A SECOND BETRAYAL
CHURCHILL, CATHOLICISM AND THE BETRAYAL OF SPANISH DEMOCRACY
Papa Spy: Love, Faith, and Betrayal in Wartime Spain
By Jimmy Burns, 2009, Walker and Company
By 1936 it was obvious that Germany presented a threat to British interests and was a possible future adversary. It was also obvious that in any conflict with Germany that a pro-Axis Spain would represent a considerable threat to those same interests, not least to the security of Gibraltar. It followed that a democratic, pro allied, Spain would represent a considerable asset in any forthcoming struggle. Despite this the British establishment either openly backed Franco and the Fascist Falange, themselves armed and supported by the Germans and Italians, or cried neutrality whilst holding Franco’s coat. This betrayal of their wider strategic interests by the English ruling classes, not to mention the interests of the Spanish people, occurred as a consequence of their sheer malign opposition, not only, as conventionally argued to socialism and communism, but to democracy itself.
By July 1940 they had to face the consequences of years of appeasing or openly supporting Fascism. A Germany that had now occupied France and which dominated the continent, a belligerent Italy and a hostile Spain. The best that British policy could aim for on the Iberian Peninsula was the neutrality of Spain and Portugal. It is this diplomatic effort, to keep Spain out of the war, which is the subject of Burns’ book. Curiously it is also a wartime biography of his own father.
Burns* was a pro Franco catholic, part of a clique that supported Franco and then went on to offer their services to the British state when war broke out. Burns eventually ending up in Madrid as part of the propaganda and intelligence gathering team. Here he served throughout the remainder of the war under Samuel Hoare the ambassador, who had been an arch appeaser throughout the 1930’s.
Given that he is writing about his own father, the junior Burns often manages a surprising degree of detachment, though unsurprisingly the portrait he provides is not only sympathetic but occasionally drifts into hagiography. However for all his efforts it is still hard to find the father likeable. Here is a man living the good life in Madrid, surrounded on all sides by the devastating poverty of ordinary Spaniards, hardships and poverty exacerbated by the policies of the Franco administration. Two brief cameos from the book stuck in my mind;
Burns watches as a truck filled with Republican prisoners, men almost certainly to be shot. As they pass the British embassy the cry goes up “¡Viva el Inglés,” along with a solitary clenched fist salute. For a moment Burns is saddened by their plight, not least because he knows that their faith, that an English victory will lead to the liberation of Spain, is destined to be disappointed.
Secondly he describes the bare footed street urchins who are used, and underpaid, by the British embassy for sending messages and arranging liaisons. They are invariably all the orphaned children of Republican parents and consequently loath Franco and the nationalists. They frequently risked being beaten up by the Spanish police. The reason why they enjoy the work so much, aside from putting bread in their mouths, is that they feel they are fighting back against Franco.[1]
However Burns does not reflect either too long or too hard on these matters. Nor does he attempt at any stage, even within the limits of his role, to interfere with the ongoing daily slaughter of Franco’s Republican opponents.[2] The best that can be said is that Burns was no Fascist and worked hard for the allied cause, even if his pro Franco leanings and Catholicism occasionally clouded his judgement.[3]
In 1940 Churchill placed Sir Samuel Hoare as ambassador to Madrid, one suspects as much to get the old appeaser out of the country as to find a suitable candidate for the Madrid post.[4] For Hoare, who had held all the major offices of state, with the exception of Prime Minister, this posting was a major demotion. Churchill however buttered him up, stressing the importance of the role and the vital necessity of keeping Spain out of the war.
