Spanish Civil War - Irish connection./WWII

tdv123

Jawgap wrote: »

Stalin's view was always predicated on paranoia - he always thought the West was out to double-cross him (not the USSR, but him personally) and so he always tried to get his double-cross in first.

That informed his decision-making before, during and after the War - especially when it came to deciding whether or not to sign the Non-aggression pact as well as during the Yalta and Teheran conferences.

His was not a rational mind.

Well I agreed with that but the West was equally distrusting. I'm not trying to defend Stalin here but he was the less of two evils.

Jawgap

tdv123 wrote: »

Well I agreed with that but the West was equally distrusting. I'm not trying to defend Stalin here but he was the less of two evils.

why?

Because the millions he murdered were done away with inefficiently and he was driven by a less corrupt ideology?

I'm sure Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania and Czechoslovakia etc were only too glad to see the fascist regime replaced by the soviet one.

tdv123

Jawgap wrote: »

why?

Because the millions he murdered were done away with inefficiently and he was driven by a less corrupt ideology?

I'm sure Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania and Czechoslovakia etc were only too glad to see the fascist regime replaced by the soviet one.

Well because I believe we seen the full evilness of Stalin.

I don't think we seen the full evilness of Hitler. He wanted to exterminate 11/12mil Jews. He wanted to wipe a whole people of the face of the earth. Does that make your heart sink even a little bit? And whose to say he would have stopped with the Jews he if gained world power? We should be grateful for the Red Army for smashing Nazism.

It's in Hitler's memoirs, he wanted to expand Nazism to the East at the expense of Russia.

Stalin had nuclear weapons yes but he didn't use them. If Hitler got a hold of them there is no doubt in mind he would have used them & we would have had a nuclear war.

tdv123

tdv123 wrote: »

Well because I believe we seen the full evilness of Stalin.

I don't think we seen the full evilness of Hitler. He wanted to exterminate 11/12mil Jews. He wanted to wipe a whole people of the face of the earth. Does that make your heart sink even a little bit? And whose to say he would have stopped with the Jews he if gained world power? We should be grateful for the Red Army for smashing Nazism.

It's in Hitler's memoirs, he wanted to expand Nazism to the East at the expense of Russia.

Stalin had nuclear weapons yes but he didn't use them. If Hitler got a hold of them there is no doubt in mind he would have used them & we would have had a nuclear war.


Hitler was in power for 12 years and Stalin for 21 - trying to calculate how many people WOULD have been killed under Hitler had he been in power for another 10 years would be merely speculative and impossible to assess, given the unpredictable nature of warfare.
So it probably is not useful to judge who is 'worse' in terms how how many were murdered under their respective regimes - if Hitler had had another 10 years he might have killed twice as many people, or more. The fact that he was not given the opportunity does not make him any less evil.

h

Santa Cruz

Jawgap wrote: »

why?

Because the millions he murdered were done away with inefficiently and he was driven by a less corrupt ideology?

I'm sure Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania and Czechoslovakia etc were only too glad to see the fascist regime replaced by the soviet one.

In 1944/45 Poland etc. were delighted to see the Soviet Advance but it went downhill after that.

If I'm not mistaken President Higgin's father was in the International Brigade after being a volunteer with Cork No. 2 Brigade in the War of Independence.

As regards the British there was a significant number of British who fought with the International Brigades including Jack Jones, former Gen. Sec of the T.U.C.
For those interested there is a memorial on the lawn beside the Tate Gallery to the International Brigade. And there is a lovely memorial commemorating the men from Fulham area who fought with the International Brigade. That memorial is located in the park as you travel from Putney Bridge to Fulham F.C. at Craven Cottage

Jawgap

tdv123 wrote: »

Well because I believe we seen the full evilness of Stalin.

I don't think we seen the full evilness of Hitler. He wanted to exterminate 11/12mil Jews. He wanted to wipe a whole people of the face of the earth. Does that make your heart sink even a little bit? And whose to say he would have stopped with the Jews he if gained world power? We should be grateful for the Red Army for smashing Nazism.

