Franco & Hitler
binnacle
in an attempt to persuade Franco to join the Axis side in the war
against Britain and her Allies. It has been said that afterwards
Hitler remarked that he would rather visit the dentist to have his
teeth removed than have another meeting with Franco. I understand
Franco was wary of Spain getting involved in a war against the
British, but he owed much to Hitler for his victory against the
Republicans i.e. the Stuka destruction of Guernica etc. I understand
that Franco requested a lot but was prepared to give little active
support apart from the later formed Blue Division. Is there any source
for more detailed information about this meeting ?
Alan
Churchill speaks of it in his history/memoirs "The Second World War"
Vol II - Book 2 - Chapter 11 - "Relations with Vichy and Spain"
The dentist quote is given as "Rather than go through it again, I
would prefer to have three or four of my teeth out." Spoken later to
Mussolini.
The meeting, through interpreters, lasted 9 hours.
For their help, Spain demanded French Catalonia, nearly all of Morocco
and much of Algeria.
Churchill also says Franco disliked and feared Hitler, but felt the
opposite toward Mussolini.
I can't find the passage, but I remember reading that Franco was
determined to keep Spain out of any fighting. The country had been
pretty well wrecked by the civil war and he figured it couldn't endure
anymore fighting. I suspect his demands were deliberately inflated to
the point were he knew Hitler wouldn't agree.
Alan
Rich Rostrom
> Churchill also says Franco disliked and feared Hitler, but felt the
> opposite toward Mussolini.
Franco was a deeply conservative personality.
He was not an enthusiast for radical social
change or bold military adventures. Hitler
was more radical than Mussolini.
> I can't find the passage, but I remember reading that Franco was
> determined to keep Spain out of any fighting.
That's been claimed, and it seems likely that
Franco preferred Spain to stay out of it;
certainly he had no itch to go to war.
> I suspect his demands were deliberately inflated to
> the point were he knew Hitler wouldn't agree.
That's also been claimed, but there are sources
which say that Franco simply overestimated Spain's
value to the Axis.
Also, Franco's requirements included supplies of
petroleum and food that the Axis simply could not
deliver. It may well be that Franco's minimum
requirements, based simply on sensible and cautious
evaluation of Spain's needs, were more than Germany
could pay, whether Franco actually knew it or not.
The long discussion with Hitler (was it transcribed?
was in part Hitler trying to get Franco to moderat
his demands and join the war. It may also have been
Franco pleading with Hitler to met Spain's requirements
so that Spain could enter the war as Franco wanted.
HItler was disappointed, but I think Franco was too.
Alan Meyer
> On Oct 5, 11:12 am, binnacle <Binna...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> After the fall of France, Hitler met Franco at Hendaye on Oct
>> 23 1940 in an attempt to persuade Franco to join the Axis side
>> in the war against Britain and her Allies.
...
> Churchill speaks of it in his history/memoirs "The Second World
> War" Vol II - Book 2 - Chapter 11 - "Relations with Vichy and
> Spain"
I also recall from that history that Churchill was very active in
attempting to recruit allies and neutralize potential enemies
from among all of the Mediterranean countries. Churchill
perceived a special relationship between Britain and the
Mediterranean area reaching back at least to the eighteenth
century. He tried to impress this on Italy, Spain, Yugoslavia,
Greece and, in a different way, Turkey. He worked hard to
convince them that, no matter what Hitler did, he could never
defeat Britain or the Royal Navy, that Britain would always have
strong forces in the Med, that fighting against Britain would
have a heavy and long term cost, and that fighting for Germany
would be just another way to open themselves to German
domination. If I remember correctly, he argued that Britain's
goals in the Med were for open seas, open commerce, and free
trade, but Germany's goal was conquest. He was eager to point
out Britain's history of fighting for the freedom of Spain and
Italy against Napoleon, and that victory over Napoleon did not
lead to British interference in Spain's internal affairs.
Maybe British diplomacy also played a role in Franco's decision.
Maybe Franco figured too that if the Germans won the war, there
would be time enough to join in and get at least something. But
if they lost there would be hell to pay if Spain was on the
losing side. So he waited.
He only had to wait another year. Once the U.S. entered the war,
Spain was looking at two overwhelming strong Atlantic Ocean
powers. It would be crazy to fight them even if the Germans did
well otherwise.
