"Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1999@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:ce68f518-2ed2-4624-869f-1640c7ffc595@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aug 28, 2:25 am, "Michele" <nospammiar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Rich Rostrom" <rrostrom.21stcent...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ha scritto nel
>
messaggionews:rrostrom.21stcentury-E08CDC.01164028082008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > Jack Linthi*** <jacklinthi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >> The primary reason why Franco
> >>would not participate in an attack on Gibraltar was the sole road was
> >>exposed to the sea and very inadequate.
>
> > No, the primary reason why Franco
> > would not participate in an attack on Gibraltar
> > is that he did not want to go to war with
> > Britain. The details of the attack on Gib
> > were far less significant than the probable
> > cutoff of all Spanish trade
>
> ...where trade doesn't just mean coffee and spices; it means basic
> foodstuffs.
>
> with the Americas,
>
> > the probable loss of Spain's colonies in Africa,
>
> ...maybe not immediately, though surely if the war was lost. OTOH, there
> would be immediate consequences for the Canarias, which weren't just a
> colony.
>
> > and British air attacks on Spanish cities - to
> > mention only a few of the probable results
> > of Spain going to war.
>
> ...that said, the attack on Gibraltar wouldn't be easy, logistically.
> Well, we seem to agree, in any case, that Franco didn't join Hitler,
and remained neutral during the second world war, because it was quite
obvious that he would immediately be in very deep trouble militarily.
Unlike Mussolini and Hitler. It wasn't that Franco knew that Hitler
would lose.
A superficial analysis.
Yes, Franco *****sed that he would be in trouble. But it was not all that
obvious then. Yes, yes, it was obvious that _if_ the British would
continue
to fight, they would stop his foodstuffs, they might take the Canarias,
etc.
As I agreed with the other posters. But your oversight is to assume
everybody knew the British would continue to fight.
_That_ wasn't obvious. _If_ the British gave up, then being short on
everything wouldn't be a problem, the war would soon be over, and by
jumping
in at the last minute Franco would be the one who took Gibraltar back.
Franco did _not_ make that mistake. I.e., as others have pointed out too,
he
wasn't just lucky, he was smart. BTW, that he was smart, or cunning, or
clever isn't just my opinion or other posters' opinion; plenty of
historians
tell us that his contem****aries judged him that way.
Could that mistake be made? Yes. Mussolini made it. Yes, Italy was better
prepared for war than Spain, but not all that well prepared, and, anyway,
Mussolini's reasoning was exactly the above - he assumed any shortcoming
would not matter, because Italy's participation in the war would be short
and easy. The Germans would win for Italy, the British would quickly cave
in.
> It was simply that it was obvious that Spain could not
possibly win.
Which would have been totally irrelevant if _Germany_ had won on behalf of
Spain. But you failed to notice that.
> Franco was actually fantastically lucky throughout his political
career.
I see. You don't like him, so if he does well, it must all be luck.
> He was lucky to get sufficient assistance and insufficient
opposition to win the Civil War --
Actually foreign assistance was rather secondary. It was nice to have, but
not decisive.
> Stalin could probably have crushed
him, if he had wanted to, most Spaniards were left-leaning.
Were they? Do we have your word for it? You base that on the Spaniards you
know?
It must be shocking news for you that in 1933, just two years after the
proclamation of the Republic, the first free elections of it saw a victory
of the right. Yes, right, the right.
Then in 1936, the left won. By a very narrow margin.
The Spaniards were almost exactly cut in half when it came to political
leaning. Not that it would have mattered for Stalin, of course, his
methods
did not rely on majority decisions.
> He was
lucky that Spain was in such a weak position during the second world
war that he had no incentive to join in, and that Hitler would
therefore tolerate his neutrality.
See above. An easy mistake - so easy it was made by Mussolini - would have
been to judge, along with nearly everyone else at some time during the
war,
that Germany would win single-handedly. Antonescu's Romania was nearly as
weakened as Spain, having lost more than a third of its territory together
with the relative manpower pools, yet Antonescu made the same mistake as
Mussolini.
Franco did not. That's more than luck.
> He was extremely lucky that the
Cold War with Stalin started up after the second world war, for
otherwise, he would certainly have been isolated and probably removed
from power, as a fascist.
I doubt he would have been removed from power. In any case, sure, that was
his luck, but in that, he was far from extraordinary or extreme. The West
was friendly with a long long list of right-wing strongmen for decades; he
was in good company.
> He was lucky that the Spanish were willing
to let him live out his life as a dictator, contenting themselves with
assassinating the Admiral who was positioning himself to continue the
dictator****p toward the end of his life.
Again that rubbish. That's childish. You have already been told that it is
preposterous to mix up "the Spanish" as a whole with the extremely small
number of terrorists who carried out that stunt. By the same token, you
could say that Jacqueline was lucky that the Americans let her live as a
widow, contenting themselves with assassinating her husband. It would be
just as sensible. Keep ignoring that, and I'll keep reminding you.
|
