Republican Spain wins the Spainish civil war

[Goldstein]

Why the republican side changes his flag to the monarchist/nationalist one?

Why the nationalist side use the phalangist flag?

Interesting idea, thought.

PS: Oh, I see. That's how OTL spanish civil war happened. Sorry.

Well, to have a divided Spain, it would take for the republican side to receive more military support, but not enough to give them a clear advantage. The stalemate in the war (Maybe around the Ebro) would lead to exhaustion, and would make urgent to sign an armistice, and also would make implausible for both sides to join WWII. It's almost sure in that case, the republican side would turn stalinist.

That result has only a problem. The nationalist side was a rabid defender of the "unity of the fatherland", which was one of the excuses for their insurrection. So, probably they would never accept a divided peninsula. Anyway, it could happen that the war exhaustion makes it the only possibility, and then the nationalist side uses the "Red atheists have broken our country as we told you" propaganda.

Finally, that result probably butterflies Franco rise to power. Problably, the nationalist side would eventually turn into a more "conventional" military junta. I can't help but think about Korea while I write this.

 

[Michele]

That result has only a problem. The nationalist side was a rabid defender of the "unity of the fatherland", which was one of the excuses for their insurrection. So, probably they would never accept a divided peninsula. Anyway, it could happen that the war exhaustion makes it the only possibility, and then the nationalist side uses the "Red atheists have broken our country as we told you" propaganda.

Finally, that result probably butterflies Franco rise to power. Problably, the nationalist side would eventually turn into a more "conventional" military junta.

I agree with the above...

I can't help but think about Korea while I write this.

exactly because I agree with the above, I disagree with this final line. The Korean "armistice" lasted decades. Given the Spanish factions' positions, and the lack of nuke-wielding patrons behind them, any armistice in Spain would be a very temproary thing. Once the exhaustion is gone (presumably, with additional foreign aid), back to the war.

 

[Faeelin]

Hey, question to those more knowledgeable than I; how important was German aid in the war?

 

[Andrew Hudson]

Republican Spain wins the Spanish Civil War

The world would hopefully have been a better place. The republicans did get some assistance from Mexico( machine guns) and the Soviet Union ( fighter aircraft) the latter being withdrawn after Munich which sealed the fate of the already loosing Republicans. So if France acted for the Republicans as Portugal did for the Fascists Leon Blum was sympathetic and Britain and France had stood theit ground of Munich maybe it was feasible. Franco had air superiority. Maybe there wouldn't have been a Second World War and no Soviet expanision into Eastern Europe. However Munich gave Britain valuable time to build up its air defences and the cost of the Civil War deterred Franco from actively allying himself with Hitler in the hopes of gaining a few spoils ,although a few Spanish troopes fought on the Eastern front, or maybe he had more sense than Mussolini. Roosevelt had little time for Franco but I doubt he could have persuaded Congress to send arms to Spain. The long term consequences who knows maybe Munich helped stop Nazi Germany from becoming a superpower. No passaran!

 

[Fenwick]

If you want the Republicans to win you need France, or Britian to agree to foriegn aid. With in six months of the war starting the USSR will have moved into a dominate position to help the Stalinists with in the nation. While true Mexico sent 80,000 mauser rifles, the Soviet union sent over more then just fighter planes. They brought in tanks, food, guns, rifles and munitions. The counter to this is the Germans sending in the same aid, but the men who know how to use it.

How ever if the Republicans did win the war, I could see them doing the same thing as Franco. After all the SCW was three years long, and much of the nation suffered from the war. So they would not be jumping on to go fight another one. At the same time there are millions of veterans in the area, and invading would be difficult.

Something Franco did which is overlooked was take his time in the war, for he knew a quick war would only leave him with partisans all over the country. If the Germans did invade Spain then they would use speed, and surprise. As the Republican force had various plans centered around fighting a guerilla war Spain easily could be the place in the western front that German dare to tread.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Franco did indeed operate in a steady and cautious manner which was why his side kept improving its position while the foe never seemed to turn things around. This doesn't mean he was a nice guy, simply a better military leader, fiscal also.