It's in Hitler's memoirs, he wanted to expand Nazism to the East at the expense of Russia.

Stalin had nuclear weapons yes but he didn't use them. If Hitler got a hold of them there is no doubt in mind he would have used them & we would have had a nuclear war.

I fully agree with the idea that in war, the enemy of enemy is my friend - but let's not pretend for a minute that Stalin was anything other than evil and it was necessity that drove Britain, the US, France etc to supporting him (support which he rarely acknowledged).

His treatment of minorities (both religious and ethnic), Soviet tactics and the treatment of returning PoWs display all the hallmarks of evil personified.

.......But to wander back towards the topic at hand I'd suggest that we not be too quick to condemn those from outside of Spain who went to fight there on whatever side - for better or worse I don't doubt that many went with what they thought were the best of intentions. And they wouldn't be the first lads to get caught up in a war they'd been ill informed - or even misled - about.

Peregrinus

tdv123 wrote: »

Well I agreed with that but the West was equally distrusting. I'm not trying to defend Stalin here but he was the less of two evils.

In fairness, this wasn't obviously the case in 1939.

The Nazis were brutal and boorish - seen in the west, bascially, as like a government run by Black-and-Tans. They were violent, bigoted, antisemitic and hateful. But, in 1939, they hadn't embarked on a programme to exterminate European Jewry. (In fact, so far as we know, they hadn't even thought of such a thing privately themselves).

Whereas Stalin, by 1939, had already engineered famines in which millions had died. He had not only spoken about getting rid of a class he didn't like; he had set about killing them all.

It's too easy for us to paint anyone who favoured the Nazis over the Communists as a friend of Naziism. I don't defend what they did, but honesty compels us to acknowledge that in many cases they were not motivated by admiration for fascism; they held their noses and picked what they thought was the lesser of two evils. And, on that criterion, based on what was known in 1939, their assessment of which was the lesser evil was probably a defensible one.

knucklehead6

tdv123 wrote: »

Yes, that part disgusts me.

Are people really saying they wouldn't want the Allied powers to tackle this evil ideology of Nazism.

They should have tackled it sooner before it became more powerful. If the Allied powers fought Fascism in the Civil War they might not (nearly certainly wouldn't) have had to fight in world 2 the best of which cost a hundred million lives. Instead they appeased Hitler which just made him more power hungry.

And as a Republican I'm not usually happy when ever I see the UK going to war but I'm very grateful in the end Churchill (for the most part I despised) took a stand against Nazism who for a long time fought against it themselves. If it wasn't for Pearl Habor there's a good chance the US might not have entered & Britain would have had to stand alone ( so much for great friends were the UK blindly follows the US into nearly ever war these days, who only finished paying of their loan to the US for WWII in 2006).

And if they didn't take that stand there's a good chance the UK would have came under Nazi control, which probably meant we would have came under Nazi control as well. If that happened the US would have been faced against huge parts of occupied Asian Japan & Nazi Europe., I don't fancy their chances there. The axis powers were intent on world domination.

The right wing on here hate communism so much they want to paint Nazism as some sort of tea-party. Well I suppose it's not to surprising as Nazism was a hard right ideology.

Are you really saying that if the US, UK and USSR had intervened in an official capacity on the republican side during the spanish civil war then world war 2 wouldn't have happened????

Riiiiiiighhht..............

Pompey Magnus

tdv123 wrote: »

Stalin had nuclear weapons yes but he didn't use them. If Hitler got a hold of them there is no doubt in mind he would have used them & we would have had a nuclear war.

If Stalin had the atomic bomb in late 1942 and the ability to get bombers over Berlin do you really think he wouldn't have used it?

tdv123

Jawgap wrote: »

I fully agree with the idea that in war, the enemy of enemy is my friend - but let's not pretend for a minute that Stalin was anything other than evil and it was necessity that drove Britain, the US, France etc to supporting him (support which he rarely acknowledged).

