Spanish Civil War
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Modern History
Forum Discription: World History from 1918 to the 21st century.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=25270
Printed Date: 13-May-2024 at 00:53
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Spanish Civil War
Posted By: Al Jassas
Subject: Spanish Civil War
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2008 at 10:47
|
Hello to you all
The Spanish civil war was probably one of the most decisive, devisice and of course brutal events in the 20th century. It was truelly more an international affaire than a Spanish one. This event was a battle which pitied communists and democracy advocates in one camp, and religious and social conservatives as well as hard core capitalists on the other. It was a rallying point for many people who for probably the first time since the crusades rallied not for a territorial gains but for ideas because the war was first and foremost an ideological war.
Now, I know this might be a contentious issue for many but I hope that the argument becomes civilised.
So, if you lived in those days, which party would have you joined or at least supported? Why did you make that choice?
I am not that experienced in the topic so I will refrain from voting but I hope you will join in the discussion particularly our Spanish friends Ikki et al.
Al-Jassas
|
Replies:
Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2008 at 10:52
|
The Spanish Tragedy, 1931–1939 From the summer of 1936 to the spring of 1939, Spain was the scene of a bitter conflict of arms, ideologies, and interests. This conflict was both a civil war and an international struggle. It was a controversial problem at the time and has remained a controversial problem since. For twenty or more years, the bitter feelings raised by the struggle remained so intense that it was difficult to determine the facts of the dispute, and anyone who tried to make an objective study of the facts was subjected to abuse from both sides.
http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/12.html#43 - - http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/12.html#43 |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2008 at 11:20
|
I don't see how that contributes much.
Anyway, I put Republican, because the Falange was simply part of the 'fascist' movement that was sweeping much of Europe. Most of the English fighting there joined the same side.
Like Orwell though, I might have been disillusioned by the way the legitimate Republican government was taken over by the Soviet communist movement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_Catalonia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_Catalonia
------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2008 at 15:42
|
When the guns begin to shoot, idealism is always the first casualty.
The "Republican" side was doomed, as gcle says, once it was co-opted to the USSR's half baked anti-fascist efforts of the 1930s.
The USSR did not support the Republican government with the level of support needed, first, because Iberia was far too remote and inaccessible for substantial Soviet aid, and second, because the USSR was still in process of its own industrialization. Soviet needs came first and they still needed help from some in the West.
In addition, Stalin was the only ideologue who mattered, and he was never much of an internationalist. He already in the 1930s had his eye on his perceived domestic opponents.
Ultimately, I think the republican government was the victim of Soviet association. I cannot think of an ideology more foreign to socially conservative, Catholic Spain than Communism.
|
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2008 at 16:09
|
I picked nationalists only because the actions of the extreme left.
The main troble with the republicans was a huge lack pf orgainization. Anarchist and Communists fielded autonomous militias for much of the war. Battlefield tactics were often the result of a group vote among independent leaders rather than a military style command and control.
This orgainizational breakdown extended to Republican rear areas as well. Economic policies were in chaos. Moderate Socialist policies were implemented by Madrid. In some areas, competing anarchist groups then collective all private property, "liberate" middle class property and on some occasions outlawed money and banks. Prisoners were released by republican authorities only to be re-arrested executed by anarchists. These same anarchists then murder Catholic clergy, destroy churches, works of art etc. .
Meanwhile Franco....
-Placed all Catholic and right wing Secular militias under a centralized command
-Implemented a working economy
-ensured that order (however brutal) prevailed in Nationalist rear areas
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2008 at 20:10
i think the Russian Civil War by far eclipses the importance of the Spanish Civil War and it's status as most important Civil war of the 20th Century. |
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2008 at 22:18
|
I would have joined the Republican even though as glce I would have been at odds with the extreme left. Three main reasons for that: 1. They had been legally elected. 2. They were not complete monsters even though they commited some awful stuff they didn't bomb Guernica, nor did they shoot the best Spanish writer of the 20th century. The violence was ingrained in the nationalist side (the so-called African soldiers had proved they were butchers in the Rif, Franco had shown what kind of man he was in the Asturias strike, etc.). 3. They were not supported by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Should be enough ------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: Władysław Warnencz
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2008 at 23:43
|
When fascists and communists fight,the best thing to do is let them kill each other and then finish the survivor off. ------------- |
Seriously,how can a man be choosing between atheist barbarians and nazi barbarians?They both murdered innocents,they both commited awful crimes and they both proclaimed wrong ideology...I guess however Spain had better future under nationalist than would under leftist rule...At least some fundamental values were saved so i guess i would have chosen nationalist if forced to make a decision.Posted By: Sekko
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2008 at 01:27
That is a good strategy and also the strategy advocated by british prime minister Stanley Baldwin: There is one danger, of course, which has probably been in all your minds - supposing the Russians and Germans got fighting and the French went in as allies of Russia owing to that appalling pact they made, you would not feel you were obligated to go and help France, would you? If there is any fighting in Europe to be done, I should like to see the Bolshies and the Nazis doing it.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2008 at 03:06
|
Watch the copy pasting without ample commentary to back it up.
