It is June 12, 1940. France is on the verge of defeat. Hitler appears certain to conquer Great Britain and win the war outright. Pleased with this development, Spanish dictator Francisco Franco rejects neutrality and announces a tacitly pro-German policy of nonbelligerence, modeled after that of Italy before its entrance into the war just two days earlier. On October 23, he signs an agreement committing Spain to join the Tripartite Pact—which Germany, Italy, and Japan concluded the previous month—at a time to be agreed upon by the four powers. Its terms assure Spain of badly needed military and economic assistance from Germany and Italy, and the restoration of Gibraltar, which Britain had seized from Spain in 1713. It also promises an expansion of Spanish territory in Morocco at the expense of Vichy France.
Spain does join the pact. Then, on January 10, 1941, it declares war on Great Britain, a step timed to coincide with the start of Operation Felix, the Nazi plan to capture the British fortress at Gibraltar. Sixty-five thousand German troops cross from occupied France into Spain, and by February Felix gets seriously under way. At that juncture, Hitler curtly informs Vichy France that Spain will receive a portion of French Morocco. Spanish troops occupy the expanded territory without firing a shot.
The tiny Gibraltar peninsula—less than three square miles in size—comes under intense pressure from German infantry and armor, as well as relentless bombardment from heavy artillery and near-continual air raids. Within a month, the British garrison of 30,000 capitulates. The loss of Gibraltar closes the western Mediterranean to the Royal Navy, although British forces in the Middle East can still be supplied via the Suez Canal. Franco had urged Hitler to preempt this with an offensive to seize the canal, but Hitler, unwilling to adopt a Mediterranean-oriented strategy, declines to do so. His primary purpose in capturing Gibraltar was to strike a blow to British morale; furthermore, Franco's entry into the war has made it possible to base German U-boats in Spanish ports.
The seizure of Gibraltar, however, fails to shake Britain's resolve to continue the war. The United States, its foreign policy increasingly tilted toward Britain, ends trade relations with Spain, thereby forcing the diversion of substantial Axis economic resources to that country. Spain has planned to invade Portugal, but is incapable of doing so on its own. Hitler is uninterested in helping. Focused on Eastern Europe, he does not want to invest troops in a theater peripheral to German interests.
On June 22, 1941, Hitler invades the Soviet Union. The Falange, an organization of staunchly anti-Communist Spanish fascists, recruits a division of volunteers for service on the Eastern Front. Known as the Blue Division, its battlefield performance wins Hitler's admiration; its commander, Maj. Gen. Augustín Muñoz Grandes, receives the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, an honor rarely bestowed on a non-German. As many as 45,000 Spaniards serve in the Blue Division, which suffers 13,654 casualties during its two years of service.
The above scenario closely fits the historical record. Spain did indeed declare nonbelligerent status, and did sign an understanding that it would eventually join the Tripartite Pact. As late as December 1942, Franco believed that at the right moment, Spain would join the war on the side of the Axis Powers. A Falangist Blue Division did serve on the Eastern Front until mid-1943. The number of casualties it sustained during that period is historically accurate, as is the name of its commander and the award he received.
The sequel to Spain's entry into the war is more difficult to imagine, but one possible scenario is the following:
In November 1942, the British Eighth Army defeats the Afrika Korps at El Alamein and gradually pushes the Germans toward Tunisia. That same month, the British and the Americans launch Operation Torch against the southwestern coast of Spain, partly in order to satisfy President Roosevelt's insistence that U.S. troops begin combat operations against Germany before year's end, and partly to retake Gibraltar as a prelude to operations aimed at containing the Afrika Korps in Tunisia. With comparatively few Germans still in Spain—most have redeployed to the Russian front—the western Allies have little difficulty gaining a foothold, and recover Gibraltar in January 1943.
In May 1943 the British and the Americans land in northwest Africa. They easily seize Spanish Morocco, as well as the Vichy French ports of Casablanca, Oran, and Algiers. Although Hitler reinforces the Afrika Korps, British and American forces overrun Tunisia by October, capturing some 230,000 Germans and Italians.