His treatment of minorities (both religious and ethnic), Soviet tactics and the treatment of returning PoWs display all the hallmarks of evil personified.

.......But to wander back towards the topic at hand I'd suggest that we not be too quick to condemn those from outside of Spain who went to fight there on whatever side - for better or worse I don't doubt that many went with what they thought were the best of intentions. And they wouldn't be the first lads to get caught up in a war they'd been ill informed - or even misled - about.

I agree with that but the West wasn't exactly that quick to thank thee USSR or the Red Army either. And today the Red Armies contribution is barley recognized by those on the right if at all.

Jawgap

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Are you really saying that if the US, UK and USSR had intervened in an official capacity on the republican side during the spanish civil war then world war 2 wouldn't have happened????

Riiiiiiighhht..............

It might sound a bit mad, Ted - but there is an argument that WWII had already started at that stage!

If you take a broad outlook you could argue that WWII started with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria. The Spanish Civil War was one stage in the spreading and escalation of conflict during the 1930s.

....and while the Germans and Soviets were fighting their proxy war in Spain they were both supporting the Chinese (along with the Americans) in the Second Sino-Japanese War which started around 1937.

ledgebag1

tdv123 wrote: »

I'm not trying to defend Stalin here but he was the less of two evils.

I am gathering by the statement you really have no idea about Josef Stalin and his time in power.

Jawgap

tdv123 wrote: »

I agree with that but the West wasn't exactly that quick to thank thee USSR or the Red Army either. And today the Red Armies contribution is barley recognized by those on the right if at all.

I think you need to have a look at some contemporary newspaper reports from the time.

And have a look at a few of today's military history journals

.......then compare and contrast that with then Soviet coverage and contemporary Russian discussion of the War.

Just because some part doesn't fully acknowledge the contribution made by the Red Army, doesn't mean the contribution goes wholly unacknowledged.

ledgebag1

Jawgap wrote: »

It might sound a bit mad, Ted - but there is an argument that WWII had already started at that stage!

If you take a broad outlook you could argue that WWII started with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria. The Spanish Civil War was one stage in the spreading and escalation of conflict during the 1930s.

....and while the Germans and Soviets were fighting their proxy war in Spain they were both supporting the Chinese (along with the Americans) in the Second Sino-Japanese War which started around 1937.

Thats not entirely true, the Russian government back Mao and his communist party, and not Chiang and his nationalists who were mainly fighting the Japanese in the South. The Germans backed Chiang until they saw his position was untenable and withdrew their Military advisors very quickly. Your point that the World War two beginning with this conflict is touched on in Antony Beevors recent book.

Peregrinus

tdv123 wrote: »

I agree with that but the West wasn't exactly that quick to thank thee USSR or the Red Army either. And today the Red Armies contribution is barley recognized by those on the right if at all.

That's not remotely true. In the West, at the time there was huge public awareness of, and appreciation for, the sacrifices and contributions of the Red Army, and this was keenly encouraged by the governments of the Western Allies.

It's true that that dissipated fairly quickly once the Cold War got going, and the interests of the West and the USSR were opposed, but that happened on both sides.

As for the claim that the Soviet contribution is "barely recognised by those on the right" today, I honestly see no evidence at all for that claim.

Jawgap

ledgebag1 wrote: »

Thats not entirely true, the Russian government back Mao and his communist party, and not Chiang and his nationalists who were mainly fighting the Japanese in the South. The Germans backed Chiang until they saw his position was untenable and withdrew their Military advisors very quickly. Your point that the World War two beginning with this conflict is touched on in Antony Beevors recent book.

that's why I specifically used the word Chinese

There's a couple of articles knocking around (I'll see if I can dig them out later) discussing how the entirety of the conflicts bubbling in the late 1920s through the 1930s should be viewed - whether they are simply individual 'islands' to be viewed on their own terms or whether they can be considered part of a greater whole.

