Why Franco didnt join the war in Hendaye ?

[ljadw]

About Sorel :he was ,as Mussolini ,a Marxist and when he was alive,he endorsed Lenin but he never endorsed publicly Mussolini .
In 1915 Mussolini left the Socialist Party and supported Italy's participation in the war.
Sorel, OTOH, who also had broken with Marxism , became a Marxist again and labeled the war as an imperialist war .
Thus, what Sternhell said is not serious .
Source : A Premature Fascism :Sorel and Mussolini .

[wm]

James Meisel in his A Premature Fascist? Sorel and Mussolini doesn't say any of those things.
And it has nothing to do with the subject at hand - "why Franco didn't join the war" anyway.

It's just your usual poison-the-well tactics by declaring respectable historians idiots.
Exactly as you've said, Einstein was an idiot too.

[ljadw]

Einstein was not a ''respectable '' ( = presented by the media as such ) historian and in political questions ,he was an idiot . He was also a racist ( see what he said about the Chinese ) .That he earned a Nobel Prize makes him not untouchable .
And, you mentioned Preston and Payne, saying that we can not disagree with them because they are ''respectable '' historians, using the argument of authority .Someone who said that Franco was shy with women, Mussolini an aggressive predator and that Hitler harbored a range of perversions has lost the right to be called a respectable historian .
And about Sorel ( you brought him in the discussion ) ; when he was alive he endorsed Lenin but he never publicly endorsed Mussolini .
Mussolini was a Marxist who became a fascist
Sorel was a Marxist who became a nationalist and who finally became a Marxist again .
Thus Sternhell is wrong .In 1908 the man who founded later the first and only Fascist party in Europe ( non included the copycats ) was one of the leaders of the Italian Marxists .
Fascism was an European ideology as was Marxism/socialism and to use two non Europeans as source about Fascism is very questionable .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

You say, "Someone who said that Franco was shy with women, Mussolini an aggressive predator and that Hitler harbored a range of perversions has lost the right to be called a respectable historian." Why, if the observations are correct?

Cheers,

Sid.

[wm]

His hand is like a woman’s and always damp with perspiration.
Excessively shy … his voice is shrill and pitched on a high note which is slightly disconcerting since he speaks very softly – almost in a whisper.
We Cannot Escape History by John Thompson Whitaker

[wm]

This one needs to be declared an idiot too.




The next Francoist move took place on 16 June 1940. It was a Spanish initiative and did not respond to any German request (let alone pressure).
That day, a special envoy of the Caudillo, General Vigón, the chief of the general staff, had an interview with Hitler and his foreign minister, Ribbentrop. On behalf of Franco, from whom he brought a private letter for the Führer …, Vigón offered Hitler Spanish belligerency in return for certain conditions. 
…
 Fortunately for Franco, although Hitler congratulated Vigón on the occupation of Tangier and expressed his desire that Gibraltar soon become part of Spain, he refused to commit himself on the other demands and claims,
…

In fact, the Nazi leaders looked down on the costly Spanish offer, considering it unnecessary at a time when France was falling and Britain’s defeat seemed assured.
…
The bilateral negotiations on the Spanish entry in the war continued during the summer of 1940, without any German or Italian pressure and with a repeated Spanish insistence on its conditions.
Franco by Enrique Moradiellos

[EwenS]

After 27 April 1940 and till the Italian capitulation, the convoys to and from the East did not use the Mediterranean ,but Gibraltar continued to be used . Thus the importance of Gibraltar on the convoys to and from the East was minimal, the same for the U Boat War in the Atlantic .
The Germans could do nothing with Gibraltar and the loss of Gibraltar would for Britain only be a blow for its ego . Nothing more .
And the Argus stopped the training of FAA crews because of the fall of France .

In May 1941 convoy WS8 was run through the Med as part of Operation Tiger to deliver replacement tanks to the Middle East.

After the German surrender in North Africa in 1943, the first through convoy from Gib to Alexandria, GTX1, left on 24 May and arrived on 4 June with 14 ships. There were another 4 in that series through until Aug with steadily increasing numbers of ships. A return convoy series began with XTG1 on 3 June arriving at Gib 14 June.

I wouldn’t say that the use of Gibraltar on convoys to the east was “minimal” between 1940 and 1943. Its role was unsung because it was often mundane. Convoys via the Cape, especially the big WS troop convoys, used Gib as a refuelling station for their escorts or a swapping out escorts for the next leg south to Freetown. Given the general shortage of tankers in the period that would have been hard to replace.

Gib had oil storage for about 50,000tons of oil fuel, over half of it underground, which if captured would have proved very useful to Germany.

Supporting Malta would have been much more difficult with everything having to be transported round the Cape, or aircraft flown across Africa from Takoradi, to join a carrier for transport to Malta. And with Axis air bases both sides of the Eastern Med running the gauntlet would have been harder.

An Operation Torch without Gib means fighting all the way from Casablanca to Tunis without the benefits of landings at Oran and Algiers. Maybe it doesn’t happen at all.

And post the Italian surrender, if Gib was not retaken, the entire Southern European campaign would have to have been run from Alexandria tying up much more shipping. Marseilles became the major port of supply for the US Sixth Army Group in 1944/45. All those supplies, including much fuel for the air forces in Italy, was coming from the USA through the Straits of Gibraltar. Post mid-1943 more shipping would have been tied up supplying the USSR with Lend Lease supplies on the Persian Gulf route.