The Allies then weigh their options—to expand their foothold in Spain, or invade Sicily. Since Italy is the more dangerous foe, they decide upon the latter course, followed by an invasion of southern Italy. They anticipate, correctly, that the stress of this disaster will result in the collapse of the Mussolini regime.
Franco believes himself certain to meet the fate of Mussolini if the war continues. Accordingly, he enters into negotiations with the western Allies, but to his consternation the Allies demand Spain's unconditional surrender, as well as his own resignation. The Spanish officer corps, never enthusiastic about Franco's adventurism, forces him to accede. Franco is soon afterward assassinated, whether by pro-Communist Republicans or Falangist diehards no one can say. The Spanish pretender to the throne, Don Carlos, is restored as monarch.
Although the above scenario is speculative, three things are virtually certain: Spanish belligerency would have yielded disaster for a country already ravaged by civil war; the Franco regime would not have survived; and the monarchy would have been restored—as some Spanish generals actually urged during the war and as did in fact occur upon Franco's death in 1975.
Historically, both Germany and the Franco regime fully expected Spain to enter the war at some propitious time. But Spain required too much economic and military aid, while Germany demanded that Spain cede to it the Canary Islands and Spanish Equatorial Africa to support its submarine offensive. This Spain refused to do, though the disagreement might have been resolved simply by granting Germany basing rights. More serious—and ultimately a deal breaker—was Spain's desire for an expanded colonial presence in Morocco. Germany agreed in principle to allocate part of French Morocco to Spain at the war's conclusion. But Hitler's refusal to offer specifics gave the Franco regime considerable pause.
With that said, Hitler was initially willing to grant Spain the territorial concessions Franco desired. He reversed himself when a combined force of British and Free French attempted to seize Dakar, a strategic port in French West Africa held by Vichy France, between September 23 and 25, 1940. Though the expedition was a fiasco, it convinced Hitler of the importance of retaining good relations with Vichy France as a bulwark against potential future Allied incursions. Had this minor event not occurred, it is likely that the Franco regime would indeed have entered World War II—with little effect on the conflict's outcome, but with cataclysmic results for Spain.
Loading ...
Spain would have been more of a headache to German as an active ally then as a benefit. As it was, Germany could resupply and base U-Boats in Spanish ports surreptisiously without active Spanish participation. Exports of foodstuffs and iron ore as well as the manpower of the Azul Division (for which Franco sent Hitler a bill!) were provided as well. Even had Germany been able to aquire the Azores as a lonf range U-boat or seaplane base, they lacked the naval presence to keep it for long. The British, wary of the threat to Gibraltar, walked teh diplomatic tightrope to keep Spain neutral and Franco was adept at playing both sides against the other. An Axis Spain would demand Luftwaffe units, both air and flak, available German ground units, and already scarce materials (such as oil) that Spain by proxy could already import from elsewhere as a neutral and by sleight of hand ship it to Germany via Vichy France or Italy. An Axis Spain would involve a showdown between El Caudillo and Il Duce over control of the Mediterranean. For Hitler, one tinpot dictator to prop up was enough, and one could only imagine how this additional economic, military and political burden would interere with Barbarossa. In conclusion, Spain benefited Germany more as a friendly neutral, not as a co-belligerent
i think war is not a solution for every problems.
[...] [...]
My opinion is that if Facist Spain had joined the Axis Powers in 1941, Franco would have expanded territory in Morocco with the slight help of Germany, Italy, and the permission of Vichy France. Spain would get this help from Germany because of the Spanish Blue Division (División Azul) in the German army, fighting the Allied Soviets in the Russian Eastern Front. Spain would have a quick recovery from the bloody Civil War (1936-1939) that the beat down country had endured from the help of their German, Italian, Japanese, and Vichy French allies. But after the great defeat of the Nothern Afrika Campaign, Italy retreated back to their country with Germany and Vichy France, and Spain would retreat back to their colony of Spanish Morocco. The Allies would focus on invading the Italian Peninsula and ending the Facist Mussolini Regiem. After the great loss and knowing Italy would eventually fall, Spain would get little or no help from the Germans because of the overwhelming surrounding of the Allied Forces in Europe, and later be invaded in France on D-Day. Spain would not survive the war with no help from their allies. With the clever way Franco played with politics, he would have no choice but to abandon the Axis Powers, back down from the war to neutrality, and for the Blue Division to return back to Spain from the Eastern Front. Spain would benefit from the war with the colony expansion of Morocco. When the Cold War started in 1947, Franco would lean towards the U.S. and gain respect from them because of their strict Anti-Communist policy. They would soon become trade partners and even later allies and try to stop Communism from entering their countries. Spain would be a strong wealthy country just like many years ago. In 1975, Franco would die in office and the leadership would be handed over to Juan Carlos who has Spanish Monarch ancestors. Juan Carlos would turn the country in to a Parliamentary Democracy. He would crown himself King and appoint a President or Prime Minister. This was as big transition but Spain had got used to it quickly and its now the Spain we all know today.
