Talk:German involvement in the Spanish Civil War

Canaris

Hitler's spy chief: the Wilhelm Canaris mystery by Richard Bassett has a chapter on the German involvement in the Spanish war (told, as you'd expect, from Wilhelm Canaris' perspective). There's a bunch of stuff in there that this article doesn't have (some perhaps trivia, some not). I'm a bit reluctant to just add stuff to the article, as biographers tend to fall in love with their subjects, and as I don't know much else about the Spanish conflict or Germany's involvement, I fear I'd unbalance the article into a "Wilhelm Canaris wins the Spanish Civil War" story. So use the following as you will:

• During an arms-sales mission in 1935 Canaris got to know Franco
• At some point (Bassett doesn't specify) Franco telegrammed Mussolini asking for help, but Mussolini wrote "NO!" on the telegram.
• In August 1936 Franco met German businessman Johannes Bernhardt and Nazi official Adolf Langenheim in Tetuan; he asked for their support in moving his army from Africa to Iberia. He gave them a letter asking Hitler for the same, and they flew to Berlin to deliver it.
• On receiving the letter, Hans-Heinrich Dieckhoff wrote a memo saying "Deliveries of arms to the rebels would very soon become known ... our merchant shipping and navy would be compromised". He called the prospect of sending aircraft "impracticable and not at all realistic" and while countenancing dealing in future with a victorious Franco he said that Germany must "remain at a distance from the whole affair". On the same memorandum his boss Konstantin von Neurath wrote "precisely".
• So the pair go to see Ernst Wilhelm Bohle who introduces them to Hess who sends them off to Beyreuth where, with Hitler, they watch Wilhelm Furtwängler's Walküre. Afterwards they hand-deliver Franco's letter to Hitler. They all have a chinwag with Goering, Werner von Blomberg, and Canaris. Of these three only the utterly Hispanophilic Canaris favours support.
• The argument that Canaris makes over the following hours is multifold:
  • if Spain turns red then France might too, encircling Germany
  • there's lots of money to be made selling Franco arms
  • if Germany didn't support Franco maybe Mussolini would, extending Mussolini's influence at the expense of Germany's
  • note that Bassett doesn't talk at all about the Anschluss theory presented in the article.
• Hitler is persuaded (and Goering and Blomberg unsurprisingly change their views on the spot)
• HISMA and ROWAK are formed (Bernhardt, the businessman mentioned above, is made a director of HISMA), as is Sofindus. These are all funded with venture capital raised by Franco and Spanish aristos on London markets (not with German money).
• Canaris sets his Abwehr network to reporting on Republican resources and materiel.
• In October 1936 Franco met Canaris in the Bishop's Palace in Salamanca. They lunch together with Luis Orgaz Yoldi and Franco's brother Nicholas. Canaris tells Franco of 50,000 IB men and 8 soviet ships on their way to Spain. Canaris knew Franco didn't want to become Hitler's lapdog, so Canaris stressed that the war was already international, and that all Germany wanted was for Franco to be more decisive. Franco repeated his desire for planes etc. but also protested at being hurried, particularly in the violent contest for Madrid. In the discussion that follows Canaris and Franco agree the deal for the deployment of the Condor Legion.
• Bassett says that Condor was commanded by Hugo Sperrle and that Faupel was the charge d'affaires. Faupel had been Hitler's WW1 commander. Both Faupel and Sperrle fall out with the Spaniards giving Canaris the opportunity to replace Faupel with his friend, diplomat Eberhard von Stohrer (and Sperrle with someone else who Bassett doesn't name).
• Bassett also cites Abwehr officer Richard Protze in the claim that Canaris and Goering organised an arms-dealing ring, taking old German WW1 rifles (sold into the Balkans after Versailles), degrading them (e.g. by filing down their firing pins) and sending them (via intermediaries in Poland, Finland, Czechoslovakia, and the Netherlands) to the Republicans; and that they similarly degraded ammo and shortened grenade fuses and sent these the same route.
• Bassett describes Spain as the anvil on which the collaboration between Germany and Italy would be forged
• In addition to tracking soviet agents in Spain and the soviet arms network across Europe supplying the Republicans, the Abwehr penetrated the Republican ranks (their best agent, Eberhard Funk, was detected and shot). The Abwehr and the Gestapo helped the Nationalist police tracking foreigners.

-- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 20:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

A surprising amount of this is already mentioned (although in other words). The Abwehr bit is possibly the most interesting, though; it has a sentence at Condor Legion but nothing more. Will look into it, and anything else here. "These are all funded with venture capital raised by Franco and Spanish aristos on London markets (not with German money)." is intriguing, both my sources are clear this is German money, through the finance ministry, although perhaps both things could be true. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thought I'd you do the service of explaining further. "In August 1936..." we have a bit covering the airlift, the specifics of which might be suitable if there was an article on it in particular, but probably not here. "if Spain turns..." mentioned as motivation; "there's lots of money..." not directly discussed, but implicit in the article as a whole; "if Germany didn't ..." - can we cite the book for this (is it a citable book?). Next couple of points covered similarly; "Canaris sets his..." - good to have if we could cite it; we have the replacement of Faupel, but the article doesn't (but will shortly) name Stohrer; "Bassett also cites Abwehr..." - covered in the last paragraph of Early Intervention; "Bassett describes Spain..." - yup, can go in if citable. Last point - definitely citable if possible. So a few bits (four) there that would be improvements. How or if this goes about, obviously your call. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ground component

This article is rather lacking in coverage of the ground component which is odd since Soldiers of von Thoma: Legion Condor Ground Forces in the Spanish Civil War by Lucas Molina Franco & Jose Ma Arias Ramos is in print. There are several books by Gerald Howson that detail arms deliveries that should also be consulted. A table listing all military aid would also be useful. The non-military aid provided by the Germans should also be discussed. There's a mention of oil supplied by the Germans, but was that all? You've chosen a rather broad topic, but I think that there's still a lot to do to make it reasonably complete.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Much of the article's ground coverage was transferred to Condor Legion#Operational history; the summary, here, applies (as far as I could manage) the same weight as the books I currently have at my disposal. I have requested Howson's Arms for Spain from my local library, although I am quite unsure what it is I expect to find in it that is not already present - anything I do find will be added, of course. The issue with non-military aid is how significant it was, and what form it actually took. There was some humanitarian aid, which I might note, but it didn't necessarily represent the main way in which Germany involved itself in the war. Training and war materiel, are, from the sources I have, considered more significant. (The Nationalist zone itself was in much better economic - particularly food and basic supplies - than the Republican zone.) As the article notes, there is no overall detailed listing of German aid, which I believe is partly because different parts of the German government were hiding it from each other. What do you expect to be in the table? I can try to do something, but if one metric for it is Type of aid I can't think of an appropriate second. Both Thomas and Westwell list some 'representative shipments' or talk of this particular shipment or that one, which I didn't consider important enough to merit inclusion here. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Edits to lead

I've reverted these edits for a number of reasons. "In the most part" is important here because as the article notes, Nazi Germany also supplied arms to the Republicans, a decision motivated in purely economic reasons. Secondly, the reasons given for German involvement aren't "the Nazi line", they're the commonly written about ones. I'm aware this is the wording used in Westwell, but it isn't in Beevor (2006) p. 137., for example. There's nothing about them that suggests they were German 'spin'. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Couldnt find anyhting to support the text on beevor p.137 - I won't edit war - i'm going to read 'Spain and the Great Powers in the Twentieth Century ' ,publisher Routledge I think, any insights from that I will seek to add to this article -- it looks poorly sourced to me this article and POV- right wing . Sayerslle (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)Beevor reads "Hitler's real reasons for helping Franco were strategic. A Fascist Spain would present a threat to France's rear as well as to the British route to the Suez Canal. (... about U-boat bases...) The civil war also served to divert attention from his central European strategy, while offering an opportunity to train men and to test equipment and tactics". Have you any reason to doubt these reasons, or have some alternatives not presented if these aren't real? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Umm, the Germans armed the Nationalists, not the Republicans.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK they actually armed both sides. Anotherclown (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

See the section. Sayerslle removed the "in the most part" from the "tried to secure a Nationalist victory" which I believed was appropriate given the small nature of arms sales to the Republicans which are insignificant from a lead point of view. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