------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2008 at 03:18
Oh, you obviously haven't been exposed to politics work in the Hispanic world  Marxism actually fits quite nicely in a Catholic world view. You have a big prophet, saints, articles of faith, and the promise of the second coming.
I will have to study more about the Spanish Civil War to make an opinion on this subject.  ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2008 at 04:03
|
Maybe in Mexico; not in Spain.
|
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2008 at 05:55
|
Well, Pike, from where do you think that we in Mexico (and the rest of Latin America, for that matter) got it?
Moreover, Mexico is at the same level or out-catholics Spain, so your statement should be more true about Mexico. Yet that is not the case. And using just deduction, there were obviously enough supporters of the Republic to have a Republic in the first place and then to fight a civil war, even when people knew that Communists were involved among the Republicans.
Edit: Okay, I checked wiki, and my suspicions seem to be confirmed. Normally, those with the better and most toys win wars. The nationalists counted with a better army and better foreign support than the Republicans. From the quick sketch, it seems that they counted with most of the military. The nationalists had support from Portugal, Italy, and Germany. Three countries and all of them close, more or less, to Spain. The Republicans had a bunch of organized amateurs and the Soviet Union and Mexico . If anything, what is surprising is that the Republicans lasted for as long as it did.------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2008 at 16:08
I am not sure where you are coming from here. My point was that Spain's past (and cultures) were different from Mexico's (and for that matter other Latin American countries). For the purpose of this thread, the fundamental conservative nature of Spanish society, the influence of the Catholic Church, especially among non urban people, doomed the republic once it became corrupted by revolutionary foreign (USSR) elements.
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.
As a final comment, if it was a choice between an atheist police state and a Christian police state, Spaniards made the choice they wanted.
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2008 at 16:27
Except that Spain stagnated away for forty years or so under the conservative, devoutly religious, 'nationalist' government. (Much as Portugal stagnated under Salazar.)
It didn't start to develop until it moved sharply to the left with Franco's death and the break-up of the Falange. Since then it's been doing splendidly. ------------- |
Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2008 at 16:55
Clearly this is the response of someone who had never read a book on the Spanish Civil War, and has no idea what was going on there. Having no information, you are speculating on your prejudices about the Spanish people.
In fact everyone knows that Stalin's Communists were a reactionary force in Republican Spain. Spanish Anarchists, Syndicalists and other Left Wing were more radical than the Communists (i.e. pro-USSR Stalinists). Like others wrote Spanish radicals staged a revolution in Barcelona and replaced the government structures, but the Communists under orders from Stalin, rolled the revolution back! To the extent that the Stalinists shot other factions in the streets of Barcelona.
If you can't read Homage to Catalonia, see the film 'Land and Freedom' for Spanish Civil War 101.
Stalin was a believer in Socialism in one state, and was a notorious coward who feared the West greatly. He did not want to export Soviet style rule to Spain. To the contrary, he ordered the Communists not to take part in the Spanish Revolution, but to work with the 'bourgeois' government instead. In fact the idiot did this even after World War II, if it was up to him Yugoslavia, Albania and even China would not have become Communists. Ignorant people in this forum believe that Soviets could not cooperate with China 'even though they were both Communists'. In fact USSR had fallen out with China because Stalin supported Kuomintang and asked the Communists not to take power, but to work with the bourgeois parties in order not to make the West angry. Mao and Tito, of course, told him to fornicate off. When Mao entered the Kuomintang capital, the Soviet ambassador was the only ambassador who ran away with the Kuomintang...
This is a figment of your imagination. If it was a choice, it was between elected democratic bourgeois government versus fascist burgeois barbarism. And the choice was not made by the Spanish people, but by the British and French imperialists, when they decided not to send any help to the elected government.