If the war still going on in 1939-40 France might be forced to join the Axis, costing the British Gibralter and possibly breaking them in the Med before Hitler turns on Stalin. VERY bad news, that.


Andrew, there's no real historical debate that Munich was a military and moral disaster, not a purchaser of time. The improvement in British forces or even British and French forces was sadly inferior to the improvement in German forces resulting from Munich.

The British and, to a lesser degree, the French built more equipment. They also helped push Stalin into the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact and allowed Germany to build much more equipment AND acquire the Czech munitions industry plus 20+ divisions worth of equipment and at least 2 panzer divisions also from the surrender. That increase from the Czech military alone exceeded the entire BEF in summer of 1940.

 

[Dan1988]

There was an agreement between the Anarchists and left-wing of the Socialist Workers' Party that if the Republic survived, they'd work to implement a program known as "Federal Socialism". You would have seen agricultural communes alongside freehold farms. In industry and commerce, you would have seen quite a few factories and various stores run by a committee of workers. The Spanish Republic would probably have been, largely, a bourgeios republic with certain socialist institutions, and a few anarchist communes.

Now that is interesting for sure. It sounds vaguely similar to México under the PRI and its predecessors - differences being that it was a corporatist, single-party, authoritarian state that somehow managed to keep up a façade of democracy.

 

[Iñaki]

Originally posted by Grimm Reaper
Franco did indeed operate in a steady and cautious manner which was why his side kept improving its position while the foe never seemed to turn things around. This doesn't mean he was a nice guy, simply a better military leader, fiscal also.

Ehem, not, spanish historians and no spanish historians that have studied the civil war concludes that of that of all the generals that fighted during the civil war, the better prepared and clearly showed great profesionality was republican general Vicente Rojo (the problem was that the republican side was a little chaos and during all the war political fighting between socialists, communists and anarchists primordially difficulted a lot a true effort for made of the republican army a real profesional army).

Also nowadays is clear for the most part of the historic studies, from men so different politically from Gabriel Cardona to Cesar Vidal (a pity that Cesar Vidal has become with the years a radical right wing, his book "La guerra de Franco" in the first edition was a very good book, he reedited another time recently the book with the title "La guerra que gano Franco", this change in the title in fact shows how has evolved Cesar Vidal in his opinions, to be more radicalized in rightwing) that Franco was as general an authentic traditionalist, in fact a regular-bad general, the war lasts a lot not because his prudency, in fact because the man wanted to aninhilate the republican army and the republicans more than end quickly the civil war, also his aim from a determined period was to last the civil war the sufficient to permit controll all the power in the new Spain by neutralizing any possible opposition from other right wing figures or generals -in fact because this Franco decided to free the Alcazar of Toledo delaying dangerously the final offensive against Madrid in 1936 because he thought that freeing the Toledo garrison from the republican siege would give him a great prestige and popularity within the rebel side that permit him to consolidate his political position, same thing seems have happened when instead of following his victorius Aragonese offensive after the battle of Teruel, when finally the nationalists cut in two sides the Republic, instead of attacking and occupying Catalonia that all the experts including those in that time in the nationalist side knew that was undergarrisoned and it had been easy to occupy, decided to attack the fortified positions of Maestrazgo to take Valencia- the man as militar was a little disaster, but as maquiavelist and searching to gain all the power the man was a little great fox.

 

[Fenwick]

Ehem, not, spanish historians and no spanish historians that have studied the civil war concludes that of that of all the generals that fighted during the civil war, the better prepared and clearly showed great profesionality was republican general Vicente Rojo (the problem was that the republican side was a little chaos and during all the war political fighting between socialists, communists and anarchists primordially difficulted a lot a true effort for made of the republican army a real profesional army).