Whatever happened to members of the Blue Division captured in the U.S.S.R.?
Were they tried as war criminals?
They were treated like any other captured invader – badly, although not as badly as the Germans. The Soviets captured about 372 Blue Division soldiers during the war. A little less than 300 were returned to Spain in 1954 after Stalin´s death.
By the way, many people served in the Blue Division not because of Fascist commitment but trying to clean up their reputation or their families'. That is, a reputation of being "Red".
Dear Mr. Grimsley, et al.;
This is an excellent piece, with a few caveats. First, I am writing as a military historian and Wargamer. Scenarios in which the Spanish join the Axis, Either in 1939 or 1940, have been fought for years. In almost every case, the game goes as follows, and the results are always dire for the Allies.
In many simulations I have participated in, the Spanish require no assistance whatsoever to take Gibralter. Their strenght of their post civil war air force and army are more than capable of overwhelming the garrison there. And, if they are given, as a prize, French Morocco, it can be quickly integrated into their own territories.
Now as for what Spain gives the Axis: First, it cuts off the Med from the Atlantic Fleet. No more Gibralter as a base. The Italian and German fleets can cooperate, and German capital ships can now run into the Med and hide. Yes, the R.N. Med Fleet can stay in Alexandria, and be supplied via Suez, but that supply line is very long, and the Med Fleet has nothing to do but protect the Suez, which, with the other end of the Med closed off by German Dive Bombers, is a Canal to nowhere! The Germans/Italians/Spanish now control all of the Western Med, and Malta falls easily with no re-supply via Pedestal convoys. The Italians and Spanish can now supply the Afrika Korps with no interference from Britain. This puts great pressure on 8th Army, and in most of our games, the German/Italian/Spanish forces take Egypt by the end of 1941.
Yugoslavia and Greece are no problems for the Axis. With Egypt out of the way, the Germans move into Irag/Persia. ( and some of our scenarios have the Turks joining the Axis in late 1941 ) No more lend-lease route to the USSR. A German Army moves into southern USSR via Persia, and the resulting pressure causes a Soviet collapse by the end of 1942. ( It also helps if you can get the Japanese to go into Siberia in late 1941, to draw off the Siberian armies, and help Russia into her early grave. This also keeps Japan from doing something stupid like bringing the U.S. into the war )
In the West, the German/Italian surface fleet comes out of the Med, and enters the Atlantic, which has been the happy hunting ground of German U-boats since Autumn of 1940. The Atlantic convoys, Britain's lifeline, are severely impacted, and Britain experiences food and fuel shortages. By the end of 1943, Britain is forced to seek peace, or be invaded.
By the end of 1945, Germany, Italy, and Spain have subdivided Africa into three Zones ( Spanish West, Italian East, and German South ) and the Axis are now getting ready to deal with the United States, who has just polished off Japan.
Essentially, if the Spanish had enterered the war on the side of the Axis, Germany, barring the unforseen, would have won the war. In OTL, Hitler met with Franco in the Summer of 1940, and Franco chose to stay neutral. My question has always been, "What the Hell did Hitler say to Franco that so Pissed him off that he wouldn't join such a Sure Thing? " It must have been really insulting !