Spanish Civil War exposed the appeasement politics of the Western capitalists and made it clear that they preferred the fascist (Christian) barbarians to working class rule or even social democracy, when they refused to help Spain. Only USSR and Mexico (which is more Conservative/Catholic as Hugo said) helped the Republicans. While the German and Italian fascists helped Franco all the way to victory. ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2008 at 17:04
|
It's an opinion, Bey. Both sides behaved like barbarians, as civil wars often show.
I disagree with you on Mexico being so conservative. Mexico has a history of being anti-Clerical and has had her share of revolutions. Spain is a European land with European cultures. Mexico is not.
On what happened in Barcelona, etc., you have the advantage there. Maju was our resident expert on the SpCW.
I just can't see Communism taking root and surviving in Spain.
Good discussion.
|
Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2008 at 17:43
Spain was more advanced socio-economically than Mexico, so class based politics had a wider appeal there. Whether a Spanish revolution could have survived, who knows?
Also, historically speaking it is quite debatable how 'European' Spain is. Their history is often out of synch with the rest of Western Europe. The Spanish were quite anti-clerical, as they amply demonstrated during the revolution, more so than any similar Mexican performance AFAIK.
'Culture' does not play a big role in revolutions (popular or imposed from above), anyway. Russia, Turkey, Iran, China, none of them known for lack of culture, religion, backwardness, conservativeness, ignorance or peasants, but all had revolutions at some point or other, when modernity came knocking. ------------- |
Posted By: Władysław Warnencz
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2008 at 19:27
The economy wasn't developing under Franco,while communist economies in Eastern Europe aren't just not-developing,but going back.After a few years of development after the war all communist states started to fall into foreign dept until their economies were dependant on foreign ones.When communism fell in Eastern Europe all those countries had huge foreign dept and no working market or economy,while ater the death of Franco Spain didn't have such huge problems.Yes,it didn't develop as other countries did - that's why i wrote i wouldn't really chose any of the two,but at least wasn't that bad.I don't know wether you have any idea what kind of things were happening in the first few years of commie rule in Eastern Europe...Have you heard of people's courts?Or red brigades?It was way better under Franco,than it would be with the communists... ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 11:46
I wouldn't really say so. Mexico at the time had one of the most anticlerical constitutions of the world (although by the 1930's not everything was enforced any more). Priests were not allowed to vote, public display of religious symbols or rituals was banned, political organizations were not allowed to be based on a religion, churches were not recognized as a juridical person and therefore not allowed to have property. In fact in the 1920's they were warring in Mexico about pretty much the same issues as they were warring about in Spain 1936-1939. The difference is that in Mexico the other side won. So it's no surprise Mexico supported the Republicans in the Civil War (and was together with Yugoslavia the only country that continued to recognize the Republican government in exile as the legitimate government of Spain until Franco's death). Also the Mexican phalangists were supported by Franco's Spain. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 13:33
|
Spain under Franco subsisted on tourism and American aid. The Eastern European countries got neither, so they were harder off for hard currency true.
But then the country with way and away the biggest ever overseas debt is, and has been for a long while now, the USA.
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 13:44
Enforcement declined because of the religously inspired Christero rebellions. An unwritten compromise was then reached in which anti clerical laws remained (until the 1990s?) but the actual laws were only nominally enforced, especially in religous areas.
|
Posted By: Władysław Warnencz
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 16:14
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...
|
Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 16:35
|
I voted Republican.
At least it would have been the side that I'd supported at the beginning of the war. First of all, the government of Azaña was democratically elected, secondly, it was a government that was actively taking measures to modernise the nation: reducing the powers of the church, redistributing wealth, and in educating the working classes.
I have nothing against Catholics or the Church as an insitution, but the role of the Catholic clergy in Spanish history has been mostly shameful. It was about time that Spain had woken up from the Inquisition!
However, after the war started, the Republicans were just as cruel and barbaric as the Nationalists. Worst of all, there was a great deal of infighting in the Republican camp that more anarchists died at the hands of the Communists than at the hands of the Fascists.
Another important point to make is the following:
In 1936, the Spanish Communist Party had negligible power. The Republican camp was made up of Democrats, Anarchists, Socialists, and Liberals. The Anarchist workers' militia, like that of the CNT, played a major part in the beginning of the war.
