Spanish Civil War

Originally posted by Władysław Warnencz [ Nationalism helps preserving your own nation.

¿¿¿
err nationalism more oftne than not leads to war and war leads to destruction thus... besides economic patriotism doesn't exactly have a shiny record. Further more why would I care about "my" nation? Rationally people rarely do, they care about their family, their neighbourhood, possibly their town, definitely themselves, but nobody gives a damn about the "nation". Really do you think some one in Berlin cares about the situation in Hanover?

Aristocracy is composed of the most wealthy people in society who run business,trade,industry and in fact almost the whole economy.Like todays high-class people such as lawyers,bankers,businessmen and so on...

You seem to confuse bourgeoisie and aristocracy. In Russia, Spain or most countries that fell to communism, the aristocracy was rather a backward force in society.

Destroying it leaves only poor-educated farmers and workers to run the country,which results in idiotical political decisions,economical decline and country bankrupt,as happened in all Eastern European countries.

The Air Force also remained 100% with the republic.

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 IMO, the Catholic Church retained greater moral and social authority in Spain than in the Americas.  The overall conservative elements in Spain were much stronger than in Mexico.  I don't see Spain ever providing refuge for Trotsky, and the Moscow "show trials" were well underway during the Spanish C W.  People were not so stupid as to be blind to the nature of Soviet Communism, and, as you say, that was the major support the republic had.

Hi, Pike,

This will sound strange, but the fact that Mexico is so religiously conservative and Catholic is what made it so anticlerical. You can't work yourself up to too much of a frenzy against priests if they lack power the way they do in the U.S.

The bulk of Mexico is devout Catholic, with its bible belt (where my family comes from )with strong believers and weaker believers everywhere else. They also are staunchly secular when it comes to separation of church and state.

It happened that in the late 20s and 30s there was a leftist and anti-clerical government in power in Mexico. But we must realize that there is the public front and the reality. When the Spanish Civil War was waging, the official position of the government was leftist, but there was already being a move towards the right. In fact, Lazaro Cardenas appointed as his successor a strongly conservative and Catholic general, which many claim he was a Knights of Columbus, which I ignore if it is true.

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 Originally posted by gcle2003 It's interesting, though strictly off topic, that navies everywhere are always less conservative than armies.   I would agree with that, but only since about the mid 19th century.  Before that, most of the command structure was drawn from the same aristocratic class.

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 That is a little confusing.  Maybe we can go into this if a new Mexican Revolution discussion develops.

You are right And it is confusing. It is holding contradictory ideas at the same time. I will go and start a thread.

Originally posted by Maharbbal Secondly, for reasons I can't figure, the governmental side did not support any guerrilla behind the enemy lines while you would think it would have been the perfect war to do so. Never understood why but it was a major strategic mistake.

Edited by Cryptic - 04-Sep-2008 at 19:52

Originally posted by calvo Originally posted by Maharbbal calvo to be fair, you are forgetting two major points: The Spanish territorial army was crap. On the other hand the Africanistas were experienced mean and tough soldiers with nothing to lose. I'd exchange you any Spanish territorial division for a single colonial batallion. Secondly, for reasons I can't figure, the governmental side did not support any guerrilla behind the enemy lines while you would think it would have been the perfect war to do so. Never understood why but it was a major strategic mistake.   The fundamental reason of the failure of the republican camp was the LACK OF ORGANIZATION and a clear strategy. Instead, they spent most of their effort fighting between themselves.   Spanish history is interesting in the way that very often foreign historians offer the most objective and complete account; because Spanish historians are always biassed towards one side or the other and try to exagerate or cover up certain information.   Both the Civil War and the Medieval struggle between Christians and Muslims are often told in radically contradicting versions depending on the political view of the historian.

Although your criticisms are valid the Republic would have won IMHO if either, no foreign intervention had taken place (leaving the Army of Africa stranded in Morocco without fascist planes) or intervention had been equally supplied to both sides.  Britain's role in refusing to support a legal government BEFORE Stalin gained control and in persuading France to do likewise was crucial and has been cited by the fascists as the single most important factor.

Originally posted by Władysław Warnencz Originally posted by gcle2003 S  Neither Eastern Europe nor Spain was going to prosper until they got rid of (a) fascism and (b) communism, since both are bureaucracy-ridden elitist oligarchies.   I agree with that and that's why i wrote i hate both.The difference at least is that while both systems destroy the economy of the country,communism destroys also religion,intellectuals,nationalism,aristocracy,proper education etc...That's why i would choose Franco...

But this makes Franco sound benevolent!  He did not create a tolerance of religions- he enforced Catholicism, suppressed Basque and Catalan language and culture whilst brutally murdering their people.  Aristocracy is undemocratic and wrong- why shouldn't unelected leaders be attacked?  Working class soviets studied literature and went to opera despite the massive failings of a disgusting regime, communism is an intellectual concept in many ways.  Intellect over 'faith'.  If you consider the re-education institutions which Franco created as 'proper', then you should also be a fan of the soviet methods (see Franco's Children- Channel 4).  I'm not a communist but at least it's a system AIMING at equality (although clearly not the Stalin/Mao versions).  Capitalism is the deliberate pitting of people against each other in a competitive market.  Ooops- we're slipping towards the anarchists- 'governments can never save the people' (Ethel MacDonald, Scottish Anarchist in the SCW) ;-)

I'm disgusted to see that 44 of our supposedly educated members would support the fascists against the legitimate democratically-elected government. Franco's thugs were every bit as bad as the Nazis (in their early days) and Italian fascists with totalitarian surveillance, militarist ideology, hostility to democracy, repression of the trade unions and close cooperation with the big businesses to exploit the people.

Originally posted by Nick1986 I'm disgusted to see that 44 of our supposedly educated members would support the fascists against the legitimate democratically-elected government.

Edited by Cryptic - 16-May-2011 at 10:56