(a different) Alan
Don Phillipson
news:haebsj$mko$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> I also recall from that history that Churchill was . . .
> If I remember correctly, he argued that Britain's
> goals in the Med were for open seas, open commerce, and free
> trade, but Germany's goal was conquest.
Memory here omits Churchill's old-fashioned imperialist
values (cf. India, Suez Canal, Gibraltar etc.) Churchill had
no economic theory or doctrines (having served in earlier
governments both for and against "free trade.") He certainly
wanted "open seas," guaranteed by a global Royal Navy
with plenty of nearby shore bases i.e. colonies (e.g. Gibraltar,
Malta, Cyprus, Alexandria.)
> Maybe Franco figured too that if the Germans won the war, there
> would be time enough to join in and get at least something.
It seems more relevant to consider Spain's national interest
or the interest of Franco and his aides. They wanted peace
at home after the most barbarous civil war in European
history, and better economic conditions. Spain wanted no
more overseas colonies, had no interest in Nazi race
policy (as was later imposed on ally Italy) and was
geographically far distant from any anti-Russian crusade.
Spain wanted international status and wanted Gibraltar (a
token of status.) Hitler and Mussolini could offer nothing
Spain actually wanted.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
narrl...@hotmail.com
Alan Meyer:
> > Maybe Franco figured too that if the Germans won the war, there
> > would be time enough to join in and get at least something.
Don P:
> It seems more relevant to consider Spain's national interest
> or the interest of Franco and his aides. They wanted peace
> at home after the most barbarous civil war in European
> history,
Determined how? More barbarous than the Russian CW? Just axin . . .
>and better economic conditions. Spain wanted no
> more overseas colonies, had no interest in Nazi race
> policy (as was later imposed on ally Italy) and was
> geographically far distant from any anti-Russian crusade.
> Spain wanted international status and wanted Gibraltar (a
> token of status.) Hitler and Mussolini could offer nothing
> Spain actually wanted.
Somebody mentioned the Spanish division provided for the Ostkrieg,
which was as much a convenient way for Franco to get the more
pugnacious young anti-Communists out of the country as it was an
expression of Franco's commitment to a Nazi-dominated Europe (which as
others have said wasn't really his ideal anyway).
Narr
Tero P. Mustalahti
> On Oct 6, 9:39 am, "Don Phillipson" <e...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
> Alan Meyer:
>> at home after the most barbarous civil war in European
>> history,
>
> Determined how? More barbarous than the Russian CW? Just axin . . .
The Russian civil war was fought partially in Asia, so perhaps it does
not count. On the other hand we perhaps should say that Spanish civil
war was the most barbarous civil war in Europe of which fairly good
records and accounts survive to this day. The English Civil War was no
picnic either and it is sometimes forgotten that the Thirty Years' War
was also a civil war within the Holy Roman Empire, but the records of
those 17th century conflicts are much more incomplete.
> Somebody mentioned the Spanish division provided for the Ostkrieg,
> which was as much a convenient way for Franco to get the more
> pugnacious young anti-Communists out of the country as it was an
> expression of Franco's commitment to a Nazi-dominated Europe (which as
> others have said wasn't really his ideal anyway).
Well, of course Franco would have preferred Europe without a major
communist nation, so ideological reasons probably were present as well.
Tero P. Mustalahti
Padraigh ProAmerica
Adm. Canaris, chief of the Abwher (German military Intelligence).
Although publiclly Canaris was trying to get Franco in, privately he
urged Franco to stay out; that Hitler could not win.
Canaris took part in Operation Valkyrie and was hung.
After reading some things about his activities, a question popped into
my mind: was Canaris working for the British?
Thoughts?
"You must be an intellectual to believe such nonsense. No ordinary man
could be such a fool."
George Orwell
Don Phillipson
news:12674-4AC...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net...
> After reading some things about his activities, a question popped into
> my mind: was Canaris working for the British?
The OP must clarify here how to recognize "working for the
British." Canaris (a decorated U-boat veteran of WW1) ws
CEO of the Abwehr of the Third Reich during WW2 and
(seems to have) pursued policies he thought would be
better for his country than those of Hitler and Himmler etc.
This can be represented as "working for the British" in the
same way as (say) Gen. George Patton was working for
the British.
