Why Franco & Spain stayed out of WW2?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- Today we talk about Franco and Spain during the WW2 era, specifically looking into the reasons why Spain stayed out of WW2, their active neutrality (supporting the Axis side), and talking about the Blue Division. This is in response to my Patron, Dan Reed, who asked this question - "Can you talk about the Spanish Blue division? The Spanish were quite good at straddling the fence between England and Germany."
I'm not a Fascist or anything similar, nor am I promoting said ideologies. This video is discussing events or concepts that are academic, educational and historical in nature. This video is for informational purposes and was created so we may better understand the past and learn from the mistakes others have made.
Want to ask a question? Please consider supporting me on either Patreon or SubscribeStar and help make more videos like this possible. For $5 or more you can ask questions which I will answer in future Q&A videos. Thank you to my current Patrons! You're AWESOME! / tikhistory or www.subscribes...
If you like Stalingrad, you may also enjoy historian Anton Joly's RUclips channel "Stalingrad Battle Data". Link: / @armageddon4145
Videos EVERY Monday at 5pm GMT (depending on season, check for British Summer Time).
Full list of all my sources docs.google.co...
Here’s some other videos you may be interested in -
The REAL Reason why Hitler HAD to go to War in WW2 • The REAL Reason why Hi...
The MAIN Reason Why Germany Lost WW2 - OIL • The MAIN Reason Why Ge...
A Short History of Mussolini and Fascism • A Short History of Mus...
CROATIAN LEGION | 369th Reinforced (Croatian) Infantry Regiment WW2 • CROATIAN LEGION | 369t...
Do you understand what Fascism & Marxism are? If not, check out my "Public vs Private" video, which explains them in great detail • Public vs Private | Th...
My video titled “Why I'm Passionate about HISTORY and What Got Me Into it”
• Why I'm Passionate abo...
My video titled "History Theory: What is History? No seriously, what is it?" • [Out of Date, see desc...
History isn’t as boring as some people think, and my goal is to get people talking about it. I also want to dispel the myths and distortions that ruin our perception of the past by asking a simple question - “But is this really the case?”. I have a 2:1 Degree in History and a passion for early 20th Century conflicts (mainly WW2). I’m therefore approaching this like I would an academic essay. Lots of sources, quotes, references and so on. Only the truth will do.
No guarantees, but I'm trying to get the first episode of Battlestorm Stalingrad out for next week. The editing is taking an absolute age to do, and I'm not sure I'll get it done in time. So it will either be next week, or the week after. Hope you're looking forward to it!
*Specific Sources*
Bormann, M. “Hitler’s Table Talk.” Ostara Publications, 2016.
Farrell, N. "Mussolini: A New Life." Endeavour Press Ltd, Kinde 2015.
Gentile, G. “Origins and Doctrine of Fascism: with Selections from Other Works.” Routledge, 2017.
Grand, A. "Italian Fascism: It's Origins and & Development." University of Nebraska Press, 2000.
Kleinfeld, G. & Tambs, L. "Hitler's Spanish Legion: The Blue Division in Russia in WWII." Stackpole Books, 1979.
Moradiellos, E. “Franco: Anatomy of a Dictator.” JCS Publishing Ltd, Kindle 2018.
Mosley, O. "Fascism: 100 Questions Asked and Answered." Black House Publishing, Kindle 2019.
Payne, S. "Franco and Hitler: Spain, Germany, and World War II." Yale University Press, 2008."
Muravchik, J. “Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism.” Encounter Books, Kindle.
Mussolini, B. “The Doctrine of Fascism.” Kindle, Originally published in 1932.
Zitelmann, R. "Hitler: The Policies of Seduction." London House, 1999.
The Cambridge History of the Second World War. Volume II: Politics and Ideology." Cambridge University Press, 2017.
Full list of all my sources docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/114GiK85MPs0v4GKm0izPj3DL2CrlJUdAantx5GQUKn8/edit?usp=sharing
Cheers!
TIK If you get one casualty wrong I will be having you 😁
Yay!! **Many girly squeals of delight** :)
@gordy - while editing it today I nearly put the Southwestern Front in where the Stalingrad Front was meant to be... but I caught that one :D
A series of videos about death, hunger, diseases, frostbites and lots of suffering. Am I a bad person for wanting it sooooo bad?
Sorry for the being graphic TIK, but I think I peeded a little.
they had the "recovering from the civil war" national spirit, they couldnt join the axis
.
Hoi4
lmao
LMFAO
Okay, I don't get it. Can someone PLEASE explain the joke?
Spain: Has an election in 36
Hoi4 players: Hey I’ve seen this one before, It’s a classic!
99/100 times Franco wins
La Resistance makes it a fucking party :)
@@BQD_Central I see a three sides civil war every time on historical, and I don't care, because I come in and take it all over anyway
@@Lawrance_of_Albania I was playing the germans once and was counting on Franco winning so I could get them on my side...and he lost. And I gave him so much help...he still lost. Fun stuff. to bad the AI in the game is moronic
As usual, Spain’s Canary Islands on maps of Europe, as if they were non existent...
"That didnt stop Franco from planning to invade Portugal".
Well, everyone planned invasions on everyone, so thats not a big surprise.
US had a whole rainbow of war plans!
@@DrewPicklesTheDark and they are working through them!!.
Franco was supported by Fascist Germany and Italy overtly and by Britain and France covertly.
The elected Spanish government only received help from the USSR and Mexico!
Every faction and leader planned taking over Portugal. Franco's plans for Portugal should therefore be seen as a manifestation of a universal Spanish outlook.
I'm sure there are both Portuguese and Spanish viewers who know far more than me but if one takes history in to account the two countries have rarely, if ever, been comfortable neighbours. Indeed there are still pretty bitter boarder disputes to this day. Add to that Portugal being just about the only country England has remained on friendly terms with throughout the centuries and I can see the following scenario playing out:
-Spain joins the Axis and the UK doesn't promptly sue for peace. Spain is in absolutely no position to prosecute any kind of war.
-Portugal asks the UK for help with it's threatening neighbour. A BEF Mk2 (hopefully better prepared) lands in Portugal.
-Spain out of the war having barely joined and the Allies handed a nice base of European operations.
or
-With lots of German troops in Spain we have another peninsular war with the same result for Germany as Napoleon.
-Portugal gets awarded a big chunk of the land disputed with Spain as part of a post war settlement.
...to give him his due Franco was no fool. Whatever his political leanings keeping power and preferably not seeing his country destroyed seem to have been his principle priorities.
Well, for the 1st time I don't fully agree with you regarding Spain and Franco.
I'm French but my mother was Spanish, from Catalunya, and as I’m an old man I got some first hand testimonies from uncles and aunts involved in this terrible period. My mother was 20 in the middle of the war (somehow she never really recovered, btw) and, among others, I had an uncle who ended up as a prisoner of the nationalists at the end of the war and had a rough time there, and a sister of my mother who married a "nationalist" officer! I never saw a family reunion ...
Anyway that's why I investigated a little in the Spanish civil war, trying to understand what happened. I know that you go through various sources and I have a tendency to trust you but I'm not sure you have yet deepened enough this particular subject which is not, as usual, black and white. It's a long story so I will focuse only on some of your statements regarding the character of Franco:
1. The situation in Spain was a mess far before the Republic replaced the King in 1931. Basically the main issue was land sharing since a few large landowners owned all agricultural lands and the people situation was desastrous. Following the King's departure, the Republic (« soft » socialist) didn’t keep its promises so that disappointment led to revolts and worker uprisings. It was a mess, so they called for general elections in 1934 and the Popular Front won, based on an unlikely coalition of very different leftist parties. That’s where everything starts because the situation just worsened and the country descended into anarchy. Then many things happened but it's not the point.
2. At that time Franco was just a young general, who fought bravely in North Morocco in 1926, facing a indigenous insurrection against colonial powers (French and Spanish). Btw, do you know who was his French counterpart in the same war ? Philippe Pétain. It’s all connected …
But, as he was openly against the Republic, he had been transferred to the Canarian Islands. Consequently he was not part of the conspiracy against the Republic led by 2 other generals : Mola and San Jurjo. He was just a supporter, so to speak. He took the lead of the nationalist side later on, when Mola and San Jurjo were killed in aircrashes.
3. Franco opinions : he was not a fascist (a dictator for sure but not a fascist) since he was not "socialist" at all. There is no anti-capitalist ideology with Franco : he was in fact deeply catholic, reactionary and, above all, monarchist. He was supported by the Church, something that Hitler never understood. The only fascist part of the nationalist side was the Falange (comparable to the Italian fascists) but, in order to control them, Franco progressively infiltrated them with monarchists. Note that, at the triumph parade in Madrid (1939), Franco was wearing the red beret of the « carlists » (monarchists). To be noticed as well : he took charge of Juan Carlos education and eventually, at the end of his life, handed over power to … a King, restoring monarchy. The circle is complete.
4. Franco’s willingness to go at war in Northern Africa or even against Portugal seems to me very suspicious: Spain was destroyed and ruined, the population was battered. I have no evidence but I don’t think he had a real willingness to get involved in a new war which would obviously become a World War. This could have even re-started the civil war in the form of a permanent revolution. So, from my perspective, when he met Hitler in Hendaye on October 23rd, 1940, he offered his support (of course) but subject to so many extravagant conditions that the meeting (9 hours long!) ended with no agreement at all. Hitler reportedly told to Mussolini that he would rather « prefer pulling 3 teeth than meet again with Franco ». Why ?
Later on Franco just did the minimum he could do to « pay his debt »: the Blue Division in Russia and that’s it. In fact volunteer soldiers (most of them) fitted from head to foot with German equipment...
Anyway, I might be wrong about some points or everything but this is my point of view...
I don't know how I could ask a question "on your Patron", so I am aware that I will not get any answer but, if you read this comment, I think some people would be very interested in something about the Spanish Civil War.
Thank you
Best Regards.
Franco was not socialist for sure but I think he, like most dictators, wanted a controlled economy. At that time this idea of controlled economy was very popular and quite successful.
As regarding land ownership, it is the most explosive problem. All lefts in poor countries uses it to motivate peasants to revolution. In the revolution the left grasps power and encourage the poors to do what they want. The results are the same over the world: anarchy, not only to the rich but everyone including the poor, and especially the poor. Once the left consolidates their power, the poor will become poorer forever. This happens over the world all the time. I fail to find an exception. Can you?
@@xchen3079 You are right, there is no "pure" leftist revolution which really succeeded, as far as I know. But let's be careful: I'm an old man now and I have learnt a long time ago that things are rarely black or white. The revolutions are always disasters but they are not always manipulated by leftists. The question is: why in a given case a revolution broke out?
Sometimes they are indeed manipulated by the left, sometimes by the bourgeoisie (upper middle class) like the French Revolution and sometimes by foreign powers (the US have by the way distinguished themselves in such activities ...). But there are always ideal initial conditions: poverty, injustice and social inequality which become intolerable.
Unfortunately, after the event, it's easy to note that the disaster could have been avoided but some privileged people were dancing on a volcano until the situation explodes. Then, whoever or whatever triggers the revolution you have almost always the same scenario: violence, new people in charge, inexperienced (if they are leftists it's even worse since they add an utopian ideology) and chaos, not because the poors are encouraged to do what they want but because it cannot be otherwise. At the end 50 years to recover ...
Regarding the idea that controlled economy was very popular at the time for any dictator: yes for sure but let us not be naive, do you really think that we are living in a free economy?