The risk of Spain entering the war has, I believe, been greatly exaggerated. Exhausted after 4 years of civil war with its economy in ruins it was in no shape to engage in further conflict.[5] That said from 1940 to the end of 1941 the pro Axis leaning Franco was in a position to cause Britain a great deal of mischief. Hoare’s task was to minimise the trouble that Franco caused. Franco did cause a great many problems, — ‘the devotion of the Spanish press to the Axis cause, the refuelling and supplying of U-boats, the provision of radar, air reconnaissance and espionage facilities within Spain, and the export of valuable raw materials to the Third Reich’[6] - however he kept sufficient distance from Germany and Italy to satisfy the somewhat grey British requirements of neutrality. How much this was due to the efforts of Hoare and his spy/press attaché Burns and how much to Franco’s temperamental attachment to Spanish freedom of action, I would need to read a more objective study to come to any firm conclusions. What is true is that Franco was no Mussolini, let alone Hitler. Indeed when he met Hitler on the Spanish French border they famously did not get on. Spain’s demands were too great and Hitler placed less value on possible Spanish belligerence than Franco had imagined. The myth of Franco’s determination to stay out of the war represented Spanish spin after Germany was finally crushed. Franco would have gladly entered the war if he could have, having considerable designs on French colonies in North Africa. It was Spanish weakness and the Royal Navy, which controlled Spain’s food supply, not the clever machinations of Hoare that prevented Spain’s belligerence.
Himmler visits Spain during the war.
Which brings us back to Burns. There were pro-allied successes in wartime Spain, though these had more to do with Bletchley Park decrypts than MOI, [Ministry of Information, for whom Burns worked], machinations, and Burns junior exaggerates these minor victories. Though the book does provide an interesting account of these activities and a vivid portrait of wartime Madrid.
There is a twist in the tale in that the head of MI6’s Spanish Section, Section V, was one Kim Philby. Philby, along with Anthony Blunt and a character called Harris made numerous attempts to have Burns recalled and smear him as a Franco spy.[7] It was not true, though of course Philby himself was a double agent, in his case working for the Soviet NKVD. Their efforts to completely discredit Burns ultimately failed, though they successfully prevented Burns from being awarded the CMG.
With the end of the war coming near Hoare departed Spain and on return to England promptly denounced the Franco regime and exposed its wartime pro-axis activities. Burns was dismayed, though soon after there followed Churchill’s infamous speech in the House of Commons on 24th May, in which he gave a declaration of his gratitude to the Spanish government for keeping out of the war in 1940, going on to state that the 'internal political problems in Spain are a matter for the Spaniards themselves.'[8] This finally disabused any who might still linger hopes for the liberation of Spain from Franco’s tyranny. This was Britain’s second betrayal of Spanish democracy.
After the war Burns continued to support the Franco regime, acting at times as an unpaid lobbyist for the Franco cause. Whilst with the onset of the cold war Spain was eventually embraced by Eisenhower as a bastion of anti-communism and the country was welcomed into NATO.
‘Papa Spy,’ raises a number of interesting issues, leaving several questions hanging in the air. How serious was the threat of Spain’s active belligerence on the side of the Axis? How effective was Hoare in Madrid? What would have been the impact of Spanish belligerence? And finally the book raises the whole issue of Catholicism and divided loyalties. Catholicism was the loyal partner of Fascism in both Italy and Spain, and to a lesser extent in Germany. Burns was pro-Franco because of his catholic beliefs. We know of course that Philby was operating ultimately in the Soviet, not the British, interest, - though these coincided considerably in the war against Nazi Germany. How far did Burns’ loyalty to the Catholic Church take precedence over British interests?[9] Some may say the very question is unfair; those who do must read the book and make up their own mind.
*I will continue to speak of the father as Burns, as indeed does Burns junior, unless otherwise stated.
[1]
To be fair to Burns he did invite a couple to his wedding.
By 1936 it was obvious that Germany presented a threat to British interests and was a possible future adversary. It was also obvious that in any conflict with Germany that a pro-Axis Spain would represent a considerable threat to those same interests, not least to the security of Gibraltar. It followed that a democratic, pro allied, Spain would represent a considerable asset in any forthcoming struggle. Despite this the British establishment either openly backed Franco and the Fascist Falange, themselves armed and supported by the Germans and Italians, or cried neutrality whilst holding Franco’s coat. This betrayal of their wider strategic interests by the English ruling classes, not to mention the interests of the Spanish people, occurred as a consequence of their sheer malign opposition, not only, as conventionally argued to socialism and communism, but to democracy itself.