However, with the USSR being the only foreign superpower to support the Republican camp, the Soviets financed the Spanish Communist Party and turned it into the dominant force of the Republican camp. The Red Army ended up anihilating most of the independent workers' militias. In Barcelona, 1937, there was a civil war within a civil war which ended in a great purge against the non-communist republicans.
The Republican army, as reformed under Soviet advisers, copied the organization of the Soviet army in that every unit had its own "Political Adviser" making sure that all officers and soldiers had "correct thinking". Apparently, they executed a fair percentage of their own troops.
Ideologically, the Nationalist camp was just as divided: between landowners, the church, the Carlists, army officers, and Falangists (fascists).
Politcally speaking, the Falange had an ideology that was closer to Socialism than to the interests of the elite; and one could be a member of the Falange being an atheist, as long as he respected the Catholic clergy.
However, during the war they put their differences apart and united under the "Caudillo" Franco to fight against the Republicans. As long as you obeyed Franco's orders, you were probably safe from persecution.
 |
Posted By: Władysław Warnencz
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 16:50
"Reducing the power of the church"?No,they wanted to DESTROY the church by soviet example.You write you have nothing against christians and yet support the leftists?This simply isn't possible,because leftists themselves were totally AGAINST christianity and any king of religion.You hate Inquisition,but in fact support people who killed more innocents in a few years than the whole Spanish Inquisition in a few centuries : Nearly 7,000 clerics were killed and churches, convents and monasteries were attacked. Some 13 bishops, 4184 diocesan priests, 2365 male religious (among them 114 Jesuits) and 283 nuns were killed. There are unverified accounts of Catholics being forced to swallow rosary beads and/or being thrown down mine shafts, as well as priests being forced to dig their own graves before being buried alive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_of_the_Spanish_Civil_War
An example : leftists shoot at a statue of Christ -
 That's why when someone supports the republicans he in fact declares himself against religion and for atheism...
|
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 17:23
|
Hello Calvo
As a Spaniard, was your family divided by the war or was it stauchly suppotive of one party?
Also, where, in Spain, were the Republicans strong and where were the nationalists strong?
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 19:45
|
Regarding the Republicans and the church; yes, among the republicans there were militants who burned churches with people inside them, especially the anarchist groups and members of the extreme left. After the war broke out, these militia groups shot thousands of priest and nuns, most of whom were innocent.
However, none of these actions were actually backed up by the government of Azaña, who was moderate-Socialist in nature. They introduced social reforms such as separating the Church and state education, legalizing divorce, allow civil marriages, granting votes to women (who mostly voted for the Right), making state education mandatory etc.. Most of these reforms were far from a real proletarian revolution.
After war broke out, the republican government did not have any military power, so they had to rely on these workers' militias for the war against the rebels, and many of these militia groups committed atrocities.
So the statement that "the republican government tried to destroy the church" is not entirely true because none of these actions had been consented by the government.
Almost all Spaniards today have family from both sides of the Civil War.
The Civil War started off as a military uprising throughout all the barracks. Except in Spanish Morrocco where the Moorish "Regulars" and the Spanish Foreign Legion took part unanimously in the Nationalist uprising, in most of the peninsula the uprisings were met with resistance from both within and outside the army.
During the first 3 days of the civil war the country was in a state of confusion where soldiers fought against soldiers, workers fought against falangists and fascists rebels.
By the 4th day, most of the fighting had stopped, and the "2 Spains emerged": the Republicans remained in control of MOST of the peninsula, including Madrid, Cataluña, the Basque Country, Asturias; virtually all the major industrial cities. The Fascist rebels controlled Castilla Leon, Galicia, Andalucía, the Canary Islands, and Zaragoza; roughly 1/3 of Spanish territory.
From then on, most Spaniards did not have an election as with whom they fought. If you lived in an area controlled by the Republic, you fought for the Republic, if you lived in an area controlled by the Nationalists, you fought for the nationalists. Many farmers living in enclosed villages simply got drafted without knowing who they fought for.
