and gay rights, Northern Irish policy, etc, that separated the two and had major appeal for voters.

Take Ted Heath's bitter 'Who Governs Britain?' election gambit after trying to wrestle more control back from the Trade Unions. There voters had a clear choice between parties with very different industrial relations policies in 1974. Or take the Labour-SDP split in 1981 which was over all sorts of important policy differences that mattered to voters.

You have to look at what is behind those electoral results. Working class people who vote Conservative will usually be doing so on a spur of the moment whim based on their insecurities and 'better the devil you know' mentality. But this is another discussion.

To say something like this really requires evidence. Historian Martin Pugh argues that the Conservative ability to gain and hold working-class votes depends on their repeated, successful, targeting 'of working-class aspirations to a higher status and standard of life'. A clear appeal to the judgement of voters, not spur of the moment idiocy as you seem to suggest.

I'm not meaning to be rude, but history is about evidence. You've made some pretty extreme claims and I'm asking you to back them up with actual evidence. If you can't then we're just talking ideological polemic.
 

Arctofire

Banned
And I'm asking you for evidence to back this up. This is a huge assertion without evidence. Here are a few that might help prove it isn't so black and white.

Hundreds of thousands of Spaniards served on both sides of the Civil War and the majority of both Republican and Nationalist fighters were conscripts. [James Matthews- Reluctant Warriors, 1-3]

One of the biggest mobilizing factors for the Nationalist side was the appeal of the church to tens of thousands of ordinary Spaniards. This wasn't part of the initial rising propaganda, but instead stemmed from the fear of many Catholics, supported by the Church authorities, that a radical left Republic would mean the slaughter of the faithful. [Gabriele Ranzato - The Spanish Civil War, 72-75]

As many Spaniards had deep ideological problems with the liberal Republic of 1931-1936 as supported it, and this was further deepened by the war. [Michael Seidman - The Victorious Counterrevolution, 17]



As for this, I don't know what to say. You can only remind people of basic facts if you have them right. Which you don't. Yes, both Parties roughly supported a post-war consensus of Keynesianism. But that is to gloss over the thousands of differences in defense policy, industrial relations, spending, taxation, school policy, women's and gay rights, Northern Irish policy, etc, that separated the two and had major appeal for voters.

Take Ted Heath's bitter 'Who Governs Britain?' election gambit after trying to wrestle more control back from the Trade Unions. There voters had a clear choice between parties with very different industrial relations policies in 1974. Or take the Labour-SDP split in 1981 which was over all sorts of important policy differences that mattered to voters.



To say something like this really requires evidence. Historian Martin Pugh argues that the Conservative ability to gain and hold working-class votes depends on their repeated, successful, targeting 'of working-class aspirations to a higher status and standard of life'. A clear appeal to the judgement of voters, not spur of the moment idiocy as you seem to suggest.

I'm not meaning to be rude, but history is about evidence. You've made some pretty extreme claims and I'm asking you to back them up with actual evidence. If you can't then we're just talking ideological polemic.

May I point out that one of your quotes said tens of thousands, of a country which population at the time was around 20 million.

It's difficult to give evidence because usually when areas fell under either side's control, they would fight in the army of that side to avoid being killed. But I base my opinion on these facts, that 1) leftist parties are always at a disadvantage in the establishment, so getting a plurality of votes shows major organisational strength and popular support, and 2) usually when military coups happen which threaten democracy, the entire country is united in its defence, even people who are usually conservative. This happened in Russia in 1917, and in Germany in 1920.

What I meant was that working class people who voted Tory back in the post war period weren't going to get toxic neoliberalism and austerity like they would now. Yes they had differences, but they had economic policies that did not run completely counter to workers interests, unlike the Tory party post 1979.
 

Arctofire

Banned
I mean, yes, this is often one of the ways it is argued the Republic could have won, but nothing in your scenario suggests why the navy is more active ITTL, nor deals with the bigger problems of intervening with the Army of Africa's transfer - such as the British naval ships that actively shielded the nationalist vessels from Republican fire at several points.

The key problem here is that it really wasn't insufficient will to fight that caused the Republican defeat. There were a lot of problems - strategic, logistical, international, and, yes, political - that your scenario doesn't address.

You know, in OTL, the PCE had a major influence on the Republican government. They had key posts in Caballero's government, managed to completely marginalise the POUM, and then use their influence to get rid of Cabellero and replace him with a more moderate leader, Juan Negrin. What if in this timeline the roles were reversed, the POUM was more powerful than the PCE? They immediately lobbied the government against the naval policy, sent pamphlets immediately to the sailors saying that they must fight on, and that Prieto, the naval officer, had betrayed the Failed Rising of 1934, and was not deserving of the sacrifice made by ordinary workers? Then, perhaps Prieto would have been sacked if the POUM had got the CNT and PSOE left on its side, campaigning for a bold naval policy, and fighting on a socialist basis?
 