So no, I don’t subscribe to your view that the loss of Gib “would for Britain only be a blow for its ego”. Unless retaken its impact on the later part of the war would have been huge.

[ljadw]

Hi ljadw,

You say, "Someone who said that Franco was shy with women, Mussolini an aggressive predator and that Hitler harbored a range of perversions has lost the right to be called a respectable historian." Why, if the observations are correct?

Cheers,

Sid.

Because a There is no proof that the observations are correct and because b the observations are without any importance .
Serious historians do not wast our time with stories about the love life of historical personages .
There are people who want to know about the love life of Olivia Newton Jones and there are people who want to know about the historical importance of Mussolini, information about Clara Petacci do not give us information about Mussolini as statesman .
Information about the mistresses of FDR,JFK, Johnson, Clinton,Trump give us no information about their role in American history .Besides Mussolini had already mistresses before he became Duce and when he was one of the leaders of the Italian socialists . He was an Italian male .
And, about point a : there is no proof that Mussolini was an aggressive predator as it is a fact that women are offering themselves to successful men .A predator is a person who ruthlessly exploits others .I like to see a proof that Mussolini forced women to have sex .Clara Petacci idolised Mussolini already at the age of 14 and used her position to enrich her family . Who was the predator ?

[wm]

He said that during a newspaper interview to promote his new book about the sex life of dictators he intends to write.
Of course, it has nothing to do with anything - Sir Paul Preston CBE is one of the best historians.

[ljadw]

Someone who writes a book about the sex life of dictators ( but not about the sex life of non dictators ) is not a good historian, is even not a historian .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

You completely failed to address my question.

Here it is again so that you can have another go:

You say, "Someone who said that Franco was shy with women, Mussolini an aggressive predator and that Hitler harbored a range of perversions has lost the right to be called a respectable historian." Why, if the observations are correct?

Cheers,

Sid.

[ljadw]

Why ?
1 Because it is not important
2 Because respectable historians do not try to make money by writing books about the sex life of historical persons .
3 Because it is a proof of political bias : Preston wants to make money by writing about the sex life of politicians he dislikes, he must also write about the sex life of politicians he likes : if people as Lloyd George,Clinton, JFK, etc,or Mitterrand,...
Saying that Mussolini was a bad guy because he was an aggressive predator is totally ridiculous ,it will not transform even one reader in an opponent of Fascism (that besides no longer exists ).It will only increase the number of male and female admirers of Il Duce .
4 WHY is he writing a book about the sex life of Mussolini, Franco ,Hitler ?
5 Serious historians do not write airport novels .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

That that still doesn't answer my question.

So, in a nutshell, you, personally, have a distaste for this particular aspect of history.

Fair enough, but you should not try mistake the personal for the general. It is still history and its study might usefully find common traits of wider interest and import, or not. Even a nul result is of value.

In any event, until you have actually read the book, you are not in a position to offer a useful critique of it.

Read the book and then come back to us with your considered opinion.

Until then, your opinion on it is of no more value than mine - and I won't be reading the book, as it is not my sort of history, either.

Cheers,

Sid.

[ljadw]

77 years after the death of Hitler and Mussolini and 45 years after the death of Franco, a British historian of 76 years old told the media that he now will write a book about the sex lives of these persons and that he will prove what during 77 years /45 years no other historian has been able to prove ,it is that
Franco was shy with women
Mussolini was an aggressive predator
Hitler harbored a range of perversions
No one has been able to give the proofs for this since 1945 /1975 ,why should Preston be able to do it 77 and 45 years after the death of these persons ?
Who he thinks he is ?
I will say what he is : an arrogant old man who claims that he has invented the wheel and who makes himself totally ridiculous and the result is that his other books are also good for under the bus .
About his other books :when interviewed ( by an other imbecile ) about his book A People Betrayed,he used the opportunity to condemn Brexit and to compare Primo De Rivera to Trump .
For God Sake what have Brexit and Trump to do with the history of Franquism ?
And than , with the usual Anglo-Saxon arrogant condescension he perorated about corruption in Francoist Spain ,of course, such things do not happen in Britain where the mayor of Liverpool was arrested for corruption or in the US where the governor of Illinois also was arrested for corruption .
Besides : it is not his money ,and as said the Bible :whoever is without sin,cast the first stone .
Are non British historians who write about post war Britain making corruption in Britain the major content of their books ?
The Spanish people do not need foreigners to emphasize the dark periods in their history .Neither does need the British people .

[Ironmachine]

Many years ago, I took part in a thread about a Paul Preston's biography of Millan Astray that clearly showed my opinion about him. At least in the last years he clearly shows an evident political bias that influence his writing and uses his opinions as facts. He is highly lauded in Spain by people that I'm quite sure that have not read his books but know that he sees the world through the same glasses they use.
That said, whether or not he writes a book about the sex lives of some persons means nothing about the value of his history books, which should be judged on its own merits (or lack of). Also, it is quite well known that Franco was quite shy in his personal relations, including with women, so no surprise here.
However, the two quotes from his books that have been posted in this thread (unless I'm missing any other) show only his opinion, not based on facts or even contradicted by other evidence.