It was a war that divided families because many brothers living in different parts of Spain fought with opposing sides due to pure geographical coincidence. Even Franco had family who fought for the Republicans!
|
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 19:58
|
@ al jassas at th time you can safely consider that Catlunya and Euskadi (Basque country) were mostly leftist, in the same way Madrid and Asturias as regions with a strong industrial economy were pro-government. Andalusia had pockets of the traditional Mediterranean left (a bite like Sicily, Languedoc in France or Alentejo in Portugal) but it was the first region to be invaded and it also had a strong rightist minority (traditionally it is a region divided in two parts a Eastern one and a Western one, I think the Eastern part around Toledo was more pro-government and the Western one around Sevilla more rightist, but I'm not sure). The most clearly Franqusitas regions were Navarra and Galicia, two strongholds of the Catholic church. The Spanish colonies, specially the Rif were also dominated by the army. Regarding Castile and the Levante region, I couldn't say. @ WW you have a way too simplistic vision of the problem. For instance did you know that a significant part of the French catholics started by supporting Franco but after the massacres in Majorca, they changed their mind and became supporters of the government. Besides, you're having something like a Polish biais, the "leftist" were not all communists and with the exception of the violent anti-catholics feelings of the Catalan anarchists, most of the members of the government were merely opposed to the Church as an institution. Proof being that nothing was done against the Church before July 36 (after that the Church supported the rebellion so it is another matter). Nothing to do with the Soviet Union. If the government wanted to destroy smething it was the Chuch influence on politics, society as a whole and the economy (IIRC the chuch still owned some 35% of the land and sometimes more in some regions). The fact that the pro-government militias commited awful acts is not denied, but the reverse is also true. For instance, how many Basque priest fighting for the Republic have been killed by the Franquistas? It was a bloody war, many suffered, but I'd say that the most Christian position would be to stand against the war-mongers. ------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 23:23
You're right about that. My main point though was that it is not correct to say that Mexico doesn't have an anticlerical tradition.
Spot on. It was precisely the eruption of the civil war that allowed all this leftwing extremism to boil up. The error people who say that at least Franco saved Spain from communism make is that without Franco communism would never become as influential in the Spanish republic. Without Franco Spain likely would have been a liberal democracy, not a communist dictatorship.
Of course, just like when somebody supports the nationalists he in fact declares himself in favor of bombing Basque towns, propagation of judaeo-masonic conspiracy paranoia and overthrowing democratically elected governments. ------------- |
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 00:31
|
Not mentioning that Franco's regime allowed some bigotic laws to be passed by was not a very Christian one (colonies, support to Nazi Germany, etc).
------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 01:35
The Basques were internally divided and attempted to remain nueteral. This was due to strong religous feelings amongst most of the Basque poulation mixing with a certain number of left wing Basques.
Though the Basques "supported" the Republicans due to their desire for independence , their support was only half hearted. This was especially so after anti religous atrocities increased. Basques fighting directly for the Republicans did so as individuals. The Basque area did not place any units under Republican command. Instead, Basque militia units cooperated with the Republicans (to a degree) when Basque areas were invaded.
The fragmented Basque internal situation was demosntrated by a Nationalist column breaking the Republican siege of Olviedo and then marching to the French border while meeting only light resistance.
|
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 03:44
|
I stand corrected ------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 11:30
What's good about preserving nationalism and aristocracy? And when did Communism have any bias against intellectuals, per se?
Both Soviet communism and the Falange (and other similar movements) destroyed proper education, for much the same reason, since they are essentially the same form of government.
Everybody else has pointed out the error in equating Soviet Communism with the Republican government, so I won't bother.
Thanks, Calvo. ------------- |
Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 12:12
|
What happened was that both camps used "fear propaganda" to demonize the opposing side.
The Nationalists created the impression that the Republicans were hell-bent on destroying the Catholic church and all Spanish traditions; and that the Republican government was identical to Stalin's red terror.
The Republicans created the impression that the Nationalists were identical to the Nazis whose propaganda included exterminating everyone who wasn't Catholic, a Spanish nationalist, or spoke a language different to Castilian Spanish; that a Nationalist government would be identical to returning to the Inquistion.
Both camps also had their fair share of ironies.
Supposedly, the "Nationalists" should be pro-Spanish and pro-Catholic in nature, yet the most important protagonists of the Nationalist military insurgency were foreigners: Muslims serving in the "Regulares" and foreign legion volunteers!
The "Spanish troops" serving in the mainland barracks had a wider divergence of ideologies among them, which was the main reason why most of the initial uprisings in the peninsula were met with resistance by troops loyal to the government and the workers' militias.
The entire rank-and-file and NCOs of the Spanish navy mutinied against the Nationalist insurgent officers and remained loyal to the republic.
Nazi Germany also provided arms and troops to fight for the Nationalists, and they were not only foreigners, but also protestants!