I just stumbled upon this thread and I tend to agree with Reydan that the radical Trotskyist fringe of the popular front wouldn’t have managed to garner the political clout required to wipe out Stalinist and moderate elements in the popular front. Don’t forget the immense support for the Catholic Church in Spain at the time who would fear a Trotskyist crusade. In my opinion, the popular front’s best bet is to pivot more to the Center to court Centre- Right voters (including many in the Catholic Church) and perhaps garner broader support from the Western Powers. Simply put, I get the feeling that Aiden Todd is simply going off of vague patterns occurring in countries that had wildly different economic, political, and cultural circumstances than early twentieth century Spain did.
 

Anchises

Banned
Blitzkreig will not work on Spain, due to the heavy natural defence that the Pyrenees give the country. Italy, ignoring for a second its terrible results in the war when their objectives were in comparison far easier, would have to launch a full scale naval invasion from Sardinia, which would pose a major challenge. With Greece they were able to take out Albania first, but with Spain it would be much more difficult because there is no weak country they can just invade and launch a land invasion of.

Yes, Spain will be tired, but if they have won the war, which will be possible by early intervention by the navy, the country will be less damaged as in OTL. There would also still be a strong will to fight fascism a second time if they have beaten it a first, and Germany does not factor Spain into their plans. Hitler's priority was Russia, and he was even prepared to forget about Britain for this, which poses far more of a threat then a war damaged Spain. I think they either wouldn't bother, or attempt to invade, run into serious difficulty, and then postpone it or abandon it entirely.

Germany doesn't need to wage a Blitzkrieg. Spain is exhausted, especially if the Republicans win. The professional military probably is completely shattered because they mostly supported the Nationalists.

The Wehrmacht needs time after Fall Rot, to digest its own success. So a Spanish campaign is probably going to happen in 1941.

In the meantime the Luftwaffe probably flattens the Spanish infrastructure and expect some terror bombing against Madrid and other cities.

I am not sure about Italy's capabilities but I think naval landings or at least coastal shellings in support of the German invasion might be a possibility.

When the Germans finally invade, there will be a ton of nationalist partisans and other possible Hiwis willing to support the Germans. The post war Spanish state will be far from stable. Good luck mustering the manpower, resolve and war material to stop the Germans.

Would Spain be able to sustain thousands of casualties against far superior Germans? They are outgunned, the Germans have superior training and numbers and a significant part of Spain's population supports the Fascists.

So with the possibility of Italian naval landings, how long could Spain sustain a defense?


The interesting question here is:

How many French army units could flee into Spain relatively intact? How many units could Britain send? And how much British Lend and Lease would Spain recieve?

With British and French support (meaning boots on the ground) Spain might be able to mount a credible defence. Without it Spain is going to crumble easily.
 

Arctofire

Banned
Germany doesn't need to wage a Blitzkrieg. Spain is exhausted, especially if the Republicans win. The professional military probably is completely shattered because they mostly supported the Nationalists.

The Wehrmacht needs time after Fall Rot, to digest its own success. So a Spanish campaign is probably going to happen in 1941.

In the meantime the Luftwaffe probably flattens the Spanish infrastructure and expect some terror bombing against Madrid and other cities.

I am not sure about Italy's capabilities but I think naval landings or at least coastal shellings in support of the German invasion might be a possibility.

When the Germans finally invade, there will be a ton of nationalist partisans and other possible Hiwis willing to support the Germans. The post war Spanish state will be far from stable. Good luck mustering the manpower, resolve and war material to stop the Germans.

Would Spain be able to sustain thousands of casualties against far superior Germans? They are outgunned, the Germans have superior training and numbers and a significant part of Spain's population supports the Fascists.

So with the possibility of Italian naval landings, how long could Spain sustain a defense?


The interesting question here is:

How many French army units could flee into Spain relatively intact? How many units could Britain send? And how much British Lend and Lease would Spain recieve?

With British and French support (meaning boots on the ground) Spain might be able to mount a credible defence. Without it Spain is going to crumble easily.

What if they launched a guerrilla campaign up in the mountains using hit and run tactics? Like the Viet Cong?
 

Anchises

Banned
What if they launched a guerrilla campaign up in the mountains using hit and run tactics? Like the Viet Cong?

The Republicans certainly have some options that allow effective resistance against the Germans.

But the Germans are reducing Spanish cities to smoldering ruins, increasingly larger Nationalist guerilla groups roam the countryside, the economy is entering free fall and the Wehrmacht is massing a scary army along the border. Oh and the Soviets won't lift a finger because they are the German's buddy now appearantly.

Taking all of this into account I think Republican Spain would quickly collapse without serious British and French support.

A Spain after a Civil War will be as burned out as the states after WW1. Another mighty enemy might be simply too much to bear.
 
Top