Phillip McGregor
ProAmerica) wrote:
>I remember reading at one point that before the meeting, Franco met with
>Adm. Canaris, chief of the Abwher (German military Intelligence).
>Although publiclly Canaris was trying to get Franco in, privately he
>urged Franco to stay out; that Hitler could not win.
>
>Canaris took part in Operation Valkyrie and was hung.
>
>After reading some things about his activities, a question popped into
>my mind: was Canaris working for the British?
>
>Thoughts?
I remember reading many years ago that Canaris's widow continued to
receive a "pension" from one or more allied governments for many years
after the war ... the reasons for this were not explained and, IIRC,
the source indicated that a) the whole matter was kept as quiet as
possible and b) no one was explaining why the payments were made.
Dunno about how reliable the source was - or even what it was as it
was many years ago - so who knows?
Phil
narrl...@hotmail.com
> narrled...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Somebody mentioned the Spanish division provided for the Ostkrieg,
> > which was as much a convenient way for Franco to get the more
> > pugnacious young anti-Communists out of the country as it was an
> > expression of Franco's commitment to a Nazi-dominated Europe (which as
> > others have said wasn't really his ideal anyway).
>
> Well, of course Franco would have preferred Europe without a major
> communist nation, so ideological reasons probably were present as well.
Oh, surely. Not preferring a Nazi-dominated Europe =/= desiring a
Communist or Communist-dominated one.
Narr
Bay Man
news:12674-4AC...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net...
> Adm. Canaris, chief of the Abwher (German military Intelligence).
> Although publiclly Canaris was trying to get Franco in, privately he
> urged Franco to stay out; that Hitler could not win.
>
> Canaris took part in Operation Valkyrie and was hung.
>
> After reading some things about his activities, a question popped into
> my mind: was Canaris working for the British?
Almost certainly. He was against Hitler, could see what he was doing and
would use any means to topple him. He was pro German rather than pro
British. He also tried to mitigate German losses, attempting to prevent
total German annihilation as a nation.
It is rumoured that the British gave him details of Soviet positions pre
Barbarossa. I am not sure if it came from high or leaked to him. I am not
sure what he British would get by allowing the USSR fall. Or may the
British knew the USSR would not fall and wanted the two to grind themselves
to a pulp.
Don Phillipson
news:ham0h7$fbg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
re. Adm. Canaris, chief of the Abwehr (German military Intelligence). . . .
> It is rumoured that the British gave him details of Soviet positions pre
> Barbarossa. I am not sure if it came from high or leaked to him.
British intelligence appears to have had no special
knowledge of "Soviet positions" before Barbarossa.
British intelligence then depended largely on radio and decipherment
(viz. had no known agents in either Germany or Russia)
and its code-cracking resources were stretched to the limit
to deal with German and Italian intercepted codes (cf. new
U-boat cipher in 1941.)
SolomonW
> On Oct 5, 10:59 am, Alan <alan_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Churchill also says Franco disliked and feared Hitler, but felt the
>> opposite toward Mussolini.
>
> Franco was a deeply conservative personality.
Also Franco's had a deep commitment to Christianity and Catholicism. He
would have found Hitler's paganism unsettlingly.
> He was not an enthusiast for radical social
> change
His rule is described as authoritarian, conservative and traditional
> or bold military adventures.
You may want to check his military record also see my theory below.
<snip>
> That's been claimed, and it seems likely that
> Franco preferred Spain to stay out of it;
> certainly he had no itch to go to war.
Spain and Franco did not need the war.
<snip>
> The long discussion with Hitler (was it transcribed?
> was in part Hitler trying to get Franco to moderat
> his demands and join the war.
If so, there is a conflict of interest. Hitler interest lies in the East
(Russia), Franco sights were in North Africa which would place him in
conflict for the spoils with France and Italy as well as Germany.
Going to war too would cost Franco, some important Spanish territory in the
Atlantic
> It may also have been
> Franco pleading with Hitler to met Spain's requirements
Were these demands less than what Spain would need less to fight a war?
> so that Spain could enter the war as Franco wanted.
>
To satisfy Franco, Hitler would need to upset Fascist Italy and France.
> HItler was disappointed,
Clearly
> but I think Franco was too.