The famous bombing of Guernica was done by German war planes.
It was a great irony that "foreign troops invaded Spain to impose Spanish nationalism".
And I repeat once more, for the common Spaniards, especially those living in the countryside, the war was simply a slugging match between 2 mass-conscripted armies.
There were as many Right-wingers fighting for the Republicans as Leftists fighting for the Nationalists. It all depended on which area you got caught in and many people didn't even know for whom they fought for.
All they saw were armed men taking control of their village one day and forcing everyone to march to the frontline at gunpoint.
In this aspect, both the Republicans and the Nationalists were identical.
Franco was clever enough to spread the rumour of the "fifth column", as refering to Nationalist sympathisers caught-up in Republican-controlled areas.
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 13:29
|
It's interesting, though strictly off topic, that navies everywhere are always less conservative than armies. ------------- |
Posted By: Władysław Warnencz
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 13:53
Nationalism helps preserving your own nation. 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...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.
Intellectuals were ALWAYS number one target when communists came to power.In ALL communist countries they were persecuted and destroyed.Anyone who had a litle bit more education was considered an enemy of the state and either killed or send to a labour camp.The same would happen in time in Spain...
Maharbbal,nationalists shot republican priests because they were considered as soldiers - armed and fighting,not because they were priests,while republicans murdered thousands of priests and nuns solely for being christians - that's the difference.
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 14:18
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.
The industrial advancement of the 19th c. forced technological change on everyone, but moreso on navies than armies. Technical personnel became the most important component of a navy's manpower, and many of those were drawn from a more educated middle class:
Marine engineering, metalurgists (armor/high tensil steel), propulsion engineers...speed, speed, speed.....gunnery experts handling ever more complex ordnance (optical range finders/ propellants), heavy and complex mechanical equipment of every conceivable type.....and electrical power!
In 1880, modern navies were essentially theoretical. In a generation, they were using wireless telegraphy, implementing turbine technolgy and developing submarines, torpedoes and were flying airplanes. As they did so, more and more non aristocrats rose in admiralties, bringing their more liberal ideas onto naval staffs and into commands (not the fleet commander or the First Lord types, but still rather widespread).
Kind of a windy response. Sorry.
|
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 14:37
Good point. It was the German Navy tha mutinied forst agaisnt the Kaiser, despite having seen little combat. IJN and Nazi German naval units rarely commited atrocities (Manilla, 1945 being an exception)
And not only at the senior level, but at the level of he NCOS and men as well. Technological demands placed on navies led them to recruit from better educated, industrialized urban populations. Urban populations were far more likely to have been exposed to different social concepts and to have actually spoken with foreigners and listened to their "foreign ideas" (rare in the days before mass migrationa nd airplanes) than the source populations (socially conservative, rural) for comparatively low tech army recruits.
Thus, naval recruits are far more likely to question the broader picture and tend to be more resistant to hate propaganda etc.
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 19:20
Germans are not Protestants, there are just as many Protestants as Catholic. |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 19:23
that's because the army was strictly in the hands of the old aristocratic families, also serving in the Army is always more prestigeous than the navy. non-aristocrats who want to make a career would join the navy because their career-road would be blocked by the old aristocracy in the army. |
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 19:27
¿¿¿ 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?
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.
First of all it is a rather simplistic vision of the communist economic failure and then you'd have to admit that in most of Eastern Europe there wasn't much aristocratic power left to destroy in 1945. In the same way, the Chinese and Russian communist didn't do significantly worse than their predecessors economically speaking.
Although it did happen in Cambodia, communist weren't particularly anti intellectual, they simply were violent with those opposed to them. For instance in Russia, the intelligentzia did pretty well for itself, enjoy privileges and all. On the other hand the repression of the Kulak or the ethnic minorities can hardly be considered as an anti-intellectual move. In the same way, communist regimes often pround themselves of their educational merits, the actual question is not whether people are educated but how useful this specific education is.
------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 19:43
Yes that is indeed the problem.
The elimination of nationalism is one of the most pressing tasks facing humanity.
Yes again that is one of the fundamental problems. You appear though to be mixing it uo with meritocracy, which is a very different kettle of fish.
It's true that movements like the Falange preserve all that is worst in society. It is after al their raison d'être.
You make the point very well.
What makes you think lawyers, bankers , businessmen and so on are particularly qualified to riun the country? Are you for some strange and ill-informed reason claiming that the United States are better governed than the Scandinavian countries, for instance?