Also nowadays is clear for the most part of the historic studies, from men so different politically from Gabriel Cardona to Cesar Vidal (a pity that Cesar Vidal has become with the years a radical right wing, his book "La guerra de Franco" in the first edition was a very good book, he reedited another time recently the book with the title "La guerra que gano Franco", this change in the title in fact shows how has evolved Cesar Vidal in his opinions, to be more radicalized in rightwing) that Franco was as general an authentic traditionalist, in fact a regular-bad general, the war lasts a lot not because his prudency, in fact because the man wanted to aninhilate the republican army and the republicans more than end quickly the civil war, also his aim from a determined period was to last the civil war the sufficient to permit controll all the power in the new Spain by neutralizing any possible opposition from other right wing figures or generals -in fact because this Franco decided to free the Alcazar of Toledo delaying dangerously the final offensive against Madrid in 1936 because he thought that freeing the Toledo garrison from the republican siege would give him a great prestige and popularity within the rebel side that permit him to consolidate his political position, same thing seems have happened when instead of following his victorius Aragonese offensive after the battle of Teruel, when finally the nationalists cut in two sides the Republic, instead of attacking and occupying Catalonia that all the experts including those in that time in the nationalist side knew that was undergarrisoned and it had been easy to occupy, decided to attack the fortified positions of Maestrazgo to take Valencia- the man as militar was a little disaster, but as maquiavelist and searching to gain all the power the man was a little great fox.

I think you missed the point of what was being said. He did not say Franco was the best general, just a caustious one. Franco told his inner circle often that the longer the war took, the less resistence there would be after the Nationalists won.

With German, and Italian aid coming in Franco went against foreign advice to rush in and stop the Republicans quickly, for once the foreign air forces left, along with the constant influx of supplies Franco could do go so hard upon Republican forces behind the front lines.

 

[Iñaki]

Hmm, he says "simplily a better military leader" military leader means that he knows a lot of military strategy, he don´t say for example political leader, also before said "operate in a steady and cautious manner which was why his side kept improving its position while the foe never seemed to turn things around" so he says that the form that Franco operates because he was a better military leader permit the nationalist side gains while the foe showed inoperancy.

He doesn´t say only that he is a cautious general, he is saying that was better military leader, and better is comparison so I suppose that is comparing with the generals of the republican side.

Personally I think that the war possibiliy had been won by the nationals far earlier if Sanjurjo had not died in the airplane accident and had been the leader of the rebellion as it was foreseen.

 

[Andrew Hudson]

If the Republican had won the Spanish Civil War

Franco did indeed operate in a steady and cautious manner which was why his side kept improving its position while the foe never seemed to turn things around. This doesn't mean he was a nice guy, simply a better military leader, fiscal also.


If the war still going on in 1939-40 France might be forced to join the Axis, costing the British Gibralter and possibly breaking them in the Med before Hitler turns on Stalin. VERY bad news, that.


Andrew, there's no real historical debate that Munich was a military and moral disaster, not a purchaser of time. The improvement in British forces or even British and French forces was sadly inferior to the improvement in German forces resulting from Munich.

The British and, to a lesser degree, the French built more equipment. They also helped push Stalin into the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact and allowed Germany to build much more equipment AND acquire the Czech munitions industry plus 20+ divisions worth of equipment and at least 2 panzer divisions also from the surrender. That increase from the Czech military alone exceeded the entire BEF in summer of 1940.

There is plenty of debate about Munich and several counterfactuals. Britain's aircraft production cycles peaked at the right time. However this wasn't why the agreement was made merely an unintended fortuitous consequences. Germany's were out of phase. Hitler up to Munich claimed he was uniting German speaking minorities who were the victims of the Treaty of Versailes. In March 1939 his occupation of the rest of Czeckoslovakia proved otherwise and that he couldn't be trusted. It even convinced Chamberlain and demonstrated to world opinion the real nature of the regime.