Last: you seem to focus on the bad side of the left taking power: I agree with you (I'm not on the left side at all) however I don't consider that the USA for example are an enviable model. May be there is something intermediate to consider. I know that the Americans often mistake social-democracy for socialism (and socialism for communism). They are 3 different things. As a European I live in a social-democracy and this means freedom as well, like in America but also some kind of solidarity. Let me explain:
What to think of a country where poor people cannot aford to go to college, where some of them take out loans for 30 years or more to pay the university, a country where some people cannot aford to pay for medical care while it's the richest country in the world, giving lessons to everybody? On the contrary in our "social-democracies", if you succeed at school, going to the highest university is almost free of charge (you should not study at university because you have money but because you are good) and medical care is considered as a human right, almost free for everybody.
I admit that the freedom of enterprise is better in the USA but, as above mentioned, in a selfish and somehow inhuman society so that I would not like to live overthere: in other words everything is relative ... and never ever black or white. Regards
@@patolt1628 In America, the ethnic, geographic, economic and cultural divide is so large that its citizens will never agree on how they will help each other. Each group and region have their unique interests, standards and needs. What Europeans struggle to feel is the sheer size and diversity of American people and land. America is too large and its people and needs too diverse to manage centrally in a practical/efficient manner. That's why the US government traditionally just let its people fend for themselves, in a hope that the people know what's best for them. And honestly, that system worked well for many years when wages were great and things were generally way cheaper than now. However, the same laissez faire system now, when wages are stagnant and everything is expensive, is another story. Anyways, my argument is that European social policies work better primarily because of a homogeneous people and culture.
@@FFFFFFF-FFFFFFFUUUUCCCC Yes, it's possible but ... I don't see the link with my comment about Spain and Franco.
@@patolt1628 I replied to your comment about Americans and sociallism. Your second comment
Franco was more a military Catholic Corporatist riding the Falange tiger and holding it by the ears all the way to his death in 1975, using the Falange as a political movement then a label, and really he was a Catholic 'anti-Cromwell", more like Cromwell than either would have wished to admit. A lot of influential Spaniards were horrified at at the German treatment of Catholic Poland in particular right from the off.
This is where I kinda disagree with TIK. I don't think that Franco personality was a fascist, for me he was very conservative. Same applies to Salazar. The difference between both (among other) was that Franco was a military man and Salazar was an academic. But both were conservative and in case of Salazar, also very devout Catholic.
@@nunodasilva5449 Yup Franco was a politically conservative religious, observant Catholic and a Spanish nationalist not a fascist. Fascism is a form of socialism and is secularist (read anti religious). The fact that Poland was a socially conservative, Catholic country did not mean a thing to the Nazis.
I tend to agree with that definition. Fascist is not entirely wrong, but corporatism or dirigism isa closer.
great point
@@charlesheller4667 Fascism was certainly extremely secular and materialist, reflecting its French revolutionary/enlightenment heritage, but it was not explicitly anti-clerical as National Socialism was
This also informed their racial policies- though materialist, the Fascists believed that there was some national ideal, similar to Liberalism, that anyone could ascribe to (and part of that was a common religion), hence the citizenship of Libyans and protections for Jews, Mussolini was quite cosmopolitan in some respects
On the other hand, Nazism is explicitly materialist, with very spiritualist thought outside of Himler's rather whacky ideas, which is where the tension with Catholicism comes from. For Hitler, there was no spiritual, there was no common humanity, nothing that could elevate a savage to good citizen, merely race and whether or not you were in the club. This is also related to some more extreme enlightenment views, but radically opposed to the similarities that Fascism has with both Liberalism and Communism
Its been a long time since I've read his book, but I would wonder how much of Hitler's dislike for Catholicism in particular is its open meekness and praise for humility, and the protection of the week and needy that he saw as corruptions to society
I miss the Canaris connection. Apparently, Wilhelm Canaris was sent on numerous missions to Spain to get them to join the war effort, as he had a good relationship with Franco. Problem with Canaris is that although he was the head of intelligence within the Third Reich, he was not a Nazi and worked against the German regime at any turn. Cost him his life in the end.
No, not quite. Canaris had long standing friendship with Franco and friendship with Spain dating back to the Great War and the post war years. There was an almost succesful attempt to privately develop and build german submarines in the inte-war period (Echevarrieta E type submarines) that were eventually sold to Turkey. Canaris was linked to Franco in the nazi years through the Vatican diplomacy. However Canaris did not come to Spain in those years. On the contrary, it was Franco's brother in law (Serrano Suñer) who travelled to Berlin to negotiate Spain's participation in Operation Felix , the invasion of Gibraltar. For the all the reasons that made Franco ask for impossible requests at the Henaye meeting, this was also rejected. This enfuriated Hitler. If anything, Franco had a very competent diplomacy and secret service, a small one indeed, and was in good relations with the british and the republican americans. Following Canari' s death Franco took his widow and daughters under his wing and granted them the pension or allowance of a spanish Admiral. This lasted until the German Federal Government fianlly decided to recognize W. Canaris as a hero and worthy servant of Germany.
When your advisors tell you you're not in a fit condition to fight a war it's wise to listen to them.
Franco did that, Hitler and Mussolini not so much.
Franco was a military profesional, Hitler and Mussolini were politicians.
I grew up in Spain when Franco was still in charge. Franco itself was by any means a fascist, he was a 100% catholic dictator and nothing else. If someone did run into trouble during the Franco period then the family went to the priest and he went to the police station and brought him home - if he was a good catholic. As Franco died, he wrote in his political testament: "I have been born as a catholic, I lived as a catholic and I died as a catholic." He did not even mentioned Spain.
And there is another issue too: I never experienced that the fascist movement (Falange) had any relevance in Spain. They existed but I only saw once in 7 years an office of them. Even the dumbest knew that after 1945 to become a fascist was not that promising. Practically, they died out still under Franco. Franco based his legitimacy on the church and the Carlistas (Royalists).
Catholic dictator = Catholiban
In a way, he was Spain's Oliver Cromwell, 300 years later. He effectively took the Crown for himself after leading the bulk of the Army to victory over his enemies, and his main drive was his religion, although he was a direct opposite of what Cromwell believed in, the approach was very similar. Once in power, he stayed until death, but let the Crown return as he died.
Well said. THe Falange was notionally in the fold during the struggles and when there was a semblance of order, Franco basically quietly put them in the basement.
EdMcF1 he didn’t have the majority of the army to start with the army of North Africa yes but by no means did everyone in army want to take part in a coup against a democratically elected coalition government.
Hitler and Mussolini were both Satanists.
Francisco Franco (1892- 1975) was a Catholic and a good leader.
11:00 Franco's father was liberal (in the spanish sense, that is to say republican) while his mother was conservative and catholic. He hated his father . He didn't really have a political ideology but was conservative, catholic, and admired "big figures" like napoleon and such. He was the polar opposite of Antonio Primo de Rivera who was an idealist.
TIK I think you need to clarify this: In the spanish civil war the Phalanx (the party of mr Primo de Rivera) was the fascist force. Franco (the ultimate winner) was more of a clerical reactionary traditionalist willing to keep the country in its old almost feudal state. Not a socialist.
Good point and it is a sad reflection on history that people confuse the 2
In the modern mind reactionary == fascist
Republicans arrested and killed Primo de Rivera just before Franco's Golpe (if I remember correctly). Franco had the big guns, but sure de Rivera was a viable leader to get the power in the country, had he lived.
But Franco wasn't a reactionary. He held a revolution in 1936, which he ultimately won. A counterrevolution is a revolution. That's not reactionary.
@@TheImperatorKnight Franco made a military coup, a "golpe," and then fought a civil war. There was no revolution.
*Wehraboo:* If only Spain joined...
*German Logistics:* Am I a joke to you?
Instead german logistics place Reichs Bahn
@Caliban777 Napoleon wants to comment something to you.
@Caliban777 I too thought about that. Mind you the Red Army Generals wanted to clear the lot in 1945. "Like Tsar Alexander " Stalin replied, with sarcasm. He wanted peacefull co-existence with the US. Who still occupy Europe with their NATO!
@@ignaciomoreno9655 Bolivar wants to comment something to you
@@terumikami321 Why? I dont think that he invaded Spain.
It is important to remark that in Franco´s ideology there was no anti-semitism. This is really important.
He did persecute Jews and protestants though...
@@raimonestanol8234 He did not prosecute jews. He saved jews leting them enter in Spain. Don´t make up stories... Spain, besides, was a neutral counter during the WWII... He prosecuted comunists and socialist, but never jews
Franco had the Catholic Church on his side with all their prejudices and of course the history of the Inquisition. He also was supported by Hitler's Germany. So you need to elaborate on your point, if you have one. How many Jews were in Spain, anyway? How did they fare?
@@robertmatch6550 I do not have to elaborate anything. You need to get rid of all the rubish that your Queen Elisabeth teaches you in schools ... England has made the biggest genocides of the XIX and XX century, and you dare that to talk like that ? The Inquisitation, for God´s sake ....We are talking about thousands of jews saved by Franco...Since the XIX century it was also in the idearium of the conservative parties of Spain to repratiate the Spanish jews spread in the diaspora since the XV century. You have really no idea of the history of the catholic church. For you is white or black, friends or enemies, like for Bush Jr.
Let´s make some considerations. I do not intent to explain everything. :
1. Mr Match you are clear example of a poor guy who believes the propagandistic Black legend about Spain created by England and the Netherlands. It is not my fault that you believe the propaganda of your own queen, who while predicating ´free trade´was attacking Spanish vessels all over the world for centuries. 2. The Inquisitions killed far less people within 300 years than France, england, the German states or the Bristish colonies in the americas in one year..., but of course you know nothing about the reality.The sapanish inquisition was by far, the most moderate of Europe. In the protestant Europe you just killed them, with no trial, las you did in North America with the Indians. In contrast, in the SPanish empire Indians had equal righs as Spaniards. The prove is that Indians and criollo ( mixed of Spanish and Indians ) make the majority of the populations of the hispanic americas. There were abuses, like everywhere, but the law was clear : Indians had the same rights. In contrast In California in the XIX century the state was paying money to kill indians 3. The Catholic Church was with Franco and against Franco. For your info, it was the catholic Church together with the jesuists of PNV who created ETA. far from what you think, the catholic Church is not a solid block and it´s made of thousands of factions. The most radicals are obviously in the Vatican. And freuently fought agaons Spain and all its regimes for centuries. 4. Franco ´supported Hitler (?) letting him to use couple of ports in counted accassions and sending some brigades, but curiosly, he managed to be neutral in the war ...That is a wonderful support !! ... Are you blind or what ? CAnßt you see the difference between supporting, and pretending to support so that they leave you alone ? ... 5 Thousands of jews descendants of the Spanish kews started being repatriated since Franco´s regime. There was no freedom for comunists, like the US, but the jews were always well treated. The process of repatriating jews is still on-going in Spain and Protugal ... Franco was a mother fucker who imprisioned leftist activists like my own grandfather, but he was never against jews : ) And go learn a little about the history of Spain. I don´t blame you, but you are actually full of predjudices yourself.
That got out of hand. As the OP said the inquisition and so on have a propagandised reputation that is only now being corrected. The whole nationalist rant about Queen Elizabeth, British colonialism ect is...errr....debatable. Franco was personally anti-Semitic though the Nazi's probably wouldn't have considered him such but he was also not sympathetic to the holocaust and as a Catholic was more than happy to shelter any of it's potential victims that managed to get to Spain but didn't help them with anything outside his borders beyond being a potential protection to Spainish Catholic priests who were suspected of being involved in ratlines to Spain. Should be noted that it any of those Jews or any other suitable (e.g. Not British or American) foreigners were known leftists, communists, ect he packed them on the first train to Germany, but he was generally uncooperative otherwise. It's hard to say how much he helped as unlike the polish resistance most of what happened stayed off the books especially as the same people smuggling networks (or ratlines) that were set up would be used post war for Nazi's to escape capture, also Franco had little personal involvement as it was mostly done by the church (though he supported anything they did up to the hilt). There may well have been Jewish children who ended up in Spainish Catholic orphanages however if so the church unlike in Poland failed to record original identities or inform anyone of the fact post-war and they were raised Catholic (which would have been a win win as far as Franco was concerned).