Motivation is the problem, not skills.
Nonsense. Anti-Communists were the prime targets, and whole hosts of intellectuals were in fact pro-Soviet, including people like Shaw and Sartre. The officers killed at Katyn were not intellectuals: I'm surprised you ignore them.
Which is why the Soviet Union was the first country to put a craft into space, is it? Are you out of kindergarten yet? And why it and Cuba had more doctors per head of population than any western country? Or do you think all those doctors and scientists were just sitting around in concentration camps?
(Even the foremost authority on European poetry and versification was a Soviet citizen.)
You mean if Republicans shoot people just for being on the other side, that's a crime, while if Nationalists shoot people for being on the other side, that's OK? It's enough just to pretend they were soldiers - or would 'enemy combatants' be the preferred term, like at Guantanamo? ------------- |
Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2008 at 07:54
|
The Air Force also remained 100% with the republic.
Basically, after the initial military uprsing in 17, July, 1936, the Republic was left with
- the entire airforce
- the entire naval fleet, less the nationalist officers who had been arrested or thrown overboard by the crew
- 2/3 of the army.
- 2/3 of Iberian territory and the major industrial cities of Madrid, Barcelona, Bilbao.
From these statistics it seemed like that victory was surely be in their hands, but why did it happen the other way?
From the military point of view, although the insurgency in most of the mainland garrisons had been put down by troops and militiamen loyal to the republic, much of the command heirarchy of these military units had been seriously disturbed as many officers and Civil Guards had defected to the insurgents.
Even with the navy, who had conserved the entire fleet; for the lack of sufficient commanders, the ships could not be adequately coordinated as to fight a war; yet they managed to block the strait so that Franco had to use planes to transport the Moroccan garrison to the mainland.
To make things even worse, the republic could no longer trust even the officers who did not take part in the rebellion, fearing that they had secret nationalist sympathies or could be spies.
Their only choice was to disband the army altogether and delegate the war tasks to the workers' militia groups.
However, most of these militia groups were poorly organized, insufficiently armed, and made up of men who had only 2 weeks or less of military instruction. They were more hell-bent on shooting priests and landlords than combating the fascist insurgents.
By 1937, a new republican army was formed under the supervision of the USSR. This was when doomsday really began...
Regarding the Nationalists, although they had a much smaller pool of manpower to begin with, they were better organized because all of the officers and soldiers who took part in the insurgency could be trusted. They had no air force, but they had an excellent ally: NAZI GERMANY.
|
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2008 at 22:01
|
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. ------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2008 at 22:27
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. ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2008 at 22:43
|
That is a little confusing. Maybe we can go into this if a new Mexican Revolution discussion develops.
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2008 at 11:15
In the mid 17th century the navy came out against the monarchy before the arm did. And in the Napoleonic wars and their aftermath the Navy was much more democratic than the army - cf Wellington and Nelson. You could never buy a commission in the navy the way on did in the army, and there were many more senior officers that rose from the ranks (cf Bligh).
The point is that a navy requires actual trained professionals to run it. Even when it is not fighting.
The thought's OK, but your timing is off. Navies were industrialised far earlier than the 19th century.
Sails, anchors, warping, sheets, ballast, navigation, trim, mathematics...when did a general ever need to study spherical trigonometry?
------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2008 at 13:36
Let me make a minor correction here. Intellectuals are ALWAYS number one target of dictatorships, regardless of the ideological position of the dictator. Case in point: many Spanish intellectuals supporters of the Republic ended up in exile in Mexico. Dictatorships understand how most of their power is make-belief, so they tend to clamp down on any critical thinking. The dichotomy is not between communism and democracy but between democracy and dictatorship, ignoring the ideological excuses given to protect the dictatorship. ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2008 at 13:43
You are right And it is confusing. It is holding contradictory ideas at the same time. I will go and start a thread.------------- |
Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2008 at 19:05
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.
|
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2008 at 19:51
I think you answered your own question. Guerilla warfare needs sympathetic civilians. As you mentioned, the front lines formed around Pro Nationalist and Pro-Republican areas. I bet that pro left civilians were pretty rare in Navarre, Galicia, and Estremedura. After Nationalist "clean up" squads went through the towns and villages, they would have been almost non existant.
