[Thrownatbirth]

In my books, the Communists in Spain were on the right side for a change.

I used to argue the nacionales side with hippies in Torremolinos bars when Franco was still around. Wise choice in those days.

My point was always that Nazi and Fascist support of the Nationalists had been over-emphasized by history. The Nationalists had the backing other other countries as well as the Catholic Church. With the support of the Pope, the conservative Nationalists represented the popular will among the Spanish people. The Loyalists, on the other hand, imported anarchists worldwide.

Put that in your sangria. :-)

[DieHard the Hunter]

> My point was always that Nazi and Fascist support of the Nationalists had been over-emphasized by history.

How so? Hitler got to road-test his war methodologies like blitzkrieg during the Spanish Civil war (he wasn’t even supposed to have war making capability at the time!) and the Luftwaffe was able to road-test their Stuka dive-bombing skills against relatively-benign targets. All of this was to stand the Nazis in good stead in 1939, 1940 and 1941 — the years that America played hooky from WW-II.

Franco and his tin-pot Fascist dictatorship was the sidebar to the main event, which was the build-up of the military capabilities of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy and the conquest of Europe. The West could have kiboshed that in Spain.

It’s fine for Americans to blame Chamberlain for Hitler being able to make the gains he did thru British indecisiveness and appeasement. Fair enough: Chamberlain deserved a fair bit of criticism for that.

That said, it’s not like America did anything to stop Hitler during that time. Only a few communist volunteers saw the threat for what it was.

[ohioman]

You are correct. And Franco was not that close to Hitler as he was part Jewish and would never ally himself totally to the 3rd Reich..