What did Germany get out of Italy joining the Axis?

[ralph124c]

Quote:
Where Italy excelled was in a small number of high-quality components like aero engines (often very laboriously made by expert craftsmen) - however, modern war was brutal in destroying such equipment. Hitler suffered from this factor, too - in his case, investing in numerous high-quality upgrades rather than churning out massive numbers of “okay” weapons. The point was that display and the ‘wow’ factor tended to be favoured over hard-headed military necessities.
Very true-near the end of the war, the Italians made some very good fighter planes (like the “Macchi”). But they had to use German-built engines-their own factories could not make engines fast enough.
I read that the Italian troops in Russia were even MORE badly equipped for winter weather than the Germans-they must have suffered badly.

[Shakester]

@Malthus

This isn’t to say that Franco did not favour the Axis - just that he did not wish to commit himself. Events proved the wisdom of that, as he alone survived among the fascist dictators.

…except for Salazar in Portugal, who lasted till 1968, nearly as long as his neighbour Franco.

[Malthus]

@Shakester

…except for Salazar in Portugal, who lasted till 1968, nearly as long as his neighbour Franco.

He was certainly an authoritarian dictator, but it may be a bit of a stretch to call him “fascist” - though of course plenty of his opponents did just that.

[Shakester]

@Malthus

He was certainly an authoritarian dictator, but it may be a bit of a stretch to call him “fascist” - though of course plenty of his opponents did just that.

Right wing nationalist conservative authoritarian. That spells “fascist” to me. If it quacks like a duck, etc. Salazar was as much a fascist as Franco, despite the fact that Salazar had no time for fascists who didn’t agree his particular flavour of fascism. So what? Hitler notoriously assassinated high-ranking Nazis who held to a slightly different flavour of Nazism to his own - doesn’t mean either Hitler or the Strassers weren’t both varieties of Fascist.

[1046190]

@Malthus

He was certainly an authoritarian dictator, but it may be a bit of a stretch to call him “fascist” - though of course plenty of his opponents did just that.

Salazar’s regime was influenced by Mussolini’s IIRC. Peron’s was too actually.

[Malthus]

@Shakester

Right wing nationalist conservative authoritarian. That spells “fascist” to me. If it quacks like a duck, etc. Salazar was as much a fascist as Franco, despite the fact that Salazar had no time for fascists who didn’t agree his particular flavour of fascism. So what? Hitler notoriously assassinated high-ranking Nazis who held to a slightly different flavour of Nazism to his own - doesn’t mean either Hitler or the Strassers weren’t both varieties of Fascist.

I guess it depends on what you consider the defining features of fascism.

I note that in your earlier link socialist historians are quoted as labelling him “of para-fascist inspiration”. To my mind, that means that even socialists do not consider him fully fascist.

The Estado Novo regime has been described by the American socialist author David L. Raby as a far-right leaning regime of para-fascist inspiration, although general labeling of Portugal as “fascist” declined after the defeat of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy in World War II, in which Portugal remained strictly neutral.

This raises the question - what makes a regime “fascist”? To my mind, three things stand out, in addition to right-wing nationalist authoritarian:

1. Cult of personality;

2. Widespread use of terror, concentration camps, etc,; and

3. Attempt at revolutionary remolding of society by force.

To be fair, though, it may well be a case could be made that Franco wasn’t really a “fascist” either - merely in bed with them.

However, Franco is closer. He fulfils two of the three criteria above: cult of personality and widespread use of terror. Where he differs from (say) Nazi-style fascism, is that he had no intention on a revolutionary change in society - like Salazar, he was a Catholic conservative. So he’s more like unto fascism than Salazar.

[Nava]

@Malthus

However, Franco is closer. He fulfils two of the three criteria above: cult of personality and widespread use of terror. Where he differs from (say) Nazi-style fascism, is that he had no intention on a revolutionary change in society - like Salazar, he was a Catholic conservative. So he’s more like unto fascism than Salazar.

Widespread use of terror… what, where? During the war, same as the other side? Both for “cult of personality” and for political use of police, Franco and Salazar were on about the same page as far as I know…

[DrDeth]

@Malthus

While it was true that in the early stages of the war Hiltler didn’t want Franco’s participation (judging it to be a drain), later Hitler put a lot of effort into attempting to browbeat Franco into joining the war on his side - only to be met with a firm (and to Hitler, totally ungrateful) set of demands as to the price of Franco’s entering the war - demands Germany would not meet.