Respectfully;
Paul R. Ward
Military plans can stand everything but reality. I think after the first two years of the war, the agressors (Germany, Italy and Japan) had squandered the advantage of surprise and were battling overwhelmig odds. They took too much too quickly. Of course, Paul is right when he sees a gross strategic error in not closing the Mediterranean by pushing Spain to war and taking Gibraltar, but in the end, I think Germany, mostly alone, (they never had a common strategy with Japan) wouldn't have been able to tackle Britain, USA and USSR at the same time. Maybe the war would have lasted longer, but in the end…
If Spain has entered the war at Axis side, what probably would happen is that we will be defeated by the allies and we will be part of the Marshall program with the consequently entrance of money, so nowadays, I mean before that last crisis, our economical and industrial level would be more powerfull than it was.
Anyway, from my point of view, my country wasn't prepared for a democracy during the 40's and 50's because of the extreme left and right wing that existed here. Both of them will want the power so….civil war again. The country was completly splited.
That dictatorship era, with the "Transición" before is what made my country an established and strong democracy.
From my point of view, the participation of Franco´s regime in 2 WW would allow British troops to land in the Iberian peninsula. That would distract a lot of resources (men, weapons, oil) that Hitler intended to deploy to the Eastern Front.
As in current EU politics, Germans were not interested in the Mediterranean front but in East Europe, as a way to control rural and mineral rich Ucraine, and reach the Caucusus and from there to the oil rich areas in Iraq.
Spain was nearly starving, Germany lacked the resources to feed and suply Spain (we just finished our Civil War), and British Navy only allowed to enter in Spain bearly enough food and material to let the country not to die. The late Queen of Spain, Doña Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg, had an interview with Franco and told him about the resources that UK still had. Ah, and Franco was Franco, not a fascist.
ITS IS THE FRIST TIME IVE SAT AND READ ABOUT WAR WITH SPORE ONAIN IN 1942 IT WAS GREAT TO READ AND IAM GOING TO READ MORE ON IT THANKS
spain is a cowardly country………….they would not attempt or try against the british………….ever since napoleon and his french imperial forces invaded spain and took over their spanish throne and their spanish crown……….spain has become a weak inferior nation in all of europe……their whole spanish monarchy and it's bloodline has been cut………napoleon made sure he put an end to it……..by cutting their spanish monarchy and restoring his own brother as their new spanish king……..and ever since 300 years of french take over………spain hasn't been tha same………….so 300 years later of spanish defeat………..spain would have no chance to survive in ww2……..spain would be defeated in less than 5 seconds by tha britsh or the russians…………..so spain made a smart move on their part
Cowardness, as bravery, is a personal quality. Peoples are not coward or gallant. There are, nonetheless, features that seems to be more commonly found in some backgrounds. Self-hate is common in Spain, for example. We have a ditto here: "If he speaks ill of Spain, he is a Spaniard". Nº 13 is a Spaniard, and a coward.
I live in Madrid, and am eager to mantain my words with my fists if he dares to show up. He won´t.
Re. No.7 (Paul Ward)
Spain could never have taken Gibraltar at the time without substantial material and personnel support: she was still shattered from the Civil War. However, the usefulness of the Base would have been lessened by Artillery, at least until British forces had neutralised those positions. More seriously for Spain, if Gibraltar had been negated they would have faced British threats to the Canary Islands and Ceuta, as indeed was in Churchill's mind, let alone the catastrophic loss of trade and communications. An idea, not so much a plan, existed for a British thrust into neighbouring Spain from Gibraltar to provide a buffer zone for the Fortress.
One thing that I find that out one forgets is the Siberian terrain. If Hitlerr attacked Russia it would have been in the winter. Hitler would have dealt with England first for they were they were a larger threat because they had the supplies to fight back and their secret weapon the radar. Russia on the other hand was short of supplies and Hitler would have made an attack on England anyway for he would have wanted to make an example to those who opposed him. By the time German forces were finished with the arial bombardments and started taking on Russia the results would have been the same. Stalingrad would have been more devastating than the original battle for both sides. If Stalingrad fell the Russian people would be drafted in and would have started a guerrilla war demanded by Stalin. Stalin would have been too stubborn to give in to Germany. In the spring when the snow melts the siberian ground is turned to mud, Siberia being made up mostly swampland and forests is a terrible area to travel by any vehicle for they will get stuck. This would have happened to the Germans the wet conditions would have slowed them down forcing hitlers officers to halt and rest and try in the summer when the ground is more firm. This would have given the Russians just enough time to make a massive counter attack. With the help of the United States commingling from Alaska and the Atlantic ocean starting a two way war. The Japanese would possible have to turn their attention to protecting their homeland spreading their forces and weakening the lines. In the end the Russians would have not been so easy to take on because of the logic behind Hitlers mind.