By July 1940 they had to face the consequences of years of appeasing or openly supporting Fascism. A Germany that had now occupied France and which dominated the continent, a belligerent Italy and a hostile Spain. The best that British policy could aim for on the Iberian Peninsula was the neutrality of Spain and Portugal. It is this diplomatic effort, to keep Spain out of the war, which is the subject of Burns’ book. Curiously it is also a wartime biography of his own father.
Burns* was a pro Franco catholic, part of a clique that supported Franco and then went on to offer their services to the British state when war broke out. Burns eventually ending up in Madrid as part of the propaganda and intelligence gathering team. Here he served throughout the remainder of the war under Samuel Hoare the ambassador, who had been an arch appeaser throughout the 1930’s.
Given that he is writing about his own father, the junior Burns often manages a surprising degree of detachment, though unsurprisingly the portrait he provides is not only sympathetic but occasionally drifts into hagiography. However for all his efforts it is still hard to find the father likeable. Here is a man living the good life in Madrid, surrounded on all sides by the devastating poverty of ordinary Spaniards, hardships and poverty exacerbated by the policies of the Franco administration. Two brief cameos from the book stuck in my mind;
Burns watches as a truck filled with Republican prisoners, men almost certainly to be shot. As they pass the British embassy the cry goes up “¡Viva el Inglés,” along with a solitary clenched fist salute. For a moment Burns is saddened by their plight, not least because he knows that their faith, that an English victory will lead to the liberation of Spain, is destined to be disappointed.
Secondly he describes the bare footed street urchins who are used, and underpaid, by the British embassy for sending messages and arranging liaisons. They are invariably all the orphaned children of Republican parents and consequently loath Franco and the nationalists. They frequently risked being beaten up by the Spanish police. The reason why they enjoy the work so much, aside from putting bread in their mouths, is that they feel they are fighting back against Franco.[1]
However Burns does not reflect either too long or too hard on these matters. Nor does he attempt at any stage, even within the limits of his role, to interfere with the ongoing daily slaughter of Franco’s Republican opponents.[2] The best that can be said is that Burns was no Fascist and worked hard for the allied cause, even if his pro Franco leanings and Catholicism occasionally clouded his judgement.[3]
In 1940 Churchill placed Sir Samuel Hoare as ambassador to Madrid, one suspects as much to get the old appeaser out of the country as to find a suitable candidate for the Madrid post.[4] For Hoare, who had held all the major offices of state, with the exception of Prime Minister, this posting was a major demotion. Churchill however buttered him up, stressing the importance of the role and the vital necessity of keeping Spain out of the war.
The risk of Spain entering the war has, I believe, been greatly exaggerated. Exhausted after 4 years of civil war with its economy in ruins it was in no shape to engage in further conflict.[5] That said from 1940 to the end of 1941 the pro Axis leaning Franco was in a position to cause Britain a great deal of mischief. Hoare’s task was to minimise the trouble that Franco caused. Franco did cause a great many problems, — ‘the devotion of the Spanish press to the Axis cause, the refuelling and supplying of U-boats, the provision of radar, air reconnaissance and espionage facilities within Spain, and the export of valuable raw materials to the Third Reich’[6] - however he kept sufficient distance from Germany and Italy to satisfy the somewhat grey British requirements of neutrality. How much this was due to the efforts of Hoare and his spy/press attaché Burns and how much to Franco’s temperamental attachment to Spanish freedom of action, I would need to read a more objective study to come to any firm conclusions. What is true is that Franco was no Mussolini, let alone Hitler. Indeed when he met Hitler on the Spanish French border they famously did not get on. Spain’s demands were too great and Hitler placed less value on possible Spanish belligerence than Franco had imagined. The myth of Franco’s determination to stay out of the war represented Spanish spin after Germany was finally crushed. Franco would have gladly entered the war if he could have, having considerable designs on French colonies in North Africa. It was Spanish weakness and the Royal Navy, which controlled Spain’s food supply, not the clever machinations of Hoare that prevented Spain’s belligerence.