Of all the books I've read on the Spanish Civil War, by far the best is by Hugh Thomas. TIK - I suggest you read it. Franco's stance during WW2 was largely shaped by financial and natural resource obligations to both Italy and Germany, as they had provided money and weapons to the Nationalists during the Civil War. But make no mistake about it - Franco was not a Fascist, he was a conservative catholic nationalist. The pre-Civil War fascists (Falange) in Spain were largely an amalgamation of various anti-communist groups, that was what united them. The Falange grew during the Civil War only because Franco merged all the Nationalist groups (monarchists, catholics, landowners, CEDA and other conservative groups) into them. Neither Mussolini nor Hitler viewed them as fascists, but as anti-communist, and that is largely why both supported Franco.
That seems more succinct and more persuasive than what was said in the video.
Gibraltar is not irrelevant, but seems like a red herring. Surely a Spanish invasion, supported by the Italian navy and the German air force, would've caused considerable difficulties for the British despite the strength of its defences?
Also, the video seems to argue that Spain lacked the armed forces to participate in the Axis powers' war, but I think that's not emphasising things correctly, as limited resources didn't stop (say) the Slovak puppet state from taking part. The key is surely that Franco placed greater emphasis on post-Civil War recovery and consolidation, than on foreign escapades that wouldn't bring any clear benefits to a relatively weak country.
Fear of potential invasion makes sense prior to the Fall of France, and obviously later in the war, but was it really a factor during 1941 or so?
As for Portugal, I know it was only a sidebar as such, but I don't think the video touched on the fact that it was a colonial power. Angola, Mozambique, and the State of India (Goa, etc.) were sitting ducks for South African, British colonial, and Indian forces.
You seem to not know that Portugal was on the allies side even despite its neutrality.
Not to mention, England oldest allie.
But you did good in remembering the colonies.
Point and case, if Spain tried to invade it would be so fucked.
My father served in the IRISH BRIGADE fighting for Catholicism, and also getting military training, like many others there, to support the IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY. He wore a uniform supplied by Germany, and he had a Luger at his side, and he brought home the Luger after the war. The Brigade held a position outside Barcelona for 71 days, till they were relieved by an Italian brigade, which was overrun within 24 hours.
@@TheMokaKiller It's not entirely true. Portugal had a strict neutral policy, doing business with both sides. Portugal also didn't want to break its alliance with England, as they would help secure the colonies of Portugal.
On the other hand, Salazar wished for an Axis victory.
Although he wasn't a fascist, he hated communism and disliked democracy.
He was extremely conservative and favored national stability above all else.
@@nunodasilva5449 AHAHAHAHAHAH!
So wrong!
A time came the allies asked Portugal to cease commerce with the Axis. Portugal responded that in that case we would have to cease commerce with the allies too in order to be able to maintain neutrality. So we did just that.
Yet we kept dealing "under the table" with the british.
Salazar despized the fascists the same way he despised communists. Two sides of the same coin.
Humberto Delgado was a fascist.Leader of the real portuguese fascist party. And we all know how much the current portuguese communists venerete him.
Even though I'm republican and my family fought for the republic you have to admit that Franco played everyone very well, inside the "national" side and outside.I don't really think that he never wanted a war with the allies.
Which is why he will never be forgiven.
Just try to imagine that Franco was an extremely conservative, traditional, religious, nationalist that also happened to despise (and fear) the ideology of Adolf Hitler and National Socialism. Think of how this person would act if in Franco's shoes from the years 1936-45 and you would find every one of his actions consistent with those characteristics. While I am sure that you could point to some specific acts or statements over that time that make him appear sympathetic to Hitler or expressing desires of territorial expansion, these are far outweighed by his non-actions in regard to providing any meaningful support to the Nazi regime. He basically did the minimum he could do to insure that Hitler would not seek to remove him from power.
@Ron P Franco was also being guided by Canaris on what demands to make from Hitler to insure that Franco could stay out of the war knowing which demands could not/would not be met.
Communist scums
@@alexanderchenf1 in what way was franco communist?
I think Franco's greatest legacy was that his party was able to give up power without bloodshed. Spain got through the first part of the last century with Franco better then it could have without him.
Fully agree with you!
The only real bad thing he did was accept help from nazis. Outside of that he's no worse than any other dictator except he protected Spain and its culture and religion
Viva Franco
Thank You! Most people fail to understand that Franco used Hitler and Mussolini to consolidate his position in Spain. Once he consolidated his power he hung them out to dry! Well done I say!
@@carlosacta8726, I think you mean once he realised the axis were certainly going to lose he hung them out to dry, what do you think he'd have done if they looked like winning?
@@englanduk6131 Joined last moment to try and get something out of it.
Spain would only have been a liability, like a second Italy but coming right out of a terrible civil war.
It would be interesting if you researched Franco spanish politics more, my impression is that they were closer to a monarchy than a fascist state.
I may have missed it but for me Franco's position was inevitable once Hitler refused to hand back the Spanish Gold that he looted from the French Treasury. Franco ordered the Spanish treasury split up IIRC and a good chunk was sent to Paris so the country's funds would be safe from any successful insurgency,
@@brucebartup6161 Wow. Very interesting, Thank You. I hadn't heard about the gold. Makes sense: if the Nazis would take the gold out of Grandma's teeth, they'd, probably, keep the gold from a bank, huh? They are wretched, and no less, so, regardless of how many others in authority are like them.
@@stevendurham9996 It seems i got every detail cryshu=ingky wring but the immportance of the strange yellow metal can't be exaggerated in Franco's postuure overall. That's from very quick review frim which this is the best single sorce. It's nott good histiry so caytion.
www.lbma.org.uk/assets/alchemist/Alchemist_87/Alch87Steel.pdf
The efforts governments went to, to ensure that their trade was backed by the physical presence of a yellow metal kin their vaults and that bluffing did just as well as the real thing does rather blow a hole in TIKs free markets" and ";prices"
Franco's politics were fascist not national socialist. It's the same as Italy but even poorer.
Number One reason: His momma didn't raise no fool. Hitler committed suicide and Mussolini was murdered in 1945. Tojo was hanged in 1948. Franco stayed in power until 1975 when he died in bed of old age. He was almost 83. Need I say more?
Hey Tik why don't you accept my greek translation for the oil video? Keep up the great job and congratulations for the 100K Subscribers.
I don't get notified on translations so I didn't know about it. However, I will go accept it now. Thank you for doing the translation!
Μπράβο φίλε που έκατσες να μεταφράσεις ένα τέτοιο βίντεο για αυτούς που δεν ξέρουν τόσο καλά αγγλικά!
@@darknerd5882 Ευχαριστω ρε φιλε. Το εκανα επι κανα 10ωρο συνεχομενα και λογικο ειναι να εχει ατελειες βεβαια και θα ηθελα να τις ολοκληρωσω. Το βιντεο για το πετρελαιο και το βιντεο με την Fall Blau ειναι τα αγαπημενα μου. Καποια στιγμη θα ηθελα να κανω για την Fall Blau.
One of the portuguese in the Blue Legion reported back home that the Russians under comunism were living such miserable lives that it only reinforced his ideas that the autocratic regimes in Iberia were ideologically correct.
I mentioned him in a previous, relevant Q&A you did, but I really recommend you read into Admiral Wilhelm Canaris' and the Abwehr's role in negotiating Spain's entrance and participation in the war. Canaris had a personal relationship with Franco, and Spain's support/lack-of-support had a lot to do with that relationship.
I think you are overlooking by quite a lot Portugal role in spanish neutrality. First Portugal was where many of spanish nationalism movement supporters and generals chose to go when the republicans were elected. Salazar is thought to be involved in the early days of this planning. Salazar also kept having public positions of the dangers of a spanish international communism party this helped promote support for franco movement inside spain. As of the start of the civil war Portugal was one the first if not first to support Franco with logistics, supplies, finances throught Portuguese banks and would allow nationalist forces to cross the borders of Portugal and find refuge while immediate deport republican refugees/combatants. From Portuguese researchers we think that Franco and Salazar relation was quite more deeper and that it's more likely that Franco and Salazar played masterly both Axis and Allies, they trade and took advantage of the conflict losing almost nothing to it...
Also, volunteers from Portugal fought in the side of Franco. They were called Os Viriatos. How many and how organized they were (militias or full organized regiments/divisions) is debatable. Some sources say they were around 8000, others up to 12000. Their equipment is also quite unknown, but it's believed that they were even supported with air force.
Corporatism seems to work pretty well in Asia and you could argue that Germany is still corporatist today, to some extend. The labor unions are both huge and powerful and still strongly aligned and in a symbiotic relationship with the companies and capital. It is what got them through the 2008 crisis relatively unscathed.
IMO I'd like to see a TIK video on the Mondragon corporation business model that can still be found being implemented in some parts of Spain.
General Franco was a wise man. He held together a fragile union of fascists, carlists, monarchists, Catholics and conservatives. Provided the Spanish people within his controlled areas the soo much forgotten peace That hadn't been seen since 1930. He was not perfect, but truly was a man who took up control in a desperate situation and made it a victory
Tik you forgot it was the UK that helped Franco even before Hitler. The UK embassy took an important role planning the rebellion while protecting British investment, so Gibraltar was negotiated and money was given
About Franco: I happen to be Spanish and, although I agree with you on some of your arguments, I would like to bring some light to your not-so-clear corners:
a) The only thing Franco and Hitler shared was their hatred for the comunism. They were different animals.
b) The Spanish were pretty fed up with everything African BEFORE the Civil War. Moroco? No, thanks; not even for free.
c) For Spain, attaking Portugal -historically- has always been OUT OF QUESTION, never.
d) The reason for not joining the war? EXHAUSTION. The sides were evenly matched, our civil war was a long, nasty one and, afterwards, the country was in shambles and the population revolted with the tang of blood. Which is also the reason why the West didn´t bother to remove Franco in 1945. Exhaustion is the word.
The battle of Krasni Bor is a very juicy theme for your next video. Have a go at it!
Congratulations,
Tico
The battle of Krasny Bor sounds like a poor result on the Red Army side, with large number of Red Army troops failing to take a smaller force's position, which is sort of true, but the reality is slightly more complex. It is well-known that if you are attacking an enemy in a prepared position, you need a minimum 3:1 advantage in manpower, and even more in terms of ammunition, supplies, etc ... What people typically don't continue saying is: the expected %casualty rate on each side is expected to be the same. 30% casualty on the attacker's side for 30% on the defender's side; given a 3:1 attacker:defender ratio, the attacker would take 3x the casualty. This is the typical assumptions when planning an offensive (using WWII data; 21st century data is a bit more different).
At Krasny Bor, the Spanish Blue Division along side the 4th SS security division (eventually receiving reinforcement from more divisions) faced 3 Red Army Rifle Divisions. Formation vs. formations, this is hardly an overwhelming number (frontal penetration attacks later in the war saw 5 Soviet rifle divisions vs 1 weakened German divisions). Numerically, perhaps 33000 attacker vs. 8000 defenders (initially). Also, hardly an overwhelming advantage. At the end of the battle, the Blue Division reported 75% casualties. The attacking Red Army lost ~70%. Remember what I said about almost equal % casualty rate?