The Republicans could have supported guerillas as the Nationalists advanced through Andaluscia and Catalonia, but this takes organization and organization was also rare in Republican Spain.
|
Posted By: Boab
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2008 at 23:06
An excellent post and I agree with it entirely. However, although his reforms were reasonable by most standards (he aimed at separation of Church and state- not the destruction of religion) he was prone to PR disasters which were 'a godsend for those looking for a stick with which to beat the Republic' as the quote goes. After the Church burnings he stated "All the convents in Madrid are not worth the life of one Republican". After the Army reforms "No-one speaks for the army now, nor does the army speak for itself. Each in its place". Clumsy diplomacy for such an intelligent man. ------------- Robert |
Posted By: Boab
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2008 at 23:15
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. ------------- Robert |
Posted By: Boab
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2008 at 17:05
I agree with much of your analogy and analysis of the left but reading your apraisal of Franco I can't work out why 'brutal' order and a virtual theocracy is better than a divided democracy. It's also worth remembering that if America, Britain and France had helped immediately (as Blum wished), then Stalin would never have been able to hold sway over Spain. The Spanish Communist Party was insignificant before the war. The anarchists were more influential but the moderate Socialists were BY FAR the main players of the left. Caballero insists on Communist representation in the PF but legal assistance to a democratically elected Democracy would could have sidelined all extremists. Stopping HItler flying the Army of Africa from Morocco could have been enough in itself. The fact that the 4th largest gold reserves in the world ended up in Moscow is more Britain and America's fault than anyone. Robert ------------- Robert |
Posted By: Boab
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2008 at 17:28
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) ;-) ------------- Robert |
Posted By: McGak
Date Posted: 15-May-2011 at 17:07
| My grandfather went from Ireland and fought for Franco.I would have choosen the Republican side . |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 15-May-2011 at 18:13
|
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. ------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 15-May-2011 at 18:40
|
Elements of it and supporters of fascism yet lurk....like the communists they will never entirely disappear....but I wonder why they would subscribe to such a system one moment and then expound on their 'supposed' personal choice the next. Neither system either promoted or encouraged that. What then was the allure......alleged nationalism only to be revealed as totalitarianism...looks attractive. The foolish the intellectually inept and lazy, will like the poor, believe in what ever looms as enlightening.
 ------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 16-May-2011 at 10:23
There are now 45. Your understanding of the Spanish civil war is way over simplified. The Republican side as a whole was not the democratically elected government of Spain. In fact, for all practical purposes, there was never a unified Republican side at all. Instead, there was coalition of autonomous militias. Some, or perhaps many of these militia leaders had far more in common with Jsoeph Stalin or Chairman Mao's Gang of Four (Durrutti and othr anarchists) than "democratic freedoms".
The leftist Republicans, especially those with "Red Guard" mentalities, committed just as many atrocities as the nationalists (proportional to the amount of territory they controled and the time they had to do it). They also initiated repressive policies such as outlawing money, collectivizing small businesses, and searching private homes for religious items (Barcelona).
|
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 16-May-2011 at 10:44
|
Have read a lot of documents,novels,books about this one.There were influences from west and east on this war.Social revolution was mystery veil,well known on east!Where did both of them,East and West,mistake here?Appearing of Franco(and Adolf),was coincident or trial,from dark cloud,harmless rain could have been produced?SSSR and NATO/Western Alliance secret archives could tell us that! |
Posted By: cavalry4ever
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2011 at 14:22
|
Having fun of visiting Spain during the Franco era, I can add few things to this discussion. The Republic was not synonymous with communists or anarchists. They were just part of it. It was doing much better than system that preceded it and was fairly democratic. One cannot judge Spanish Republic by the chaos that ensued after Franco started fighting it. When I visited Spain in seventies it was very backward and continuing to fit the stereotype of "Africa's bridgehead" in Europe. The development of Spain after the death of Franco is staggering. I still have pesetas with "Franco Caudillo de España por Gracia de Dios". He was a mass murderer and dictator and excesses committed by Republicans do not absolve him. His political skills came into play in orchestrating his own succession in Spain. He understood that the Socialist Party was the best one to insure the stability of Spain and stopped persecuting Socialists during his last years. This is why Socialist gained power after his death. He cleverly eliminated right wing fanatics by packaging them as Division Azul and shipping them to Eastern Front. The fact that Eastern Europe had a problem with communism and West with fascism is nicely replicated in this discussion. However communism cannot be used to whitewash fascism and vice versa.
------------- "Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul." Mark Twain |