I can’t remember the exact quote, but after the last unsuccessful meeting Hitler said something to Mussolini about rather having his teeth pulled than negotiate with Franco again.

This isn’t to say that Franco did not favour the Axis - just that he did not wish to commit himself. Events proved the wisdom of that, as he alone survived among the fascist dictators.

It seems that Admiral Canaris (the head of the German Intelligence), was a friend of Franco. Canaris told Franco that Hitler was crazy and would likely lose, and told Franco to stall Hitler.

[DrDeth]

@Malthus

To be fair, though, it may well be a case could be made that Franco wasn’t really a “fascist” either - merely in bed with them.

However, Franco is closer. He fulfils two of the three criteria above: cult of personality and widespread use of terror. Where he differs from (say) Nazi-style fascism, is that he had no intention on a revolutionary change in society - like Salazar, he was a Catholic conservative. So he’s more like unto fascism than Salazar.

Franco also saved his country from falling into separatism and communism, kept it out of WWII, and set up a peaceful hand-over of power to a Democratic government & a figurehead monarchy. Not saying he was a nice guy by any means, but if Spain had been led by a “nice guy” it wouldnt have survived.

Despite widespread hatred of Franco now in Spain, he was actually likely the best thing that could have happened.

[Malthus]

@Nava

Widespread use of terror… what, where? During the war, same as the other side? Both for “cult of personality” and for political use of police, Franco and Salazar were on about the same page as far as I know…

I’m not making a value judgment - merely a classification: both Franco and his opponents used political terror. The “White Terror” was alleged to have killed some 200,000 opponents of the Franco regime.

In his recent, updated history of the Spanish Civil War, Antony Beevor “reckons Franco’s ensuing ‘white terror’ claimed 200,000 lives. The ‘red terror’ had already killed 38,000.”[53] Julius Ruiz concludes that “although the figures remain disputed, a minimum of 37,843 executions were carried out in the Republican zone with a maximum of 150,000 executions (including 50,000 after the war) in Nationalist Spain.”[54]

Francisco Franco

Salazar used secret police to silence opponents, but he didn’t kill nearly on the same scale - of course, he also didn’t fight a nasty civil war. However, note that some 50,000 of those executed were allegedly killed after the war was over.

[Malthus]

@DrDeth

Franco also saved his country from falling into separatism and communism, kept it out of WWII, and set up a peaceful hand-over of power to a Democratic government & a figurehead monarchy. Not saying he was a nice guy by any means, but if Spain had been led by a “nice guy” it wouldnt have survived.

Despite widespread hatred of Franco now in Spain, he was actually likely the best thing that could have happened.

Not sure what to make of these posts - I’m not attacking Franco (or supporting him either). Just saying that, for classification purposes, he’s more like a fascist based on objective criteria than Salazar.

That doesn’t make Salazar “good” and Franco “bad”, or vice versa. I’m not, in short, using “fascist” as a pejorative term, but merely as a descriptive one, for a particular flavour of mid-20th century authoritarianism.

[Malthus]

@DrDeth

It seems that Admiral Canaris (the head of the German Intelligence), was a friend of Franco. Canaris told Franco that Hitler was crazy and would likely lose, and told Franco to stall Hitler.

Another influence was allegedly his fellow-dictator, Salazar - who was certain the Allies would win.

[DrDeth]

@Malthus

I’m not making a value judgment - merely a classification: both Franco and his opponents used political terror. The “White Terror” was alleged to have killed some 200,000 opponents of the Franco regime.

Or as few at 40000. The number is politicized.

[Malthus]

@DrDeth

Or as few at 40000. The number is politicized.

Fair. I am willing to believe that the numbers are in dispute/are politicized. Beevor’s account though seems credible - he’s a highly respected historical writer.
But whatever number one picks, no-one doubts it is in the tens - perhaps hundreds - of thousands.

How many did Salazar’s regime have murdered by its secret police? Well, I don’t know exactly, but wikipedia lists - 32.

PIDE

In 1936, the prison of Tarrafal was created in the Portuguese colony of Cape Verde. This camp, under the direct control of the PVDE, was the destination for those political prisoners considered dangerous by the regime. Throughout the more than 40 years of the Estado Novo, 32 people lost their lives in Tarrafal, which was known for its severe methods of torture.

Admittedly, that’s jusyt at the one prision, and it doesn’t actually say they were murdered. Is there any good source on how many Salazar’s regime had offed?

[ElvisL1ves]

At what point do the numbers simply cease to matter?