History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedSpanish Civil War

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Poll Question: Which Party would you have joined or Supported?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
44 [35.20%]
81 [64.80%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Status: Offline
Points: 2127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 19:27
Originally posted by Władysław Warnencz Władysław Warnencz wrote:

[
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?

Quote 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.

Quote 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.
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.

Quote 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...
 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!
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 19:43
Originally posted by Władysław Warnencz Władysław Warnencz wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

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.
 
Nationalism helps preserving your own nation.
Yes that is indeed the problem.
The elimination of nationalism is one of the most pressing tasks facing humanity.
Quote
 
Aristocracy is composed of the most wealthy people in society who run business,trade,industry and in fact almost the whole economy.
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.
Quote
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.
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.
Quote
 Intellectuals were ALWAYS number one target when communists came to power.
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.
Quote
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...
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.)
Quote  
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.
 
 
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?
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-May-2007
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 848
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Status: Offline
Points: 2127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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!
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4003
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Sep-2008 at 22:27
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:


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.

To judge the fatherless and the oppressed, that the man of the earth may no more oppress.


Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4232
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.  Smile
 
 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Sep-2008 at 11:15
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

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.
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.
Quote  
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:
The thought's OK, but your timing is off. Navies were industrialised far earlier than the 19th century.
Quote  
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!
Sails, anchors, warping, sheets, ballast, navigation, trim, mathematics...when did a general ever need to study spherical trigonometry?
Quote  
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. 
 
    


Edited by gcle2003 - 03-Sep-2008 at 11:16
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4003
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Sep-2008 at 13:36
Originally posted by Władysław Warnencz Władysław Warnencz wrote:


 

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...



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.

Edited by hugoestr - 03-Sep-2008 at 13:36
To judge the fatherless and the oppressed, that the man of the earth may no more oppress.


Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4003
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Sep-2008 at 13:43
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

That is a little confusing.  Maybe we can go into this if a new Mexican Revolution discussion develops.  Smile
 

 


You are right And it is confusing. It is holding contradictory ideas at the same time. I will go and start a thread.
To judge the fatherless and the oppressed, that the man of the earth may no more oppress.


Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-May-2007
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 848
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Sep-2008 at 19:05
Originally posted by Maharbbal Maharbbal wrote:

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.
 
 
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 901
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Sep-2008 at 19:51
Originally posted by Maharbbal Maharbbal wrote:


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 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.      


Edited by Cryptic - 04-Sep-2008 at 19:52
Back to Top
Boab View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 26-Sep-2008
Location: Glasgow
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Boab Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Oct-2008 at 23:06
Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

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,



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
Back to Top
Boab View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 26-Sep-2008
Location: Glasgow
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Boab Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Oct-2008 at 23:15
Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

Originally posted by Maharbbal Maharbbal wrote:

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.
Robert
Back to Top
Boab View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 26-Sep-2008
Location: Glasgow
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Boab Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2008 at 17:05
Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

 
 
I picked nationalists only because the actions of the extreme left.  
 
<big snip here>

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
 


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
Back to Top
Boab View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 26-Sep-2008
Location: Glasgow
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Boab Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2008 at 17:28
Originally posted by Władysław Warnencz Władysław Warnencz wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

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) ;-)
Robert
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.