If Spain entered the war and attempted to take gilbraltar it would of failed in my opinion. The royal navy would of been able to keep it in the war much easier in comparison to the siege of malta, in which was a much harder ordeal and malta survived regardless, also the history would of played out more in favour for the allies, possibly because now Spain can't assist the axis on the backhander with atlantic trade due to disruption from the "battle of the atlantic" and maybe america's trade embargo. Also i think D-day would of occured earlier and would of been more successful due to the extra coastline Hitlers atlantic wall would have to cover and garrison, also the fact allied planners would choose to land in spain instead of normandy, also i think the liberation of italy would of still happened first but would of gone smoother if hitler sent troops to spain as well to prevent an allied invasion through a now non neutral coastline. Overall the spaniards no offense in 1939 were not exactly well equipped and well unified due to the left and right political situation, yes they were seasoned due to their civil war, but they had just down sized from 61 divisions to 24 of which only one was motorised.
Another swing on this is if Spain did take Gilbraltar and the kriegsmarine used the med as a hideout and spains ports to re-base, the atlantic war would of of been lost even if the states entered the war, this would of knocked the invasion of normandy on the head and the 8th army would of lost like previous comments have stated the seuz canal is the long way round, to long…. plus spanish forces combined with italian and german forces would of overwhelmed egypt and malta and spilled into the middle east opening up another front with russia from the south. From russia's defeat Britain would of been next, which would of been starved and alone with little canadian and "maybe" american troops to fight off operation sealion. To go as far forward and say that the atom bomb was developed due to heavy water production wasn't sabotaged, america would of been an easier target from the spanish azores, combined with an atomic bomb landing on the east coast of the states ending the war and axis drawing the the new atlas of The third reich from spain, italy, france, british isles, non neutral scandanavia, eastern europe, northern africa, middle east, russia, japanese expansions upto americas surrender, and maybe the european empires/colonys which turned over to axis rule.
Spain in early Franco Era had a strong soldiers, we can see they bravery in the blue division even being only volunteers and not profesional soldiers. They saved german troops in lago Ilmen and they stopped the soviet offensive one year because of the battle of krasny Bor with only 5900 spanish Soldiers vs 44.000 soviet soldiers+2 tanks division. And spain had between two-three millions soldiers to defend the country. Furthermore, the spanish navy was bigger than actual. But, spanish economy, wasn´t development as germany or great britain. Even more, spain hadn´t discovered yet spanish guinean oil.The problem of spain was not in the army or in the navy or in air force was in his own economy.
But what if civil war never happened?? what if Alfonso XIII had been still as a king??. I think spain it will support Great Britain.Why ?? because spanish economy in that times had a strong economy agreements. What agreements?? UK will help spain in his development of his country in exchange of increase the exports of spanish raw materials(fruits, metals etc…). Do you now what will happened if spain´s oils (burgos, in central spain and spanish guinea) had been discovered??. I think german nazi soldiers would invaded spain.
Spanish Models of governments :
(XVI-XVIII) Absolutist Monarchy: Pro-German
(XIX-XX)Parlamentary Monarchy: Pro-german, Pro-British, pro-french.
(XX)Republican: Pro-French and Pro-communist.
(XX)Dictatorship: Pro-German and Pro-British.
Spanish Conservatives: Pro-German
Spanish Liberals: Pro-British
Spanish Labourism(moderate socialism): Pro-French
Spanish Comunists: Pro-Russian, Pro-chinese and Pro-leftist spanish-american goverments.
One of the more sadly uninformed posts I've seen. Have you even read about the Napoleonic era? Probably not. The Spanish resisted for years forcing Napoleon to commit troops that could be put to use elsewhere. Troops were under attack regularly by guerrillas.
This was at juliani eskobar.