As well as the war in China, the civil war in Spain you also had Italy attacking Abyssinia and few other 'small wars' in various parts.

tdv123

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

If Stalin had the atomic bomb in late 1942 and the ability to get bombers over Berlin do you really think he wouldn't have used it?

No I don't think he would as he didn't want a nuclear war. We have to remember Hitler was in power for 12 years (11 of which he was really in control of) Stalin was in power for 21 years. I'd say if Hitler had gained world power he had another 10 - 15 years in him, maybe more, god only the size of the massacre that would have happened if those circumstances came about, it would have made the Holocaust look like a pcnic.

tdv123

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Are you really saying that if the US, UK and USSR had intervened in an official capacity on the republican side during the spanish civil war then world war 2 wouldn't have happened????

Riiiiiiighhht..............

Yes, very possibly, Fascism would have been shaken to it's core & the Nazi's might have thought twice about starting a 2nd world war. The Nazi military was not nearly as powerful in 36 as it was 39/40. The Spanish civil war was a chance to smash it there & then.

Jawgap

tdv123 wrote: »

Yes, very possibly, Fascism would have been shaken to it's core & the Nazi's might have thought twice about starting a 2nd world war. The Nazi military was not nearly as powerful in 36 as it was 39/40. The Spanish civil war was a chance to smash it there & then.

You write as if fascism was a single world entity - it wasn't.

for instance, Franco while accepting the help of Hitler, despised him and famously said that he did not defeat Stalin to hand the country to Hitler. The defeat of Franco would have made no impact whatsoever in Germany (or Italy) - other than to send their military back to one or two drawing boards.

Secondly, all Germany's economic planning, their production schedules and technology development programmes were geared towards a war being started either way by 1942 - everything up to do that was about playing for time, securing resources and gaining experience.

Even in the case of their invasion of Poland, they fully expected that the British and French would not go to war over it. They completely misjudged the strategic situation and got themselves into a major European conflict 2/3 years before they intended to.

ledgebag1

Jawgap wrote: »

that's why I specifically used the word Chinese

There's a couple of articles knocking around (I'll see if I can dig them out later) discussing how the entirety of the conflicts bubbling in the late 1920s through the 1930s should be viewed - whether they are simply individual 'islands' to be viewed on their own terms or whether they can be considered part of a greater whole.

As well as the war in China, the civil war in Spain you also had Italy attacking Abyssinia and few other 'small wars' in various parts.

It can be argued that all the various conflicts are linked BUT I don't think it really was part of Hitlers wider plans, coincidental or fortunate for him more so. He had a plan of expansion (Lebensraum), revenge (Versaille) and eradication of Jewish Bolshevism. The Tri partite agreement was signed at a later time when it suited Hitler to involve Japan what a vision of stalling and occupying Russian forces

Spain and the Mediterranean were vitally important to both Stalin and Hitler. The islands off Spain made bombing of oilfields in Romania and southern Russia easily accessible for the Luftwaffe, if they needed to attack them and vice-versa for Stalin, so their involvement was self fulfilling and ultimately inevitable, I believe.

Franco was shrewd and knew he couldn't side publicly with Hitler as Spain were heavily reliant on American and British aid and materials.



It is a great topic for discussion because there is no right or wrong answer and one that I will definitely look into more

Jawgap

tdv123 wrote: »

Yes, very possibly, Fascism would have been shaken to it's core & the Nazi's might have thought twice about starting a 2nd world war. The Nazi military was not nearly as powerful in 36 as it was 39/40. The Spanish civil war was a chance to smash it there & then.

just a thought - but if Franco had been smashed, in the warped and twisted logic of the Nazis wouldn't that have affirmed their view that they, as the Aryans, were the master race, given that - as you suggest - the Anglo Saxon British and Americans would have dealt a hammer blow to a bunch of swarthy, dark Mediterraneans.....