What section? where do you detail the Nazis supplying arms for the Republican cause?Sayerslle (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Last paragraph of Early intervention, which I can improve if you want. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

cynical bloke Goring - o.k. - i still don't think its enough for mention in the lead because it was dwarfed by the main drift - but thanks for pointing the section and source out. Sayerslle (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the "undue weight" concept. Since arms sales to the Republicans were minor, then presenting them in the lead in any detail would be misleading - it would suggest they were mroe important than they were. Not everything can be explained in the lead, and it is my firm belief that "in the most part" is accurate enough to stand. I fail to see how it proposes a point of view - which point of view? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

your wording says ' it attempted to secure a victory for the Francoists..' kind of thing..'in the main part..' - that is crappy to my mind because this fragment about the sale of shoddy weapons in no way was attempting to secure anything positive for the republicans - it was a way for Goring , according to beevor, as far as I can gather to just make money while in now way threatening the nazi objectives of a fascist victory - so your woding creates a kind of undefined, blurry, suggestiveness that ' for the most part yeh they were Nazis , they wanted fascists to win, but a little part didn't - because look Goring sold some shoddy weapons' - but to my way of thinking they are not contradictory at all -,its all part of the nazi cynicism kind of thing - as for what point of view? - the kind of revisionistpoint of view i guess, the mamalujo/albrecht? your? kind of view, that creates hazes and blurs, and mamalujo sayss right out - yeh franco wasn't perfect, but he was the best spain could hope for - and then use wp to push that POV .. - a sentence to explain this 'in the main part' is not a problem imo, it take s a second to explain . - to return to your wording is not clear , and to clear it up like I say ,takes a sentence. Sayerslle (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of being pro-Franco? I take such an allegation very seriously. I have no agenda here at all except to document the facts. What is clear is that the Nazi Government had motives other than Franco's success, be they economic, or tactical (the "keep them fighting" mentality). "a little part didn't [sic]" is true: as the article notes, members of the government were against military aid to Franco, including Goering, and as I say they had other motives. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

But hitler had the decisive say I suppose - the JUnkers 52s arrived in july 1936 whatever the niceties , the condor legion, the main story etc - the beevor bit on gorings arms sales seemed to me to imply not that it involved any departure from policy aims but that it was just greed and cynicism about money - if the 'keep em fighting' motive is salient - then quickly detail that in the lead too, what does it take to give a little detail on the goring arms sales - 11 words - i just don't accept that all the lead can do is muddy the essential narrative - the nazis supported the nationalists , and then move on - I think, if the essential narrative is compromised, deftly explain the nature of the compromising features of the esesential narrative, and then move on - to the main body of the article. You asked what possible POV I could believe was being proposed and I just answred that straight , the way it read struck me as kind of revisionist-strange,but I'm absolutely sure my knowledge of the SCW is badly lacking and I intend to learn more because it is fascinating and sad and it happened at such a crucial moment in the 20th century. Sayerslle (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S -I've seen your latest edit and that seems good to me, because if one is immediately curious one can straight away click on the note nb1, so yes , I think that works in the lead, how it is now. Sayerslle (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

this article is only about German government involvement

but there was also German involvement on the other side within the international brigades — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.208.187.120 (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes this is a very good point, the article is about German Government involvement, which was obviously on the Fascist side, but that is by no means the full story of German involvement. Indeed there is a suggestion that German involvemenet, (not sanctioned by the Gemran state obviously) for the Republican side was substantial, whe you thinkmof it it sort of makes sense. If you were a German Communist, Social Democrat, Trade Unionsist or even a Liberal it wasn't exactly safe for you to stay in Germany so you had less incentive to stay home than if you were from the UK or France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.102.36 (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The wikipedia article on foreign involvement suggests there were 5,000 (German and Austrian- rememembr it was one country at the time) in the IBs, and they suffered 40% casualties. This must be documented somewhere. I guess the question is, do we leave the article basicslly alone and rename it 'German Government sanctioned support for Franco' or keep the article name and make it more balanced and talk about German support for the Republican side too. My instinct is the latter, because I would say Willy Brandt was every bit as German as Adolf Hitler.