The guy is a moron don't rise to it, calling an entire nation cowards because of a guerilla war which they eventually won with british and portugese aid 300 years previously doesn't make it a dead cert that spain would of crumbled easily, look at germany give it 30 years and boom there back from disaster with half of europe under there thumb, now 300years even \a cowardly country\ like Spain could beat off Germany, France, Great Britain and so on….. Oh i don't agree that Spaniards are cowards far from it, look at the foolish blue brigade, they fought hard, died needlessly in a far away battle field which changed no spanish lives at all,but still brave but foolish
There is an interview between Ramon Serrano Suñer, the spanish foreighn office, and Hitler in Hitler`s castle in bavaria that is historic.
Hitler said: Is spain now enter as an ally in the war?
Ramon Serrano Suñer said: I know that our army is glorious like you said that we are showing in russia, and is true, but hitler, I´m your friend and we will support you if we could, I promise you, but we can´t enter in the war, we have suffer a lot in the civil war and we aren´t prepared to enter in this war.
Then hitler get upset in the chair and hitler said: Ok, now we understand the problem. Now, mariscal keitel will show you the plan to close the mediterranean sea that was prepared to do it a week later when spain entered at the war.
Secondly, I´m not moron I proud catholic with White skin, blonde hair and green eyes.
The only political party that was created buy franco was a coalition of extreme-right, conservatives and liberals.
Extreme-right wanted to joined the axis, conservative wanted to be beligerant and liberals wanted absolutely neutrality. This liberals had got contacts even with churchill. In spain we now that in Franco Era there was two ideological visions, pro-german and pro-british.
1939-1943: Extreme-right were at the goverment mostly but Franco prefer to send a blue division of volunteer than enter in the war.
1943-1955: Conservatives.
1955-1975 the liberals take power.
Franco decided three positions:
War between Allies and Axis: Neutrality.
War between Russia and Axis: Axis.
War between Japan and Allies: Ally.
Maybe you will surprised with the last position but when japan imperial army invaded The philippines. This japanese soldiers attacked spanish consulated in manila and this fact got angry franco and support US in all that they needed.
Not calling anyone a moron over what nationality or colour skin they have, just the fact they or you? juliani escobar? have called the entire Spanish race cowards, if anything i'd say they were smart to stay out of things, eventually the mediterean would of been reopened regardless of Spanish joining the axis anyway. Franco knew this like you said with his talks in bavaria, spain will not join the war (at this time) weakened army due to the civil war, only 24 divisions and one of which was motorised.
Dear Basque-Spaniard:
Lo de "moron" no significa moro, sino gilipollas; iba dedicado, por lo que puedo colegir, al tal juliani eskobar ese.
Dear all the rest:
There seems to be a funny confusion here. Basque-Spaniard has thought that "moron" adressed to him, and misinterpreted it for the Spanish word for "Moorish". Basques, in my experience, are quite touchy in terms of race and religion. Anyway, let´s keep it cool, OK? No need to abuse anyone – not even juliani.
And in regard to Franco… he was the quintessential Galician. In Spain we say that if you meet a Galician in a flight of stairs you never know whether he is coming down or climbing up. I don´t think he was very intelligent, and certainly was not cultivated, but he was cunning, in a mean, sordid way. And he outsmarted Hitler. He never threw his lot with anyone till he knew he was going to the winning side. A survivor.
Were Galicains Celtic Gauls in Iberia?
Whats wrong with being Moorish anyway,Spain makes me laugh how quite alot like to hide 500 years of jewish and arabic blood and influence upon the penisusula, to be basque or spanish or what ever your a mix of african, arabic, jewish, italian, french, geneoan, milanese, byzantine and so on…. deal with the fact that your descendants at some point were not all shining knights in shining armour killing the evil non believers in their reconquistor.
I'm English and i'm not the naive idiot to go around saying i'm Basque not Spanish, i know my linage at some point must have scandanavian or germanic or celtic, or french norman blood to be honest i don't care, people who go around shouting i'm 100% this or that irratate me, people like that cause these wars to start with, look at Hitler the prick, not german, not Arian, he was Austrian with Jewish blood in him.
