Result of the Spanish Civil War had Mussolini stayed a socialist

[Oktyabr]

What are your thoughts?

I think that with the amount of men, weapons, equipment, and machinery he provided, it would have made a huge difference.

[Vendetta]

I don't get it. What?

[Oktyabr]

I don't get it. What?

Mussolini, until the outbreak of WW1, was a socialist. The question is, had he not gone fascist, what effect would he have had on the Spanish Civil War, a war in which fascist equipment from Italy proved a key point in determining the final outcome. Basically, what would a socialist ally have done for the Spanish cause?

[Random Precision]

Moved to Chit-Chat. Please don't post idle speculation on "what-if" scenarios in the history forum.

As for the question: probably nothing. The rise of fascism in Italy did not have much to do with Mussolini as a person or "great man".

[Os Cangaceiros]

Probably wouldn't have made a terrible amount of difference. A lot of the equipment the Italians provided was inferior...the tanks they provided, for example, were total crap, and were dominated by the Russian-produced T26's on the battlefield.

The Nazis contributed better equipment, especially aircraft, which were superior to the Spanish "chatos" and Russian aircraft.

[Oktyabr]

Would any of you agree that if one credible nation (Italy in this case) rallied to the Spanish Republican cause, which could demonstrate to the other large powers how necessary the fight was, they could have won the Civil War?

[Angry Young Man]

If he'd have remained 'socialist' (the Socialist Party of Italy are Soc Dems, no?), then he wouldn't have been made head of Italy. Some other neo-feudalist nutter would have.

[Random Precision]

Would any of you agree that if one credible nation (Italy in this case) rallied to the Spanish Republican cause, which could demonstrate to the other large powers how necessary the fight was, they could have won the Civil War?

The USSR was fast becoming "credible" among the imperialist powers due to the Popular Front, and the Republic was also supported by Mexico.

The war wasn't lost because of a lack of international support. It was lost because its main international ally, the USSR, did all it could to crush the popular revolutionary movement in Spain that could have defeated fascism.

[Angry Young Man]

I would have thanked you. But you can't scope it to one problem. Division was also a big issue (though this also brings in the Stalinists)

[вор в законе]

The war wasn't lost because of a lack of international support. It was lost because its main international ally, the USSR, did all it could to crush the popular revolutionary movement in Spain that could have defeated fascism.

What a pile of crap. The USSR was the only country that at least did something. Britain and even the Front Populaire coalition of France didn't do shit.

[Random Precision]

What a pile of crap. The USSR was the only country that at least did something. Britain and even the Front Populaire coalition of France didn't do shit.

They did a lot to help the imperialist government of the Republic and its inconsistent military efforts against Franco, true. Which included crushing the independent revolutionary movement of the anarchist and independent Marxist workers of Spain.

[вор в законе]

The fact that Soviet Union's stance towards the CNT and the POUM was wrong doesn't alter the fact they helped. Live with it.

[bcbm]

I'm not sure giving a government guns used to murder revolutionary workers is "helping."

[Oktyabr]

What a pile of crap. The USSR was the only country that at least did something. Britain and even the Front Populaire coalition of France didn't do shit.

Mexico lent Spain about 20,000 Mauser rifles. I think 20,000 rifles, specifically of the mauser variety would cost quite a bit. I think that qualifies as more than crap.

[вор в законе]

I know that you people are displeased and pissed off because the Stalinists turned against POUM & CNT, but for the last time, the Soviets provided help to (a section) of the revolutionaries. The rest is history.

And you know what? Stop blaming everything on the Stalinists, especially the defeat of the Civil War. There were objective factors and apart from that, the Stalinists are not the only one's who support sectarianism. The entire fucking left is sectarian, you can see this in the forum and even more so in the real world, where the left doesn't cooperate because each section wants its own "version" of the revolution. It reminds me of religious fanatics (Protestants, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox etc --> True Christianity).

The fact is that unfortunately the Revolutionary Left (and the Left in general) doesn't know what the fuck it wants.

I know this is a bit off-topic - but until we make some serious self-criticism nothing will change.