Also, you need to consider the larger picture of the whole war at that moment. Krasny Bor was in February, 1943. The Red Army just liquidated the remnants of the Sixth Army in Stalingrad. They just figured out how to do offensive operations, and all the "good" commanders who know how to do things were in the Stalingrad area. The Stalingrad and Rhzev operations received greater priority of everything. The Red Army was in the exploitation phase of Operation Little Saturn and they were about to be stopped by Manstein's counteroffensive. The commanders at Leningrad front were not as good as the rest others in the Central and South. The massive gains of the Red Army in, Kursk, Ukraine, Belarus were performed by those excellent commanders. To the credits, the STAVKA concentrated their resources to achieve those gains while de-prioritize the Leningrad area.
@@VT-mw2zb Mr Xuan, thank you very much for your enlighted comments; you certainly seem to know your way in this part of History. Nevertheless, we can list a few points that do not bear contradiction:
1) The Spanish were sent to the northernmost part of the front; not Crimea. For Mediterranean people, a challenge in itself.
2) Whatever the magnitude of the Russian force attaking, the Spanish sector held, while most of the German position in the area colapsed.
3) 75% losses -both sides- is an indicator of the ferocity of the fight and what the Spanish were willing to take without fleeing.
Behind these facts, there are two considerations:
a) The concept that "southern" troops are not as tough as "northern" ones, once more, is disproved.
b) As TIK insists, History is written by the winner. And in the case of the battle of Krasni Bor, a most peculiar sitution arised: nobody has ever been willing to praise the perfomance of the Spanish troops. For the West, it wight as well had happened in the other side of the moon, the Russians are more intent to dwell in their cleaner victories and the Spanish... were too embarrassed (as TIK points); they (we) had backed the wrong horse and were in a hurry to spread a merciful cloak of oblivion over the whole Eastern Front.
Amazing your knowledge!
Regards,
Tico
@@Tico.Altacuna well, when I said "northern" or "southern", I did not mean pan-Europe (Finnish vs. Italian, for e.g.), but rather the specific Red Army formations opposing the Army North, Center, and South. From about October 1942 to about March 1943, the only Red Army fronts that had good rate of success were those opposing Army Group South (or A and B). That's where the majority of the really good Red Army commanders were: Vasilevsky, Rokossovsky, Vatutin. Also, the correlation of forces in the penetration sectors there against the poor Romanian divisions were well, overwhelming: 3 Soviet Rifles Divisions + 1 Guard Tank Army (equiv. to a German Panzer Corps) of nearly 200 tanks vs 1 Romanian division. By contrast, the 3 Soviet Rifle Divisions in Krasny Bor had only a Tank Brigade in support.
The Leningrad fighting I remembered was described as: the eternal war of the poor men. Both sides draw off vital resources to both sides. The Germans decided not to assault Leningrad in earnest, ala Stalingrad but attempted to starve it to submission. The Red Army fed just enough troops and supply to keep the city barely alive. Krasny Bor was the follow-up operation to a successful Red Army operation: Operation Iskra, which opened a threadbare thin line of trucks to supply the city. The supply line was in observation of German artillery spotters, thus open to be interdicted (though the Germans did not have enough resources to just cut it again). Krasny Bor was a part of a wider attempt to push the Germans back even further.
The poor initial performance of the German division in Krasny Bor could be somewhat explained as the German division was the 4th SS Police Division, read: rear area security, partisan-chasing police forces; not really frontline combat units. These aren't your crack Waffen-SS; it already suffered casualties from fighting the 2nd Shock Army penetration into the rear of the German line. Later, as the Blue Division suffered heavy casualties, the German HQ had to scrape together combat groups from 7 other German divisions to stabilised the situation. The Blue Division definitely did its assigned job.
The Leningrad sector was more or less of low priority, until operation Bagration crushed AG Center and AG North was trapped into a pocket in 1944. TIK covered it in the Courland Pocket series.
@Bruce Jones the German had to scrape together combat groups from 7 divisions, including the 215th Infantry Division to either shore up the line or conduct local counterattacks to stop the Soviet attack.
@@VT-mw2zb Mr. Xuan:
I´ve just red your mail. I must say that I´m so impressed that I wonder if you are a professional historian (I am not, certainly).
In order to give you a quick answer and, given that it´s late at night here, I will address just one of the many topics you open up: the comparison between how the Germans tackled Leningrad and Stalingrad.
Up in the north, in the Leningrad front, attacking the city would have meant two things: one one hand, to take over the responsability to feed its population, something that, I bet, they were not looking forward (neither they were able). On the other hand, they could press on until the port of Murmansk, destination of the Allied convoys, of paramount importance. In principle, the Finnish were better positioned and, therefore, tasked with this goal. But they were quite happy having recovered their territory and were not eager to push their luck much further. And the Germans realised that, to stop all that material, they only had to reach the railroad that relied Murmansk with Moscou. So, the fate of the city was decided: no need to tackle it.
In Stalingrad, the situation was very different: as it was, and still is, the oil from Bakú was transported up the Volga to the heart of Russia. Now, this river runs far away from the theater of war, except at one point: Stalingrad, where it draws a sharp detour to the west, before returning again to the east. If the Germans had been capable of procuring this area, they would have achieved two decisive advantages, to protect the left flank of the Operation Fall Blau (the attack to Bakú) and, most important, to deny de oil to the Russians.
This was the real cause for the unbeliable brutality of that campaign, neither side could afford to lose it, the whole war was at the stake. All that nonsense about that Hitler was intent on destroying the city with Stalin´s name, is just that, nonsense. Here was the crux of the war, here is the explanation for Hitler´s refusal to allow Paulus to surrender. Besides the fact that he was tying a couple of Russian armies, if the Germans lost Stalingrad, the war was doomed.
Good night,
Tico
Interesting video TIK, when you mention that there were factions in Spain who thought that Franco was "not fascist enough" do you think perhaps the 'Blue Division' was a cynical ploy to off load a good portion of the hard core fascists within the Spanish army and send them to do something useful instead of causing dissent at home?
Very good point!
@Gazzara5 True, the political leaders might have remained in Spain but officers and perhaps some of the more zealous men might have volunteered to fight the bolsheviks. Those are the ones who organise coup-de-tete and revolts as much as any politician. Symbolically Franco was sending these men to give the appearance of fighting the reds in aid of their German allies, quite a savvie move really.
As for their combat performance, the Spaniards equipment was German and they were stationed with German units around them, the Italians were given the job of just holding the line with Romanians and Hungarians on their flanks and had their own equipment which wasn't necessarily the best.
@@donfelipe7510 "It is the Indian, not the arrow, that makes the shot."
Many soldiers of blue división were not volunteers, but elementos suspicious of being leftists, Who were send to Russia accepting a " kind advice". For example muy wife's uncle
Aye, but it was also chock full of rabid Falangists who were chaffing at the bit. Knowing Franco is was a one size fits all solution to political undesirables.
I'm Italian living in Spain, I'm a big fan of your RUclips channel.
You would be surprised on how badly teached Spaniards are about their own Civil War. Most Spaniards think that it was all "Evil vs Good" but in reality they were both 2 horrible groups with very similar thoughts fighting between each others. The most Socialist Spaniards still think today that the "good" ones were defeated while the evil ones won. And the people who had their grandfathers and grandfathers fighting in the National front feel that the right ones won.
I must say that Spain was lucky enough for Franco slowly progressed towards a more open economy after won the Civil War, right after the 50's the Nation started to be slightly more open economically and less tyrannical. So in that sense, yeah, the less-bad side won, but it doesn't make them the "Heroes".
And it's funny and sad (we should pass on and look towards the future) how nowadays the Left-Wing politicians try to appeal the socialist Spaniards to vote them for make the Government spend money (we would be talking about millions or even billions of euros) in recover the dead bodies of every Republican or Socialist who died and got buried in mass graves during the civil war and during Franco's dictatorship.
Imagine how absurd it would be if now Germany would spend millions of euros in trying to recover every dead soldier that they've lost in WWII. Or imagine the Russians trying to recover their dead comrades of 80 years ago.
Me estas comparando los desaparecidos de una guerra con los desaparecidos de durante y después de la guerra civil? No se buscan a los muertos en batalla,se buscan a personas como a mi bisabuelo, que un día lo sacaron de casa y nunca más se supo de él (por ponerte un ejemplo,a mi y a mi familia sinceramente no nos importa, sabemos más o menos donde está y fuera,una anécdota familiar) se buscan a los cientos de miles que están en fosas comunes sin identificar, profesores,policias, políticos como no,y gente normal y corriente que simplemente pensaba distinto.Que el bando republicano cometió barbaridades? Absolutamente de acuerdo,el régimen franquista lo recordó durante 40 años,y a los muertos del bando nacional se les rindieron honores durante esos años,e incluso de forma privada hasta el día de hoy.La busquéda de las fosas de los asesinados (que no muertos en batalla repito,sino represaliados) es un acto de dignidad del pueblo español,no como acto de confrontación sino para resarcir la memoria de tantos que un día salieron de casa y no volvieron. En la misma línea la próxima exhumación del dictador del valle de los caidos,en el que ni él queria estar,es un acto de dignidad de españa,y sinceramente si alguien se enfada o se ofende de que el dictador más sanguinario que ha tenido este país se le mande a su casa (que no a una fosa como hizo él y los suyos a tantos) pues no es más que un franquista.
Como italiano los españoles te vemos como hermano,pero por favor no vengas a dar lecciones de lo que debemos o no debemos pensar,un saludo muy fuerte.
"Imagine how absurd it would be if now Germany would spend millions of euros in trying to recover every dead soldier that they've lost in WWII"
Yeah that's because they were Nazis. Republican Spain were communists - a polar opposite ideology - who spend three years trying to beat the Nazis. That's good, they should rewarded for their good work.
Los rusos, por si no lo sabe, tratan con enorme respeto a sus muertos de la gran guerra patria, y también a los alemanes muertos que siguen hallando y buscando, cada año. En España hemos sufrido una dictadura de fascismo católico durante muchos años, que produjo un tremendo atraso en todos los terrenos, España so logro el PIB nv de 1936 en los años 50. La naciente emancipación femenina, fue abortada, las mujeres fueron devueltas al siglo 19. La naciente enseñanza laica, fue devuelta a las garras nv de la iglesia católica. En la posguerra, a menudo los curas decidían quien vivía y quien no. Todo un horror, nada que ver con el panorama edulcorado que muchos pintan en este foro
ball similar and yet very different. Both very very very bad. Both subordinate individual freedom to the wiles of the the state or nation.
@@joahnnseneca1407 que bien te sabes el guión progre jajajajaja
Errol Flynn went to The Spanish Civil War. He said, ''I would have gone to either side just to get away from Lili.'' Lili was his wife ( Lili Damita ) Just thought I'd lighten up the matter for a moment but let me say I admire your research and commitment. I have listened to 3 videos in a row. Thanks.
The answer its quite simple. Spain came out of a terrible and devastating civil war. So demanding the spanish people a hole new war effort, was really something against Franco s power stability.
He knew that if he joined Germany, his country was not gonna be able to do much for the war effort and his people were going to complain and point the finger at him. Plus, he also knew that if Germany somehow lost the war, and he was found inside the Axis, the US and UK would kick him out of power.
So he had everytihing to lose (his power) and he hadnt really nothing to win. Except for Gibraltar, but that was up to the Germans to give it to Spain once war ended.
People usually does not really understand how devastated Spain was after the 1936-39 war. It was a real mess. No country could join a war just a year from a terrible conflict like that one.