Jawgap

ledgebag1 wrote: »

It can be argued that all the various conflicts are linked BUT I don't think it really was part of Hitlers wider plans, coincidental or fortunate for him more so. He had a plan of expansion (Lebensraum), revenge (Versaille) and eradication of Jewish Bolshevism. The Tri partite agreement was signed at a later time when it suited Hitler to involve Japan what a vision of stalling and occupying Russian forces

Spain and the Mediterranean were vitally important to both Stalin and Hitler. The islands off Spain made bombing of oilfields in Romania and southern Russia easily accessible for the Luftwaffe, if they needed to attack them and vice-versa for Stalin, so their involvement was self fulfilling and ultimately inevitable, I believe.

Franco was shrewd and knew he couldn't side publicly with Hitler as Spain were heavily reliant on American and British aid and materials.



It is a great topic for discussion because there is no right or wrong answer and one that I will definitely look into more

One for a separate topic, definitely.

I don't think it was part of any master plan - but when you look at what was happening there were a lot of 'little' wars cropping up. The themes may have had something in common but there was no co-ordination.

Peregrinus

ledgebag1 wrote: »

Spain and the Mediterranean were vitally important to both Stalin and Hitler. The islands off Spain made bombing of oilfields in Romania and southern Russia easily accessible for the Luftwaffe, if they needed to attack them and vice-versa for Stalin, so their involvement was self fulfilling and ultimately inevitable, I believe.

Nitpick: I'm not following the geography here. Gemany is much closer to Russia, and Russia to Germany, and both of them to Rumania, than either of them are to any part of Spain. I can't see how a Spanish ally or access to Spanish territory could possibly have had the strategic signficance you suggest.

Jawgap

I would have though Germany's interest in the Med stemmed from a desire to cut Britain off from it's empire?

ledgebag1

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nitpick: I'm not following the geography here. Gemany is much closer to Russia, and Russia to Germany, and both of them to Rumania, than either of them are to any part of Spain. I can't see how a Spanish ally or access to Spanish territory could possibly have had the strategic signficance you suggest.

The islands were vital along with north Africa and Crete for access to the trade routes and oilfields of Romania and the middle east.

Peregrinus

They might have been vital to the British, but certainly not to the Germans or the Russians.

ledgebag1

Peregrinus wrote: »

They might have been vital to the British, but certainly not to the Germans or the Russians.

I have to say I disagree with you, Hitler always planned to invade Russia and would need oil supply lines. He planned to use the Romanian oilfields and north African oil supplies, if he didn't have control of Crete or North Africa or the Spanish Islands for that matter then the allies could have based their ships and air force on these points and bombed his army consistently.

Gibraltar was held by the British and Hitler wanted Spain to take this back as it was an advantageous port for the Allies

He planned to control the Aegean Sea and destroy allied supply lines and also to bomb British forces in Egypt.

Jawgap

ledgebag1 wrote: »

I have to say I disagree with you, Hitler always planned to invade Russia and would need oil supply lines. He planned to use the Romanian oilfields and north African oil supplies, if he didn't have control of Crete or North Africa or the Spanish Islands for that matter then the allies could have based their ships and air force on these points and bombed his army consistently.

Gibraltar was held by the British and Hitler wanted Spain to take this back as it was an advantageous port for the Allies

He planned to control the Aegean Sea and destroy allied supply lines and also to bomb British forces in Egypt.

Couldn't the Allies have just used Egypt, Palestine and Iraq?

Ploesti would've been within the range of Halifaxes operating from Alexandria and well within the range of the later bombers.

ledgebag1

Egypt was a key position as you say

From memory, Iraq had a Nazi pro/ sympathetic government put in place, thats from memory.

Didn't Husayni in Palestine was also Pro Nazi and from memory went to Berlin to meet Hitler.

Pompey Magnus

tdv123 wrote: »

No I don't think he would as he didn't want a nuclear war.

I can't believe that in the winter of 1942, when the very existence of the Soviet Union was on a knife edge, Stalin would have had the slightest qualm about dropping an atomic bomb on Berlin.

If the US were willing to use such weapons against an enemy close to defeat then to argue that Stalin would have refused to do so against a strong enemy with a chance of overthrowing his regime would make him into some kind of humanitarian saint.