[Oktyabr]

And you know what? Stop blaming everything on the Stalinists, especially the defeat of the Civil War

Theres a lot to blame on Stalinists, but I'm not saying we need to start a sect. war right here. Start another thread (thats bound to get trashed) if you want to do that.

[вор в законе]

I don't want a sectarian war, in fact that was the point of my post, in vain, judging by your response.

[Angry Young Man]

I know that you people are displeased and pissed off because the Stalinists turned against POUM & CNT, but for the last time, the Soviets provided help to (a section) of the revolutionaries. The rest is history.
The important thing is that (empirically) the USSR's aid meant fuck all

[Oktyabr]

The important thing is that (empirically) the USSR's aid meant fuck all

Exactly. Aid is not aid if you arm one faction in a revolution in hopes of defeating the other, and the opposing factions are on the same side. Thats just idiocy. In trying to force a communist revolution on a primarily anarchist country (at least until before the war started), the USSR proved counter active, and it's "aid" served only to weaken the Republican cause, and encourage the infighting that broke the popular front.

[bcbm]

And you know what? Stop blaming everything on the Stalinists, especially the defeat of the Civil War. There were objective factors and apart from that, the Stalinists are not the only one's who support sectarianism. The entire fucking left is sectarian, you can see this in the forum and even more so in the real world, where the left doesn't cooperate because each section wants its own "version" of the revolution. It reminds me of religious fanatics (Protestants, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox etc --> True Christianity).

The fact is that unfortunately the Revolutionary Left (and the Left in general) doesn't know what the fuck it wants.

I know this is a bit off-topic - but until we make some serious self-criticism nothing will change.

Actually I completely agree with you here. I also think our continued focusing on refighting historical battles is a serious detriment. Nobody outside of the revolutionary left today really gives a fuck about what happened in the Spanish Civil War, and why should they?

[Angry Young Man]

There's alot of love for Pan's Labyrinth. And you have to remember that history is a rich seam of lessons, such as not counting on aid from a country that doesn't really want to help you that much.

[bcbm]

Learning from history is one thing. Endlessly refighting the Spanish Civil War, Russian Revolution, etc, etc are another.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Awww...but arguing about who was cooler, Stalin or Trotsky? for the five millionth time is so fun!

[Oktyabr]

Awww...but arguing about who was cooler, Stalin or Trotsky? for the five millionth time is so fun!

thats not what this post is about, its about theorizing on history.

[Os Cangaceiros]

thats not what this post is about

I never claimed that it was...:confused:

[Oktyabr]

I never claimed that it was...:confused:

I'm not accusing you. Sorry if you thought I was.

[Black Dagger]

Would any of you agree that if one credible nation (Italy in this case) rallied to the Spanish Republican cause, which could demonstrate to the other large powers how necessary the fight was, they could have won the Civil War?

I don't find it plausible that the western powers would ever have come to the defence of the anarchist revolution, no. Non-intervention/appeasement was their policy, and had been for some time. You are mistaken if you think that the western powers had a moral problem with fascism, or that for example WWII was the result of a struggle between fascism and anti-fascism/democracy.

[Oktyabr]

I don't find it plausible that the western powers would ever have come to the defence of the anarchist revolution, no. Non-intervention/appeasement was their policy, and had been for some time. You are mistaken if you think that the western powers had a moral problem with fascism, or that for example WWII was the result of a struggle between fascism and anti-fascism/democracy.

I never thought so. Some people, especially in the British and American governments were pro-Franco, and therefore would not ship arms to the Spanish. What I thought was that if you had three countries, 2 of them credible modern nations, Mexico, Italy, and the Soviet Union, people would recognize the Second Republic over Franco's nationalist government. Apparently that was wrong.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't Mussolini could have remained a socialist. The Sorelian ultra-left syndicalist tendency within the Second International had a fetish for action (action for action's sake), glorifying strikes and what not. The failure of this to transpire immediately after the outbreak of war led Mussolini to side with syndicalist "action" of a more nationalistic sort, one which Sorel himself ultimately sympathized with.