Franco was a proven a capable military leader. I think he would have had a
reasonable idea of what he was being asked. So I think Franco was relieved.
You may want to check out a fascinating conversation with Mussolini and
Franco shortly after his meeting with Hitler. When Franco asked Mussolini
whether he would rather be out of the conflict to which Mussolini replied
that he would.
William Black
> Also Franco's had a deep commitment to Christianity and Catholicism. He
> would have found Hitler's paganism unsettlingly.
Paganism?
> Going to war too would cost Franco, some important Spanish territory in the
> Atlantic
It would cost him more than that. The Royal Navy has a tradition of
turning Spanish ports and coastal towns into smoking rubble.
I imagine any Spanish shipping would be promptly sunk as well.
How exactly is he going to defend against a couple of battleships
shelling, for a nice historical example, Cadiz and destroying it for
the third (or fourth) time...
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
John Dupre'
I gather from what I have read that Spain was as destitute as any
nation could be after the civil war. The Soviets had stolen virtually
the entire prewar Spanish gold reserve in "payment" for military
supplies and Franco's government kept it a secret for many years.
Spain probably could not have afforded to put an army in the field for
sustained combat operations which would have meant that they would
have been more completely tied to Germany if they had thrown in.
Bay Man
news:a1c08b10-e1b6-4aec...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 5, 11:12 am, binnacle <Binna...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> I gather from what I have read that Spain was as destitute as any
> nation could be after the civil war. The Soviets had stolen virtually
> the entire prewar Spanish gold reserve in "payment" for military
> supplies
"stolen"? Is that in the same way the USA stole the UKs gold in WW2?
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam (Bay Man) wrote:
> "stolen"? Is that in the same way the USA stole the UKs gold in WW2?
It was considerably more blatant than that. The Republicans were
persuaded to transfer their gold reserves to the USSR for safe keeping.
When they lost the Soviets seized the gold as payment for equipment
delivered during the war.
Ken Young
Phillip McGregor
And which equipment they actually DID provide.
Expecting payment may have been crass, under the circumstances, but it
was hardly theft, and not even close to being immoral.
Phil
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
asp...@pacific.net.au (Phillip McGregor) wrote:
> And which equipment they actually DID provide.
And had already been paid for. It was cash on delivery.
Ken Young
Joe Osman
has a section on "The Spanish Government and the Axis" with "Notes on
Conversation Between the Fuehrer and the Caudillo, October 23,
1940" (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/sp09.asp) in addition to
letters between Franco and Mussolini and between Franco and Hitler,
among other letters, telegrams and memoranda.
Joe
Phillip McGregor
Evidently there is a significant chanced this claim is US Cold War
propaganda ...
http://wais.stanford.edu/ztopics/week040105/spain_050401_civilwargoldshipments.htm
Note: The Gold was sent in 1936, the SCW ended in 1939. As I recall
Hugh Thomas (?) or Anthony Beevor made the point that it had well and
truly been used up for weapons purchases by that time ...
Phil
Phillip McGregor
Yeah. Cash on Delivery = Gold.
Not theft.
The Soviets provided more military equipment by value than the value
of the Spanish gold reserves.
Phil
John Dupre'
> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 12:27:00 -0400, ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> >asp...@pacific.net.au (Phillip McGregor) wrote:
>
> >> And which equipment they actually DID provide.
>
> > And had already been paid for. It was cash on delivery.
>
> Evidently there is a significant chanced this claim is US Cold War
> propaganda ...
>
>
> Note: The Gold was sent in 1936, the SCW ended in 1939. As I recall
> Hugh Thomas (?) or Anthony Beevor made the point that it had well and
> truly been used up for weapons purchases by that time ...
>
> Phil
My information came from a book called The Storm Petrels about the
first defectors from the Soviet Union. One of them was a high ranking
(KGB,OGPU, GRU?) Soviet intelligence officer who oversaw the transfer
of the Spanish reserves to the Soviet Union. As I remember it the
officer pretty clearly felt that he was stealing the gold and that
regardless of any understanding the Spanish might have it would never
return. In any event legitmately transferred or not Spain had very
little if any financial capacity to participate in WW2. Another point
was that the bulk of the gold was not in bars but specie and that many
of the coins were, even then, worth more as numismatic collectables
than their weight.
John Dupre'