Except, Franco actually wanted to join the Axis and actively tried to do so. Thus, the answer isn't quite as simple because, despite knowing that Spain had been devastated, he still wanted to participate.
@@TheImperatorKnight And of course the Germans thought is too swarthy for the honor of dying for them....
@bittercottoncandy Yeah Iberians do tend to be haughty, kinda like the English. Not that "I'm too cool for you to even care" style of the French, it's exactly like he said. Nobles of an empire that doesn't exist. We Iberians are often in denial about our place in the current world.
@@floridaman318 And so say all of us!
@@mikefay5698 That isn't to say we are doing that bad either. We jst don't rule the world like we used to. What goes up must come down.
"Oil!"
The Americans warned Franco that if he joined the Nazis, or took Gibraltar, the US would immediately cut supplies of oil. This would have propelled Spain back into the Stone Age. The country was already suffering severe food shortages after its terrible civil war. So Franco really had no choice - and Hitler, of course, had no reserves of oil to give him to replace US supplies.
i would really like to see more about the American stance on oil supplies to Spain
I know a man (now 80) whose father joined the Abraham Lincoln brigade to fight in Spain. He was blinded, and lived out the rest of his life back home. Very sad case, but he apparently had some remarkable stories to tell!
What baffles me is when people read the name "𝙉𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙎𝙤𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙢" and say they were "ultra capitalist blah blah" Bro ! Read the bloody name ! Its in Your FACE ! XD
Without Gibraltar it would increase the time to get to Egypt by at least 30 days.
Interestingly, almost all the convoys to Egypt went via the Cape of Good Hope not through the Mediterranean due to the threat of the Italian navy. Losing Gibraltar would be a huge blow because it makes supplying Malta even harder and Malta is critical to constraining Axis supplies to North Africa. This, rather than convoy distance is the major value of Gibraltar.
@@notbotheredable there's that, but also the fact that warships didn't take the trip around Africa, they went straight through the Mediterranean
Take Gibraltar, and the loss of even a destroyer is a big deal because now it's either take the extra 30 days and lack adequate naval cover or risk getting shelled by giant shore batteries you used to own
Its a big counter factual, but I'd wager depending on the time it might have been taken, Churchill would have pushed his Admirals to organise a mad cruise in strength passed the Rock and shelled it on the way or something, Gallipoli style
Wasn't it something more like six weeks ? Or was that the total voyage time from Britain, and 30 days merely the extra time it would take a convoy to sail from Gibraltar to Suez?
I haven't looked into Spain in WWII in a long time but I seem to remember hearing about how Hitler hated talking to franco and that franco was very difficult to negotiate with or something, I think Hitler wanted permission and cooperation from franco to go through Iberia and attack Gibraltar but franco made demands which Hitler couldn't or wouldn't meet
"Well, violence didn't work, so let's try democracy OH BACK TO VIOLENCE AGAIN"
Its in the socalist handbook.
democracy and violence arent mutualy exclusive
@@venelin9819 Bullshit. Two wolves and 1 sheep vote on what's for dinner. Pure Democracy is legalized mob rule. Case closed.
@@jamestheotherone742 Violence is still continuing all over the Planet by Trumpy Pumpie's murderous Capitalist Imperialists. He kills and imprisons his own people in it's decline! Locks up babys.
@@mikefay5698 So you're the kind of person who think the side of the apple that they can see is the only part that exists?
One reason they stayed out was the one million casualties they had suffered during the Spanish civil war.
Absolutely...
Casualties were 285.000 military + 150.000 civilian. Not even half a million. The reason for Spain not entering the war, I think is rather that Franco was an experienced, prudent and wiser leader than history has credited him.
@@paulpopescu2757 Spain is still backward thanks to Feudal reaction!
@@mikefay5698 Spain never had Feudalism. Please try to study our History properly. Forget propaganda stuff.
@@josemfuentes9413 Which European country never had Feudalism? The British still have a House of Lords and a Queen. Spain too!
There's a mistake about the Blue division at 36:00. They weren't called that way because of the colour of their uniform (which wasn't blue) but because they wore the phalangist blue shirt (from the Falange, Spain's only political party allowed) and refused to remove it when they arrived in Germany for training and they were given German uniforms.
Also it would be interesting to make a video analysing Franco's own perspective of the Second World War. In a nutshell, according to him, this was not one single conflict, but three different ones happening at the same time: one were the Axis fought the Communists, were he supported the Axis; another one were the Axis fought the Allies, where he declared himself neutral; and the third one in the Pacific theatre, where he was actually supporting the US against Japan. There are rumours which imply that Franco was considering sending another kind of "blue division" to the Philippines in order to help the US.
I think it's a pretty interesting vision of the conflict, one that very few people know about and that shows how Franco was playing pretty much with everyone to get out of such a difficult situation as a World War
A Spanish invasion of Portugal?! It seems absurd, considering that Franco's Nationalist forces were assisted by Portugal in the initial stages of the Spanish Civil War. A Portuguese division was even recruited to fight with the Spanish Nationalists. When one adds to this that Portugal had been an ally of Great Britain for at least 400 years, which meant that British help would have certainly been on the way, one must wonder what ever could have motivated Franco to consider such a thing, if indeed he did. Only if the UK had been defeated an occupied by Germany could such a thing have been entertained.
Perhaps that's the exact reasoning that meant it never went further than planning. Countries often make military plans for varyingly outlandish events, I suppose both because you never know what might happen in a few years, and because it gets staff officers some intellectual exercise; the existence of a plan doesn't by itself mean anything. I'd be interested to know how seriously an invasion of Portugal was considered. Not to mention, there's not an obvious advantage to Franco invading/occupying Portugal, unless I'm missing something.
But Portugal under Salazar was already Fascist! Why would Franco have a problem with Salazar?
Portugal under Salazar was politically aligned with the UK tho. The regime of Metaxas (Greece) also had many fascist inspirations, but that didn’t stop Mussolini to invade it in WW2
Franco was a devout Catholic, he used fascists for his aims. If he wanted to go to war at all, he would've done it (hint: Gibraltar, eternally wounded Spanish pride), Hitler could not convince Franco to join. Hitler said he would rather spend eight hours in the dentist's chair than ten minutes with Franco, and we know how much Hitler hated dentists.
I'm more excited for the upcoming stalingrad series. Then a small child on Christmas eve. Thanks TIK
Thank goodness for that. I thought I was the only one who thought like that !!
These little musings like “ fascism = anarcho-syndicalism “ apart from being unqualified observations, illuminate absolutely nothing about the Spanish Civil War, Franco, or the Blue Division. I’d hope they appear less in future episodes.
Greekvvedge of course they’ll appear more, as the more criticism he receives the more he leans on gassing up anarcho-capitalist larpers.
Not that online leftists aren’t also a bunch of larpers, but come on. This is embarrassing.
@Cester Jester Speaking Hes prob just an anarchist who got butthurt about being compared to fascists. The "unqualified" remark just means he disagrees with the statement and is trying to discredit it with what amounts to an ad hominem . Usual stuff as far as such discussions go.
@@sergioelwing6442 It's just that the channel is full of these kind of political observations that skew an otherwise entertaining video to a place that many viewers don't want to go. It's unqualified in that nowhere does he offer any real evidence for this, it's just his general political viewpoint so he doesn't waste anytime shoeing it in there. In that sense, it's ironic that you'd accuse me of logical fallacy when his observations about the Spanish anarchists being fascists because Mussolini started as a socialist is a classic non-sequitur. He makes similar comments on multiple vids and I knew I wouldn't be the only one who does a double-take in this particular video, since he does it damn-near the beginning. Furthermore, if he can make such unqualified and fringe-sounding remarks, it makes me questions the the reliability of his analysis regarding tactics, strategy, etc. Makes me want to unsubscribe and just watch Military History Visualized with that German fellow who doesn't shove irrelevant political beliefs into his videos.
@@greekvvedge Firstly, he did make a full-length standalone video on the matter, wherein he explains his reasoning and presents the pertinent evidence. You’ll be glad to find out that it is more than just “they fascist cause Mussolini was socialist”. Maybe you should go watch that, you will see how that method is more convincing than just calling things “unqualified” or “fringe”. You may disagree with his conclusions, but they are certainly very much qualified. As for “fringe”, it is just a meaningless insult. All ideas are fringe at first.
Secondly, many viewers do want him to go into that (myself included). The political backdrop is always relevant to any strategic analysis. This is especially true when considering a topic like the Spanish Civil War, with its whirlwind of confused political factions. Besides, even if he is wrong on the political take, it does not necessarily imply anything about the strategic or tactical aspects (that is a true non-sequitur). Judge each claim on its own merits.
Finally, if you prefer MHV, go watch that (no complaint here, Bernard is a great guy and his content is excellent). Stop bitching and trying to tell the TIK how to run his channel and, if you must do that, maybe try offering something more than your own “unqualified” personal distaste.
On a side note. You should try to get all that sand out of your vagina, because it is making you cranky. What I mean is, there is no point in telling people not to “shove” their opinions down your gullet (that is what YT is for). So try exercising a bit of stoicism and just soldiering on. It is a big world out there and all of us have to hear things we do not particularly like.
I think we are done here. Many cheers m8!
Como español he aprendido más en 49 minutos que años de educación en la escuela.
Viva Franco
@@Sinha010 me temo que eso va a ser bastante complicado.
The blue division was composed mainly of volunteers but there were also "forced" volunteers, send as punishment for not being loyal to the regime and also by common criminals. There was a strange mix of veteran national soldiers, fascist fanatics, "volunteer" republicans and criminals.
And these fuckers in Spain still have the nerve to praise them as heroes nowadays.
Making heroes out of people who volunteered to be a part of the invasion and the Nazi killing machine.
@@alexalexin9491 Some praise them, others would've been happy if none came back alive from the east.
@@alexalexin9491 Depends on who you ask, opinions vary wildly
@@alexalexin9491 Surely men will praise them and women will resent them. It's history, though. Never forget what they did to London.
ruclips.net/video/Rv9iu-3k-kQ/видео.html
@@dmart29 I guess Nazis are much better for you....
You’re AMAZING!!!!
This should be mandatory study in any history class.
In his famous journal Count Ciano quotes Mussolini defining fascism as corporatism. Historian Hugh Trevor-Roper used the term corporate socialism.
As I watch the world burn around me I begin to understand the appeal of Franco.
And when you see most globalist are small hats one must wonder if there was any truth In Hitlers madness
There wasn't, he was a raving loon.
Sorry TIK but your interpretation of the situation of Spain precivil war and civil war is not really very accurate,but i guess you have to be spaniard to know many things or being an expert in the matter like Paul Preston.
I feel like you have to do a lot of research into it to get a good grasp of it if you aren't a Spaniard where I assume it is a big part of the history classes in school?
@@holyelliw yeah absolutely,i mean the civil war and more importantly, the situation pre civil war and the aftermath is a huuuuge part of our history classes,we have this class 'history of Spain' in high school, 1 trimester is prehistory till the fall of the romans, the trimester is from that till the Spanish-American war (1898) and the last part is 1898-present.that last part is heavily focus on the civil war and Franco's dictatorship,and the "transition" to democracy.
Besides that you learn about this era in Spanish class (your english class) bc lots of writters poets and intelectuals were involved, the generation of the 28 as we call it and in many other classes.
Besides you have your own familiar history about the civil war so as you guessed it's huge.
In fact many historians and intelectuals claim that our schools focus too much in the XX century and too little in,for example, our golden era,which is just a short lesson in our textbooks. Idk
PD: I said that comment not for disrespect TIK but bc there is many many thing to consider in our civil war, if you let me say one if the most complex wars of history.for example saying that the anarchist were THAT big is...greatly incorrect,they were important in some places,in other don't, and i could speak on and on but i think i said too much,thanks.