|
| Himmler visits Spain during the war. |
Which brings us back to Burns. There were pro-allied successes in wartime Spain, though these had more to do with Bletchley Park decrypts than MOI, [Ministry of Information, for whom Burns worked], machinations, and Burns junior exaggerates these minor victories. Though the book does provide an interesting account of these activities and a vivid portrait of wartime Madrid.
There is a twist in the tale in that the head of MI6’s Spanish Section, Section V, was one Kim Philby. Philby, along with Anthony Blunt and a character called Harris made numerous attempts to have Burns recalled and smear him as a Franco spy.[7] It was not true, though of course Philby himself was a double agent, in his case working for the Soviet NKVD. Their efforts to completely discredit Burns ultimately failed, though they successfully prevented Burns from being awarded the CMG.
With the end of the war coming near Hoare departed Spain and on return to England promptly denounced the Franco regime and exposed its wartime pro-axis activities. Burns was dismayed, though soon after there followed Churchill’s infamous speech in the House of Commons on 24th May, in which he gave a declaration of his gratitude to the Spanish government for keeping out of the war in 1940, going on to state that the 'internal political problems in Spain are a matter for the Spaniards themselves.'[8] This finally disabused any who might still linger hopes for the liberation of Spain from Franco’s tyranny. This was Britain’s second betrayal of Spanish democracy.
After the war Burns continued to support the Franco regime, acting at times as an unpaid lobbyist for the Franco cause. Whilst with the onset of the cold war Spain was eventually embraced by Eisenhower as a bastion of anti-communism and the country was welcomed into NATO.
‘Papa Spy,’ raises a number of interesting issues, leaving several questions hanging in the air. How serious was the threat of Spain’s active belligerence on the side of the Axis? How effective was Hoare in Madrid? What would have been the impact of Spanish belligerence? And finally the book raises the whole issue of Catholicism and divided loyalties. Catholicism was the loyal partner of Fascism in both Italy and Spain, and to a lesser extent in Germany. Burns was pro-Franco because of his catholic beliefs. We know of course that Philby was operating ultimately in the Soviet, not the British, interest, - though these coincided considerably in the war against Nazi Germany. How far did Burns’ loyalty to the Catholic Church take precedence over British interests?[9] Some may say the very question is unfair; those who do must read the book and make up their own mind.
*I will continue to speak of the father as Burns, as indeed does Burns junior, unless otherwise stated.
[1]
To be fair to Burns he did invite a couple to his wedding.
[2]
The extraordinary thing about the catholic clique he mixed with, a clique that
included Evelyn Waugh, Hilare Beloc, the Poet Roy Campbell and novelist Grahame
Green, is the lack of what used to be called ‘Christian charity;’ normal human empathy for their opponents also
seemed to have been in somewhat short supply.
[3]
If the intention of the author was to dispel doubts about whether Catholicism
and patriotism are compatible, whilst succeeding for the most part he does,
inadvertently, cast a few shadows to the contrary.
[4]
Hoare, ‘Soapy Sam,’ was not well liked. One wag at the foreign office pointing
that there might be some advantage to placing Hoare in Madrid since the city
was full of German and Italian agents, consequently there was a good chance
that he would be assassinated.
[5]
Though Paul Preston’s article, see below, gave me pause for thought.
[6]
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/26101/1/Franco%20and%20Hitler(lsero).pdf
Preston piece should be read by anyone interested in Spanish Neutrality. It
certainly shifted my attitude to Burns book.
[7]
If Burns jnr is correct Harris too was almost certainly a Soviet agent.
[8]
Ibid.
[9]
Having been born the protestant community in Belfast and having witnessed much
ant-catholic bigotry, I tread carefully here, however the question cannot be
ducked.