Hi Chris:
Of course, there´s nothing wrong with being Moorish, excepting the fact that they do not longer exist. We call Moorish (or Mudejars) those muslims living in Christian territory during Medieval and Early Modern Age in the Iberian peninsula. Christians living in Muslim territories were called Mozarabic. Jews were called many things (few of them nice) in both fields, with an ever changing and permeable frontier that separated two civilizations for nearly eight centuries. Moorish were expulsed from Spain by king Philip III in 1615. Most of them settled in Northern Africa.
Regarding to our common friend Basque-Spaniard, I am not implying that he is racist at all, not having the pleasure of his acquaintance. But it was his jumping (erroneous as it turned out) at the possibility of being mistaken for a Moor what prompted my comment. But look, he first defined his religion, then his racial traits.
I myself do not feel pride or shame for my mixed origins. My mother was from Northern Castile (near the Basque Country), my father from Murcia, in Southeasthern Spain, a region conquered first by the Aragonese then by the Castilians in XIIIth century. I cannot trace back my origins more than four or five generations, and I don´t really care. I´ve been raised Catholic, as most people in this country for the last 500 years, and am currently an atheist (but cannot forsake the Holy Mother Church, there is no approved procedure ;-), apparently).
Religion is more important an issue regarding to our nation self-perception than race. Being \clean-blooded\ or of \Old Christian stock\ in opposition to \New Christians\ (that is descended from Muslim or, even worse, Jewish converts) was very important in Renaissance Spain. It supposed a different legal standing, as many institutions enforced from the Late Middle Ages what were called \blood-cleansing statutes\, strikingly similar to those later established in Nazi Germany for access to the SS or to the Nazi Party. First of all these legal compulsions was one approved by Toledo Cathedral Council in 1436, if memory serves me well. Moreover the Inquisition kept a watchful eye on those with insufficient credentials in terms of Christianity. Ironically, many inquisitors themselves were New Christians.
Concerning Celts and Gauls, these are rather vague terms inherited from Roman ethnologists, many of which were also generals and conquerors, like Julius Caesar. When the Romans came to the Iberian peninsula during the Second Punic War (IIIth Century BCE) they found a conglomerate of tribes, slightly less developed than them, with just a few cities, mostly in what is know Andalusia and the Mediterranean façade, and some Greek and Carthaginian foundations. Those peoples closer to them they called Iberians, from the Iberus river (today Ebro) which was settled as a kind of demarcation line splitting Roman and Cathaginian zones of influence. This area formed later the Roman province of Hispania Citerior (in Latin literally: \the Spain closer to us\). The Iberians probably spoke very dialectalized non Indoeuropean languages and some linguists suppose they are the ancestors of today's Basque (or Euskera), which some relate with North African Berberian (which is different from the common Maghreb Arabic). Northwestern Spain was the land of the Celts, subdivided in multiple tribes and even less developed than the Iberians. They were related linguistically with Gauls from what today is France and even the northern part of the Italian Peninsula (those tribes that periodically migrated South and sometimes even defeated Roman armies). There was a moving stripe, several hundred miles wide, where Celts and Iberians mixed, and the term Celtiberian came to be used by archaelogists to define their few findings, or rather to conceal their ignorance. The Romans created a province called Hispania Ulterior (\the Spain further from us\) encompassing these lands, before the final subduing of the whole Peninsula by Augustus in the Ist century CE. He also redistributed the territories in three provinces of Imperial rank, Tarraconensis (capital city Tarraco, today Tarragona, southern Catalonia); Lusitania (capital city Emerita Augusta, today Mérida, in Extremadura) & Baetica (capital city Corduba, nowadays Córdoba in Andalusia).
In a way we Spaniards never have ceased to be an uneasy badly-molten bunch of tribes, so bear with us. Some other day we may talk about that island of yours \like a little body with a mighty heart\.
I have to say that if Franco had entered in the war. I think that the war will be the same like the napoleonic war and will have the same final like we know.
The problem wil be later. ¿Monarchy or republic?.
Liberal-Monarchy: the same as actual and pro-ally.
Republic: A satellite country of the soviet Union.
The latest spanish republican elections:
Conservatives: 19%
Liberals: 8%
Labourism: 21%
Comunism: 26%