What did he get wrong? What did he miss?
@@nelsonjv1 Well mostly i would say categorizing the 1936 spnaish election as analogous to Hitlers, where as the Republicans won through a majority coalition that was well planned. In Gemany 1932, though the Nazis had the largest 33-37% of the vote, they were nowhere close to a majority and the other two main parties hated each other (the social democrats and communists). Hitler himself was only named chancellor after a deal with Hindenburg after the 2nd round elections didnt unseat the Nazi plurality. Also the Weimar constitution had some pretty awful loopholes that made it easy to exploit towards further power grabbing. Im not saying everything the spanish Republicans did before the Civil War was good or even well intenioned either, im just showing how they are not analogous and reflect different electoral and legal events. TIK seems to have a bad habit of wanting to find every connection he can to link Socialism and Nazism even when it doesnt fit. Id have hoped the reality of the CEDA and Falange relationship would make him realize that fascism is connected to both left and right in different capacities, but alas, we continue. I still have great respect for his other analytical skills though.
@@nelsonjv1 I only got 3:45 minutes in before I gave up as he had too many "errors", rather deliberate distortions. He gives no dates of this failed "coup" by the Anarcho-Syndicalists, so that's a deliberate distortion for one.
He is attempting to draw a link in the minds of the audience between the Anarcho-Syndicalists & the NSDAP. The latter was socialist in name only because "socialism" was popular at the time. For more info, www.vox.com/2019/3/27/18283879/nazism-socialism-hitler-gop-brooks-gohmert
Frankly, a shorter list would be "What did he get right?" At 3:45 minute in of a 50 minute vid, pardon me if I don't bother.
Spain: "we are going to invade portugal"
Portuguese diplomats: "well yes but actualy no"
in late 1943 there were talks among the allies about invading Spain and removing Franco. The americans were in favor, but the british were against. After all, Franco's neutrality had been very useful to the british. When Stalin heard about the plans to invade Spain, he was in a dilemma: he hated Franco and wanted him removed, BUT that would mean opening another "italian front" , that would delay the invation of France in 1944. In this case Stalin sided with the british, and argued against invading Spain.
General Franco heard those rumors about the allies invading Spain, and he later admited that "those 3 months were the worst of my life". Finally, in February 1944 the british informed Franco in confidence that there was no risk of invation, and the danger was over. Franco could breathe relieved...
I am very curious to know how anyone in the US believed that invading Spain thought that removing Franco advanced the cause of defeating Germany. The way I see it, it would have made the invasion of Italy seem like a Blitzkrieg. The allies were having supply problems for months after landing in Normandy with, I presume, port facilities that were superior to anything that would have existed in Spain. One can only imagine what the roads conditions in Spain, an already relatively backwards country ravaged by years of civil strife and economic stagnation. That is even before you get to the Pyrenees several hundred miles south of where you would be invading Normandy. It just doesnt make any sense that the Americans, who were not very thrilled about the decision to advance thru Italy, would grasp onto the notion of a diversion thru Spain.
@@dondajulah4168 its because we americans look at spain as a country that hasnt won a war since the 1500s. We dont think of them as warriors and they look easy to rollover. Its doesn't matter to us that they fought a civil war because we think of them as pussys. It looks like a tasty foot hold in mainland europe that would be an easy gain. Its exactly like invading italy...it wasnt a hard fight. These people just arnt true warriors and they dont really have the concept of what total war actually is....its that we are going kill you. What i cant see about invading spain is where the foot hold would start, id guess Rota and push south to north. With no germans it would have been easy pickings.
@@dhardy6654 A nations ability to resist foreign invasion is dependent on many factors with battlefield success in a far off past being less relevant than most. Spain had very underdeveloped infrastructure and terrain very favorable for a successful resistance which would have inhibited any allied attempt to use Spain as a springboard to the defeat of Nazi Germany. It would have made no sense to have invaded Spain even if Franco were 100% in the pocket of Hitler. With Franco acting just about as favorably towards the Allies as was possible in his situation, it would have been insane to seek to depose him. As a famous US general once said, "you break it, you own it" and no foreign power with any sense wanted to "own" Spain in that time period.
@@dondajulah4168 we break it we own it....its that easy. Spain has actually been broken forever. Its truly a shitty relic of a culture and people. It was broken when the romans marched thru it, broken when the moors invaded, broken during its disgusting inquisition period, broken after and after again til today where its still broken. Just a total joke in the history of humanity. It would have taken much to punch thru it back around 1943, its not a prize or a goal its only a landing spot on a chess board for playing a better game. The Germans werent really that great or these dangerous warriors its that europeans are just such weak pussys and have such huge egos of tiny people living in old tiny countries.....their small egos makes them inflate german superiority to make them feel better about getting there asses kicked. I think the russians could have won single handedly if they were just given outside material support. It really is an entire content of weak ass pussys.
@@dondajulah4168 it ability to resist only depends on who is invading you asshole....that it.
It is a little curious that you mention the Church element at the end rather than during the discussion of the factions. The nationalist side, both falangist and monarchist were heavily catholic. I think you should have at least mentioned the Carlist element of the Nationalist side as it was very significant and not can hardly be described as Socialist. It feels too much like you're painting this war as socialist v socialist conflict ergo socialism bad. Also you addressed the 'myth' of the Nationalists also having a capitalist faction yet don't mention how this is actually more true of the Republicans who had centralist, pro-democracy, pro-liberal democracy support as well as regionalist party support (including conservative regionalist parties). Although complex, I don't think it helps to oversimplify the conflict as a internationalist v nationalist conflict.
Luke Lanfear it’s because he needs to, ideologically. Socialism to him is whenever the government does something he doesn’t like. Any admission that there are differences between the right and left wings is tantamount to forswearing his beliefs.
@@BrorealeK When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Broreale it’s starting to get to the point where he is trying to fit every conflict in the 20th century into this narrative at the expense of ignoring sources which used to make his battle storm series actual good.
This was a mesh of hypothetical situations combined with TIK’s increasingly bizarre picture ideology shoehorned into it.
@@jaybot303functionerror4 I have to completely agree, with every video coming out, TIK's 'classic liberal' outlook is just biasing beyond reasonable tolerance. I'm not asking for any totalitarian apologism, just stop twisting the narrative so bloody much. I guess this is what being a retail manager does to a man. I'm also skeptical about his controversial stance being reinforced more and more is for the sake of driving views to make his channel more successful.
Luke Lanfear it really puts me off his work and sometimes I can’t even hide my contempt for the sources he uses.
He is just cherry picking stuff with agree with his narrative constantly to the point it contradicts him.
Hitler lies contradicting himself constantly though out Mien Kampf regarding what he called himself politically, he made so many speeches you can find him endless saying how the Nazi were never socialists practically after 1933 with the night of long knifes he used to get rid of his political rivals in the party and what you could argue was the ‘ socialist element’ of the Nazi’s led by RoMM in the SA but that’s pushing it.
Dan Carlin did an entire episode of Hardcore History Addendum on why some in the American right want to frame the Nazi’s as socialists who were Democratically elected to attack Ideas such as universal health care, by linking them to the Nazi’s, rather going at the actual policy.
Being from the U.K. TIK position of ‘ classic liberalism’ is even more strange as I only hear Carl of Swindon saying this over here & he is pandering to U.S. reactionary audience whilst a member of a very right wing reactionary party in U.K.I.P.
Is TIK being paid by Prager U as it’s real effecting nearly every upload now.
His political spectrum slid was straight up embarrassing as were his definition of the political actors in Spain, at the time of the civil war.
It’s showing when he does not know enough on a subject he is just not using credible sources or willing to reconsider ideas he see contradicted by these sources.
I doubt, very, very much that Franco was interested in Portugal with a similar dictatorship there. But if Payne said so... He is one of the best experts in the Spanish history.
Hugh Thomas' book, The Spanish Civil War is still in print (1961) and is a good history of the war. Spain was an escape route for Jewish people and Allied pilots during the War, and some Nazis later.
Came here from bruchminati shouting you out in his recent vid. Must say your channel is fascinating and very in depth. Keep up the good work
So Spain exported tungsten and wolfram to Germany? Tungsten is a Swedish word meaning heavy stone and Tungsten is internationally used for the metal we in Sweden call wolfram! What a crazy world!
We call ot also wolfram. :)
Franco's reign in Spain has now, mainly, been explained. Enjoyable presentation!
You seemed out of your element on this one... (regarding the internal situation in Spain), its comprehensible though, its a very complicated subject. As a Spaniard i know how hard it is..
Probably as hard as trying to figure out the Italians...or Chinese Arithmetic
I can't agree more, i guess it takes a spaniard to understand another spaniard
I was living at Barcelona when Franco passed away .... Even today is hard to have a conversation on this subject . Spain still have its wounds open
The Colonel it’s awful and completely histrionically wrong take on the Spanish civil war in so many different ways.
His political spectrum thing is bonkers looks like the work of a 13 year old, you don’t define political theory by using the rantings of Hitler, Stalin & Benito who would say different things to different audiences just to gain power & justify there actions.
It’s like defining out definition of democracy based on North Korea’s idea of it.
Anarchist in Spain now actual were statist corporatists according to TIK.
If he just said look I have not read enough on this subject to give you a fact checked coherent narrative with actual sources other than 1 book, I would have had more respect for him.
I wish he would just stick to military history as more complex economic’s with political theory of the time really expose his own bias, plus lack of knowledge & wider reading on the subjects.
John Blackadder - As someone who has studied Economic History to Masters level and beyond over the past 6 years, his approach to Economics is very poor. Simply put, corporatism, or public v private or state intervention, any of these ‘terms’ really mean nothing in economics, the actual outcomes of what economic policy does is really what an economist is interested in, maybe the way it is enforced and how effective it is. When he talks on Mercantalism, it’s very clear he has no idea what it means, as it has nothing to do with ‘international trade, or self sufficiency’ but everything to do with the works of Daniel Ricardo, protectionism, and the differences between absolute and comparative advantage.
Anyway, I still rate his military history very highly - I was personally taught by Adam Tooze, so his use of his works is refreshing!
Watching this at work when several people came up to my job right when the giant fascism chart was up. That totally wasn't awkward at all, nooooope.
It was called Blue Division because the mayority of the meber at the begining were member of Falange. They used to dress a blue shirt. That was the origin of that name.
Indeed, their song 'Cara al sol, con la camisa puesta' - 'face to the Sun, with the shirt on.'
The title of their anthem was the Cara al Sol. Some parts of the song said. Cara al Sol con la camisa nueva. Face to the sun with the new shirt.
Regarding Hitlers view of Francos handling of the chursh: The people was very lojal to the Catolic chursh. I doubt he could have stayed in power if he went against the clergy. It could very well have sparked a new civil war at the least. Francos main focus was probably to stay in power, and increasing his dominions would have come second. Also, Spain was not exactly the height of industrial effectivness. There is no way they could have replenished any major losses of heavy war material at sea or on land. They would have become a lame duck if any went wrong, waiting for the allies to roll right thru them. There is a probability that Brittain would just have let them crush themselves against Gibraltar, moling them down with shore bombardment from a couple of battlrship and a few cruisers and air strikes from an aircraft carrier. The spanish didnt even have anything to stop Brittain from sailing from port to port and turn basically everything within a couple of miles from the sea shore to rubble, once their air force was downed. Wish it would have been in fairly short order.
"Real fascism" is a relative term. Like all ideologies it is adapted to the particulars of whichever country it is implemented in. Just because he did some things differently than others doesn't mean he was his own separate thing.