However apart from South Africa where there were some Nazi sympathisers the rest of the Commonwealth would have come in in 1938 and possibly the USSR and more importantly the German Generals might have toppled Hitler but we didn't know at the time.

 

[Michele]

Hey, question to those more knowledgeable than I; how important was German aid in the war?

Quite important, basically because the Republicans were getting Soviet aid (after the Nationalists had begun receiving foreign aid). If the Republicans had not received Soviet aid, and the Nationalists had not received German aid, the Nationalists would have won.

On the other hand, if neither side had received any foreign aid at all, the coup would have failed within two months. The main reason why this did not happen is the first airlift operation in history, carried out by Italian aircraft. By ferrying reliable colonial and Moroccan troops from Africa to Spain, they allowed Franco to gain a serious foothold in the peninsula. Without it, the government would have lost in the colonies but gradually crushed the Nationalist pockets in Spain, which would have made the coup fail.

Now what if the Republicans had received Soviet tanks, aircraft, ATGs, arms and munitions, as well as advisors and technical personnel, and the Nationalists had not received anything of that? That's rather iffy. The Nationalists still have the better troops, the better officers, and OTL shows they could capture and turn against their former owners the Soviet tanks. But more than the fancier gadgets, I suspect the lack of the basic stuff would be telling; the Nationalists received shiploads of Italian ammo, artillery, mortars, MGs, rifles, trucks etc. The Spanish idustries couldn't keep up with the war. On top of that, the stuff from the SU that reached Spain in OTL was only a part of what was shipped; the rest was sunk by the Italian submarines together with the Soviet or Spanish ships. If there is no Italian participation, the Republicans get even more stuff than in OTL. So in that case I'd say the EPR may carry the day.

 

[Condottiero]

Quite important, basically because the Republicans were getting Soviet aid (after the Nationalists had begun receiving foreign aid). If the Republicans had not received Soviet aid, and the Nationalists had not received German aid, the Nationalists would have won.

On the other hand, if neither side had received any foreign aid at all, the coup would have failed within two months. The main reason why this did not happen is the first airlift operation in history, carried out by Italian aircraft. By ferrying reliable colonial and Moroccan troops from Africa to Spain, they allowed Franco to gain a serious foothold in the peninsula. Without it, the government would have lost in the colonies but gradually crushed the Nationalist pockets in Spain, which would have made the coup fail.

Now what if the Republicans had received Soviet tanks, aircraft, ATGs, arms and munitions, as well as advisors and technical personnel, and the Nationalists had not received anything of that? That's rather iffy. The Nationalists still have the better troops, the better officers, and OTL shows they could capture and turn against their former owners the Soviet tanks. But more than the fancier gadgets, I suspect the lack of the basic stuff would be telling; the Nationalists received shiploads of Italian ammo, artillery, mortars, MGs, rifles, trucks etc. The Spanish idustries couldn't keep up with the war. On top of that, the stuff from the SU that reached Spain in OTL was only a part of what was shipped; the rest was sunk by the Italian submarines together with the Soviet or Spanish ships. If there is no Italian participation, the Republicans get even more stuff than in OTL. So in that case I'd say the EPR may carry the day.

The republicans did receive tanks from the Soviet Union (in fact they received more tanks than the rebels and of a better quality than the italian and german ones), they also received lots of aircrafts (a bit less than the nationals but of comparable quality until the arrival of the first Me-109 units), they also received artillery, ammo, machine guns... The main problem of the republican side was the quality of the combatants: the rebels used at the beginning mostly profesional soldiers (they had less tanks and aircrafts than the government and almost no navy) whereas the republicans relied in militias without discipline (although they had superiority in armoured forces, aircrafts and navy). Later on the quality somehow equaled and the rebels had an slight superiority in material but then the republicans were hindered by internal division (defection of basque nationalists, civil war between communists and anarchists, low cooperation of catalan nationalists...).

 

[CCA]

"Aid" from the Soviet Union was not given freely. The Soviets basically demanded gold payments.