Franco was a Nationalist Roman Catholic. And he steered Spain through its primary existential crisis. He is to be highly regarded as a Patriot & Statesman. Viva 🇪🇸! Viva CRISTO Rey!!!
You left Wilhelm Canaris, chief of the Abweher, out of this completely. I've read that he played a major role in convincing Franco to stay out of the axis.
He made a video all about him by now.
Franco, a highly decorated top military figure, and well educated, dismissed Hitler as a lowly army corporal, an idiot. He gladly took the fool’s military supplies, with zero intention to join the National Socialists.
He saved Spain from Stalin and Hitler, and by officially keeping Spain out of WW2, he spared numerous Spanish cities from the devastation of allied fire bombing. The Spanish were incredibly fortunate to have him.
I've seen other sources (I can't remember where or when) that made the assertion that Franco basically applied for Axis membership and Hitler demurred. Hitler reasoned, and rightly so, that Spain would have been a liability instead of an asset. They would have needed every resource you can think of.
What we had in Spain back in the early 20th century was an utterly corrupt monarchist system, which invariably responded to the demands of the working class with repression and violence.
Context is essential to understand why the Spanish Socialist and Anarchist movements gained so much strength in the late 19th and early 20th century.
The story doesn't start in 1935... it rather starts in 1874, when a military coup put an end to the First Spanish Republic, restored the Bourbon monarchy and put a corrupt bipartisan system (Turno pacífico) in its place.
When it became clear that the Socialists, Anarchists and Republicans were only getting stronger under that corrupt bipartisan system, the reactionary elements of the Spanish oligarchy prevailed (as they often do).
Instead of making the system less corrupt, more inclusive, fair and democratic... instead of responding to the worker's plight, they preferred to back a dictatorship.
And so it was that Spain ended in the hands of the dictator Primo de Rivera ( backed by king Alfonso XIII, the army, the Catholic church and key sectors of the oligarchy ) during the 1920s.
That only strengthened the resolve of Socialists, Anarchists and Republicans, as one would imagine (although some of Primo de Rivera's policies were initially popular).
Primo de Rivera's dictatorship ended in 1930 when he stepped down, after having lost the essential support of the army, key sectors of the oligarchy and the popular support he had initially gained...also due to financial crisis.
After that, king Alfonso XIII, who was despised by most Spaniards at that point, established a series of provisional governments, the last of which called for the celebration of municipal elections by 1931.
When Alfonso XIII learned that Republican parties had won those municipal elections in 1931, he wrote the following statement to the ministers of his last provisional government:
hemeroteca.abc.es/nav/Navigate.exe/hemeroteca/madrid/abc/1931/04/17/003.html
Basically, he portrayed himself as an innocent ruler who only ever wanted the best for the Spanish people... while reminding everyone that he could easily oppose the results of the election and start a civil war... but that he preferred to suspend his royal power, leave Spain and recognize the country as the sole master of its destiny, in order to avoid a "fratricide" civil war.
How nice of him...he decided against killing the majority of Spanish people just because they didn't want him in power 🤦♂️ 🤣
So, yup, this is a rough description of the historical context... far better than reducing it all to "Spain was full of commies who created a republic after their revolution failed", you'll agree...
Most people in Spain sympathised with Republicans, Socialists and Anarchists because they were sick and tired of the monarchy (and its allies) screwing them over.
On another note, your comparison of the popular front coalition from 1936 with the freaking Nazi party is utterly ridiculous and ignorant.
It was precisely the parties in the national front (CEDA & co) that engaged in terror tactics, like the Nazis had done.
Who do you think Mussolini and Hitler assisted during the Spanish Civil War? Hint: It wasn't the popular front coalition... 🤦♂️
The mere fact that you're presenting the republican factions of the Second Spanish Republic as a monolithic entity shows that you have very little idea of what you're talking about.
There were republicans of all kinds and creeds (center, left, right, catholic, atheist, socialist, capitalist, etc.), then there were communists, several flavors or socialists and anarchists, etc.
They were all constantly fighting each other, the Second Spanish Republic was far from unified, which is one of the major reasons why Franco prevailed in the end.
If you think that Franco and Mussolini were anarchists, I guess I'm wasting my time here. An anarchist simply doesn't institute a hierarchical structure of government (under any form)... Mussolini can claim to be whatever the fuck he wants, the reality of his choices is what matters in the end.
As for Franco, he was an utterly pragmatic and power-hungry individual (his own brother declared that he would've killed their mother in order to gain power).
He went straight to the military academy and then the army, he didn't waste his time posturing like Mussolini had done.
Franco saw a path to power and he took it... and he would've put your ass in jail (or worse) for calling him an anarchist (or anything of that sort)
Excellento!
Thank God, TIK totally talked out of his on this one, I wonder what his sources are, because it is horrifying how wrong he is. This puts his other material in jeopardy for me.
What a load of nonsense. Most Spanish people were Catholic, and in no way supported the Republicans and their slaughter of over 5,000 priests and nuns. The Republicans were scum who would have destroyed Spain internationally had they won. When they won the election they declared there would be no further elections in Spain. Franco's victory led directly to the modern Spanish democracy; there wouldn't be any democracy had the Republican scum won.
You're right , at most . As you said it's really a mess . But we can never forget some points :
1. Spain is a curious country . There are several diferents cultures in there . The Catalans , the Bascos , The Gallegos , for instance , were the richest people in Spain . And they don't like Franco . Neigther the King , by the way . Spain was weak from inside .
2. Portugal respect the alliance with England they've made at 1703 . And when Bonaparte invaded the peninsula the Portuguese flee to Brazil and open Brazil to England in 1808 . Then they fought with the british troops to drive Bonaparte away ( long before Spain ) . Portuguese and brazilian troops were in Somme ( 1916 )alongside the Brittish , and we died toguether .
3. Portugal was fascist during the WWII , but never forgot its past with England . Portugal survived despite Spain. Portugal was open always to England policy . They hated Spain too much .
4. Brazil , as Portugal , was able to negociate with German and EUA at WWI , and we choose right . Despite Brazil at that time was fascist , we could take the best way and choose EUA ( in exchange of Siderúrgica Nacional for a infantary division wich fought along de Vº Army in Italy )
5.. It´s a mess , I know , but Portugal and Brazil played it's part in the Battle of Atlantic , and Spain not.
At last , Spain do not have economy to enter the war . And the second world war was not only an ideologic war . It was a war between the richer ones .
of course we can talk and talk for ever . The fact is that I love TIK
Igor, good points, and for others 'EUA' = 'USA'.
@@EdMcF1 That's right . But I speak portuguese , so ... some erros are expected ...
Brazillians in zhe Somme???? What? Portuguese retro migrants?
I'm a lifelong student of war and international politics. And I still felt like I should be taking notes watching this. Told my friends and we are all hooked on you now too. Brilliant.
There's a big misleading interpretation of the onset of the Civil War. Franco, and the other two generals didn't want a war. All they did was to attempt a coupt d'etat which failed, or worked partly (they failed to seize the whole country), and this triggered the civil war.
TIK's truly lost it. His summary was historically literate.
@@dannyhalas9408 illiterate.
Love how TIK states that Franco was "eager to go to war" citing Franco's desire to acquire Gibraltar because it would make it hard for Britain to operate in Gibraltar. I can see how that serves the interests of Italy and Germany but dont see at all how that serves the interests of Spain/Franco. That moves immediately makes them the enemy of the worlds largest naval power (Great Britain) and on the eventual enemy of the worlds largest industrial power (with the capacity to surpass GB in naval power as soon as they enter the war).
Whatever worthless African possessions that could be gained would come only by conflict with a Nazi-dominated Vichy France. Again, even if Franco were ideologically aligned with Hitler (which was hardly the case), there was virtually nothing in the deal for Franco/Spain and a whole lot in it for Germany and Italy. I would love to see a citation where Franco stated ambitions of territorial expansion because I have not come across any such reference in my limited study on the topic.
Countries generally dont eagerly go to war to serve the interests of other countries when no treaty compelling them to do so is in place, especially so when they are guaranteed to lose possessions (Canary islands), the outcome of the war is uncertain, your country is exhausted from a recently concluded civil war, and the leader of said country believes the leader of the country making the request is in conflict with your deeply held religious beliefs (I guess TIK is going to claim that Francos religious beliefs was all a ruse).
UPDATE: just hearing now TIK stating the up until 1943-1944 the Axis is favored to win the war. Considering that Italy has surrendered by that time and his good friend Mussolini has been deposed and is essentially being held hostage by the Nazi's, I find that statement highly suspect to put it mildly.
@@dondajulah4168 Lefttube needs a TIK parody channel. There is too much mileage in "But...Is this really the case?" & "TIK is LYING!"
@@JohnSmith-ft4gc So start it if you feel this strongly.
Autharky wasnt an option. It was a geopolitical strategy at the time of the 2ww.
Corporartivism is not efficient with today’s eyes. But it was efficient to stop communism and successful for national unification, to avoid unnecessary conflicts etc
Hi Tik. I’ll need to digest this and your last video. Looking forward to it; makes my Mondays better. Almost done with Evans work on the Irving Trial.
A lot of people said my last video (the Public vs Private one) was perhaps my best ever video. Then a small minority said it was my worst :D I respect Evans for what he did on that trial, and his "In Defence of History" is a fantastic discussion on the theory of history
TIK I got 20 minutes in before I had to go do something else. I’ll be sure to see it and put my input in. I must admit it’s difficult to understand the political and economics more than the military aspect. I’ll need to check out his other work. Right now I have a book on Poland in 1939 and Barbarossa next on the list.
@@TheImperatorKnight I just finished reading Evans "Lying about Hitler", what a great read
There may be some paper trail detailing Franco's support/sympathy for the Axis and their cause but there is nothing in his actions indicating he wanted to get into the fight. He had plenty of opportunities to help Hitler out, especially during the TORCH landings in North Africa in 42, but he maintained Spain's neutrality at every turn. He stayed out of it because he knew Spain would come out on the short end no matter which way the winds of war blew. He turned out to be correct when you consider he outlasted every last one of the combatants.
Thanks for your efforts.
I enjoyed this informative video.
I was a bit confused about Franco being at Pearl Harbor and zoned out after that.
Guess I picked the wrong week to quit glue.
Keep up the good work.
😎
Wrong week to quit amphetamines.
@@kyletitterton Nice! Someone got my reference.
Interesting take on this very important question. Franco had great help from the chief of the German military intelligence, Abwehr, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris. Canaris despised Hitler because of his socialist anti-Christianity. He was himself a catholic fascist, or more correctly; a Francoist. Canaris and Franco were friends since the Spanish Civil War, Canaris spoke fluent Spanish (childhood in Latin America) and he supported Franco with secret information. Hitler was very frustrated with Franco, he never got a grip on him.
A very interesting and important part of history that deserves more discussion. The Lincoln Brigade is worth mentioning, too. Good job, sir.
you can also study the Greek civil war. Very interesting too.
Wish I'd have come across this channel sooner. I loved your video on Mussolini. I have always wondered how Fascism ended up in so many Latin countries. Also, Fascism seems more authoritarian than totalitarian (ie Nazi or communist). Do you think having a huge presence of the Church helped eliminate the absolute horrors of others socialist ideologies?
A lot of it has to do with the role of the Army in Latin countries, and concepts of manhood, authority, rationalism, the state and "order".
A lot of Latin countries went through chaos, and ended up run by the Army.
This was how the people handled chaos - they asked the army, which was supposed to carry certain virtues to run the state.
This was similar to how the monarchs ran those countries, and even how the Roman Empire functioned.
The first in the modern era to do this was Revolutionary France, with Bonaparte. In fact France did it twice, with two different Bonapartes. In the 1870s it looked as if the French were looking again for the Army to takeover, except Marshal MacMahon preferred to not have the army in charge of the Third Republic.
Then similar trends showed up in Latin America from 1820 onwards.
After WW1, Italy devised a political philosophy to justify giving awarding a military dictatorship to a socialist journalist with no clue about running anything. He copied a hodge podge of ideas from Bonaparte, Bolivar, and the Ceasars but with none of their abilities.
Finally, the laggard was Spain under Primo De Rivero, and his follow up act, the monarchist Franco, who rules with the power of a king, in preparation for a monarchy. His rule is an extension of the same trend.
As a military man Franco had evidence that if he sent his best soldiers abroad there would have been another civil war in Spain. Therefore he needed to keep them on the job of maintaining control in Spain. His own power requirements came first. That continued for decades.
thanks, looking forward to this episode !
Same
I'm proud to say that my father served in the IRISH BRIGADE in the Spanish Civil War. The Brigade consisted of 728 volunteers; about 250 Irishmen fought for the anarchists and communists. The scum who won the election, supported by female (who had the vote for the first time) union workers, announced after their victory that the Spanish Constitution was suspended and there would be no further elections. These Republican scum slaughtered over 5,000 priests and nuns; my father marched into one village to see the local priest crucified in the square, with his intestines hanging out. These are the people who are talked about these days as "democrats." The war was described in Ireland as THE CRUSADE IN SPAIN, to support the Catholic Church. I have a certificate hanging on the wall here signed by Generalissimo Franco and General O'Duffy. Had the Republicans won, the country would have ended up as an international pariah, like Cuba. Franco's victory evolved into the modern Spanish democracy. This fact is ignored by all the people today praising the Republican "democrats." What a joke.
Bingo
Franco administration was very concerned that if they joined the axis, their extensive coastline would be under repeated attack by British naval raiding forces. Also they were really under the thumb of the United States for deliveries of oil and food both of which were desperately needed by Spain. Nazi Germany could not supply Spain with either the food or oil because Germany needed those goods to maintain their own war effort. When the overall European campaign situation became at minimum doubtful for a German win - at that point was very unlikely Spain would join the axis. (This would be about early 1943 after the German massive defeat at Stalingrad And equally bad collapse and capture of the almost the entire Italian and Nazi army in Tunisia.)
TIK makes it sound like Stalin sent troops to help the republicans in the Spanish civil war. The truth is not a single Soviet soldier set his foot on Spanish soil . Stalin's support was by sending tanks, aircraft and equipment . Not troops. Hitler and Mussolini on the other hand, added to Franco's support well trained army troops as well. It should be noted that in contrast to cold war propaganda , attributes to Stalin desire to take over Western Europe and establish a communist regime wherever possible, Stalin's position on that orthodox Marxist idea was changed after the defeat of several proletarian revolutions in countries like Germany and Hungary. In 1925 The Soviet Union adopted "socialism in one country" as state policy, meaning "A shift in the immediate activity of the Communist International from world revolution towards a defense of the Soviet state."(See Wikipedia, "Socialism in One Country").
Actually there was a broad movement of Soviet volunteers in Spain and they were considered as heroes in USSR. I don`t know how much of them were there and what involvement of government was. But USSR soldiers(at least pilots) fought in this war.
The forerunners of Spetsnaz were very active on the the Republican side. Read Into The Abyss by I.G. Starinov.
@@slicemf5347 Not professional or trained soldiers.
The soviets sent military advisors.My grandparents ran a small pension(hotel)in Valencia and my mother often told me about a russian in uniform who stayed there during the civil war.
The NKVD and the soviet secret services were still fully operational in the republican controlled area and played a mayor role on their repression against POUM and the anarchists in Barcelona.
I don't think Franco can be called a revolutionary. Sure, he lead an armed revolt, but not every revolt is a revolution. When most people say "revolutionary", they mean someone looking to overturn the current social order and introduce something radically new. Franco was a highly conservative strongman who wanted to restore an old, pre-existing order. I don't think this would fit most people's definition of "revolutionary".
Didn't Franco activily nuder the Falange, the spanish fascist? Spain retained the capitalist system (private control of means of production) and (like you said) was on good terms with the church. The real fascists did not even like him very much! He was a military dictator who at least saved Spain from the fate of easteren European countries who were "liberated" by the USSR.
In short, he was a dictator, not an anarcho-syndycalist fascist.
Regarding WW2 outcome, Gibraltar and Malta were crucial to plug the Mediterranean from the west, then press on over Egypt to Syria and Iraq. Only in that scenario Hitler would have had any chance for positive outcome (for him) in the war.
I find it amazing that Britain was able to expand Gibraltar Airfield in the neutral zone during the war. Without this the necessary air reserves for Malta would have been exceptionally difficult to deliver. I am surprised that the Axis did not ask/tell Franco to stand his ground on this without having to go to war with Britain.
Franco wasn’t a fascist, he just had fascist types in his government and an incredibly popular fascist movement underneath him
He also stabbed the Falangists in the back once he got into power
Hmm fascist who rescued 40000 jews from holocaust, and was extremely pro catholic, And then created ultraliberal economical system? TIK you are bullshiting
@@Dominikize TIK is being.... imprecise in his politics as usual. :/
I've been asking myself this same question for 30 years now, not knowing the logistics of Spain's resources or the famine after the Civil War; leading me to see Franco as kind of ungrateful for Germany's help. This is why I love your channel, TIK. It really helps me connect the dots and better understand the full history of Europe between the World Wars as well as during WW2, especially the similarities and differences between National Socialism, Fascism and Communism
l truly wish that you would do a video about Turkey during WW2 and why Axis didnt force Turkey to choose a side, since it could have been easier to reach Baku or Iraqie Petrol fields.
I disagree Hitler was anti-Church, he actually admired Catholic Church, which was one of the reasons why his relations deteriorated with Ludendorff.
At least the foreigners had few chaplains in their ranks, but it was an unusual appointment, according to Ailsby, Christopher (June 2004), Hitler's renegades.
Spain was broke and starving that had fought a bitter civil war. There was no way it could have been an effective ally to Germany.
The picture of the Spanish left was "a bit more complicated than that", well yes given that every 3men and a dog was their own faction ( and sometimes they made do without a dog......it usually got eaten )
It was a very smart move on Spain’s part.
I believe you should reconsider the description at the beginning of the video: the army was "forced" to rebel because of the republic induced chaos. Consider this, I was in primary school at the end of Franco period and during transition. This explanation is EXACTLY was I was taught. I will not direct you to the diverse bibliography with other interpretations that I'm sure you are aware of. Eventually you are the historian and I'm just an Spaniard with a taste for history.
I hope you talk about Spain again and dig up some more stuff about it. Recently, when talking about Fascists and National Socialists, I've seen a tendency to put words and definitions in a higher place than actions. It seems to me like you've focused on trying to explain how Franco was really an anarcho-syndacalist, which is very much up to discussion, as Franco was a fervent catholic and a great friend of the Crown. He was fascist to the extent Mussolini was, so not that much, they both leaned towards the conservative side (emphasis on tradition, catholic faith, nationalism, militarism, isolationism, monarchism), the only fascist element they had apart from the image they wanted to sell was their distrust of industrials, even though many times they had to reluctantly support them and sustain them, and their fascist peers were more like hierarchs that were put in positions of political power.
On the economic side, Mussolini, Franco and Hitler didn't do much, they didn't nationalise industry, Hitler regulated it in a Militarist Keynesian fashion but he went no further.
Outside of definitions and theory, the only true interest was national supremacy for the fascists and ethnic supremacy for the Nazis, with Mussolini later getting closer to the Nazis for military purposes and starting to propose an "ethnic supremacy" model similar to the Nazi one.
So yeah, Franco was very much far right, and very much against the leftist Republican model, the difference is rather obvious, the leftist goverment was trying to bring about an Anarcho-socialist state with a complete revolution of social and economic norms, while Franco's Spain socially and economically remained pretty much same old Spain.
Franco was a bit ambitious, good job he sat on his hands, he had no reason to go for Portugal, but if he had, a second Wellington (please God not Monty) lands forces at Lisbon and Porto to shore up Portugal, the UK gets sea and air bases in the Azores, Madeira and the Canaries, and the Battle of the Atlantic tilts more strongly to the Allies.
@The Colonel It is not only 'an alliance'. It is the oldest ongoing military treaty in history. This military alliance is some six hundred years old...
@Armadio It could well have been the case. My view is that had France done what Portugal did in 1808, and with decisive and crucial help of the British navy, transferred its government say to Morroco and had put their formidable navy to assist the British navy in the Atlantic and in the Mediterranean, their contribution would have been decisive to defeat Hitler, rather than being shameful.
@Armadio Gentleman, this is an extremely complex issue. It is like trying to explain the Relativity Theory in one page. Virtually impossible. These issues were so complex. Shirer was one of the brightest journalist of his generation in the whole world. His The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich I probably read some three or four times. This one you refer to I havent read but will go after it.
But I will put forward my view: The French society has not yet overcome all the evil, all the disaster, all the depredation produced by the French Revolution. The French society still spins around the French Revolution, and there is a considerable part of the French social tissue which is left wing, and in those crazy interwar years, say between 1920 and 1939, the French left did whatever it was within their reach in order to destroy the French will to fight. They were in cahoots with Stalin, and they defended a world without frontiers, of course, a world governed by Moscow. And the French fiasco was the result of this deep division in the French society. I think the left had concocted a nearly perfect plan, and they almost succeeded in transforming the whole west into communist countries ruled by Stalin. They had though Spain would fall into their jaws and they could anticipate that there would appear an unknown officer, Franco, who would say no to them. And another chap in Portugal, who would also not listen to their harangues. And a miracle happened. The United Kingdom was practically in the bag, and nobody could predict that a small rolly_polly fellow, who nobody trusted, Churchill, would prevent them from achieving their strategy. And the same things applies to De Gaulle. In short, it was thanks to half a dozen men that the whole western Europe did not go red...like Wellington said, 'it was a closely run thing...'
You had CNT, UGT, la pasonaria ,Falange,the issue is that Franco was a monarchist so he did not had another choice to join the far right
The Popular Front was more moderate than you said.
Manuel Azaña was social democrat
True, the communist influenced only increase after the war started because the USSR was the only nation that offer real support to the republican govt.
I agree. It is very disappointing when you are following a series of videos that you are liking and, suddenly, when one talks about a subject that you know something about and you see that the video is wrong, you wonder if everything he told you before would not be. It is obvious that he does not know enough about the panorama in Spain before the civil war or its protagonists and should have been cautious before making the video because it detracts from credibility.
@@lf2ut He does not care.
Great video as allways!
Thanks TIK! I'd like to suggest two further lines of study since to the best of my knowledge:
(1) Franco's generals were tipped by the Allies in order to make them disencourage Franco against the entry in the war.
(2) At the beggining of the war, our status was "Not belligerant" rather than "Neutral" although this was changed later when evidence on the outcome was clearer.
Further on the Tungsten (aka Wolfram -W-), it is believed nowadays in Spain that the 1943-44 U.S.A. embargo of oil was actually a retaliation on our W trade with the Nazis.
I always thought of anarchism as a sort of socialism with a stint of egoism, or service to self.
I get the feeling that Franco would've liked to be an Autarky Fascist ONLY if it were possible without the cost of worsening the famine. That's actually a sign of a wise leader when you don't let IDEOLOGY blind you to starvation of millions. Now if only a certain moustache man in Soviet Russia understood this between 1922-1950...