The Spanish Civil War

[Martinis at 8]

"Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead"

Yes, he is still dead. That was a cute response. Thanks :eusa_clap

I think Franco did a good job of grooming the king, and also believe that Franco knew Spain would transition it's way away from his old legacy to this new legacy of democracy with Juan Carlos. In fact all indications to me are that Juan Carlos was Franco's personal leadership and mentoring project.

The SCW is often characterized as "the preview of World War 2". I personally have never believed this, and think that this is a mischaracterization meant to imply that Franco and the victors were akin to Nazism and the atrocities of Hitler. There is more Communist propaganda in that mischaracterization than what is traditionally revealed, to include that coming out of the USA via Hollywood and its own Communist sympathizers at the time (and perhaps after).

To me the SCW was the preview of the Cold War and the fight against Communism. Uh, of which Communism lost, as we now know. Revisionist history will not change that, nor will sympathy for a system of government that would have been much more politically brutal to Spain than anything done under the Franco regime.

Cheers,

M8

 

[Salv]

Francisco Franco is what Spain needed at the time.

M8

Thousands of murdered Spaniards would disagree.

 

[Salv]

I think Franco did a good job of grooming the king, and also believe that Franco knew Spain would transition it's way away from his old legacy to this new legacy of democracy with Juan Carlos. In fact all indications to me are that Juan Carlos was Franco's personal leadership and mentoring project.

In order to believe that you'd have to assume that Franco wanted Spain to become a multi-party democracy with a functioning parliament. If that were the case why did he not stand down and hold free elections at any time in post-WW2 Spain? American money began pouring in to the country in 1950, and the US resumed diplomatic relations with Spain in 1951. Spain returned to world politics in 1955 when the UN approved the country's membership (although NATO and EU membership were repeatedly refused.) Franco could have easily allowed free elections by the mid-1960s, but instead clung on to power until his death in 1975.

All the indications to me are that Franco attempted to groom Juan Carlos to retain the strictly conservative regime that Franco had founded. Juan Carlos however was his own man, and wasn't about to continue a regime that marginalised so many of his people. Even before Franco's death Juan Carlos was meeting with opposition leaders and exiles, actions to which Franco remained oblivious. Indeed Franco denied allegations that Juan Carlos was possibly being disloyal to the Franco regime.

The SCW is often characterized as "the preview of World War 2". I personally have never believed this, and think that this is a mischaracterization meant to imply that Franco and the victors were akin to Nazism and the atrocities of Hitler. There is more Communist propaganda in that mischaracterization than what is traditionally revealed, to include that coming out of the USA via Hollywood and its own Communist sympathizers at the time (and perhaps after).

The Nationalist concentration camps, such as the one at Castuera; the Nationalist massacres, such as those at Badajoz; the Nationalist policy, outlined to American journalist John Whitaker by Captain Gonzalo de Aguilera, one of Franco's press attaches, 'to kill, to kill, and to kill' all the reds, and 'to exterminate a third of the masculine population and cleanse the country of the proletariat'; the thousand of executions that followed Franco's victory; and the approximately 30,000 Republican Spaniards whose fate remains unknown would all imply that in fact "...Franco and the victors were akin to Nazism and the atrocities of Hitler."

To me the SCW was the preview of the Cold War and the fight against Communism. Uh, of which Communism lost, as we now know. Revisionist history will not change that, nor will sympathy for a system of government that would have been much more politically brutal to Spain than anything done under the Franco regime.

Cheers,

M8

The SCW became a fight between conservatism and Communism, but that was only because the Western democracies (UK, France and USA) refused to help the Spanish Republic. The Republic had no choice but to accept aid from Soviet Russia, which allowed the Communists to control the war effort, and ultimately the Republic itself. However, the Spanish Republic, voted into power in February 1936 was not a Communist regime. In my first post on this thread I included a table showing the results of the election:

Party - Seats in Cortes
CEDA - 101
Socialists - 88
Republican Left - 79
Republican Union - 34
Esquerra - 22
Centre Party - 21
Carlists - 15
Communists - 14
Monarchists - 13
Lliga - 12
Agrarians - 11
Radicals - 9
Basques - 5
Falangists - 0

You should note that the Spanish Communist party only managed to win 14 seats in the Cortes. The individual party with most seats was the Catholic conservative CEDA, but the Republican coalition won the election due to the seats won by the Socialists, the Republican Left and the centre-right Republican Union.

It seems that the revisionism is not coming from the Communists.

 

[cookie]

The Popular Front in Spain

The argument that the elected government was attacked is true. However, the Popular Front was an example of what happened in Chile in the early 70s. It started out as a broad Leftist crypto democratic grouping and quickly succumbed to the anti-democratic forces.

Interestingly Chile's later Marxist President Salvador Allende was the Minster for Health in the Popular Front Government that was formed in Chile in 1938(?) and which took off like the one in Spain and France under Blum.

The brutalities of which Sal refers to the Right were matched by the goings on of the Left in the areas they controlled and between the Anarchists and Communists.

All in all it was particualrly nasty war and left a legacy of deep malaise anger and sorrow.

We love to talk about the Golden Era 1930s-40s but underneath all of this was the seeds of the catastrophe that evolved in 1939. The world stopped wanting to save democracy ergo modern European civilisation and let the totalitarians slip in under the radar.

 

[Martinis at 8]

...It seems that the revisionism is not coming from the Communists.

I would say from your lenghty response that the revisionism has already been emplaced by a sympathetic Left to the former Communists. Every point listed in your post can be countered. As for atrocities mentioned, equally egregious trangressions from the Communists may also be cited.

However, since this is a really a political thread disguised as a historical thread, I will refrain from further comment so as not to violate the policy of the Fedora Lounge.

Cheers,

M8

P.S. Glad you brought the SCW subject up anyways, as many are not even a wee bit familiar with the subject.

 

[Fletch]

Yes. Outside of a few places (New York, then as now in the vanguard of intellectual left activism, is one), this is the war that never happened. I think it's not just because everybody would rather forget the 30s. It was, as pointed out, a particularly nasty conflict, one of bedfellows, tangled loyalties, and very few clear ideals.

It also was still ruining people's lives 15 and 20 years later thru the charge of premature anti-Fascism, used during the blacklist era to imply that anyone overly active against fascists before America herself was attacked was just as good (or bad) as a Commie. If you went to a few of the wrong parties in 1936-'39, hung out with the wrong people, or signed a petition without knowing who was back of it, you, too, could have become an enemy of your own country years later, when she needed enemies close by.

 

[Salv]

I would say from your lenghty response that the revisionism has already been emplaced by a sympathetic Left to the former Communists. Every point listed in your post can be countered. As for atrocities mentioned, equally egregious trangressions from the Communists may also be cited.

However, since this is a really a political thread disguised as a historical thread, I will refrain from further comment so as not to violate the policy of the Fedora Lounge.

Cheers,

M8

P.S. Glad you brought the SCW subject up anyways, as many are not even a wee bit familiar with the subject.

Why stop now? Since we're discussing historical events feel free to counter my points.

I completely agree that atrocities were committed by both sides - in fact I wrote about the Red Terror myself earlier in the thread http://www.thefedoralounge.com/showpost.php?p=144547&postcount=60 - but I was countering the view that Franco was not a brutal dictator, akin to Hitler.

 

[Fletch]

You're running into the essential contradiction here, I think. In a complicated conflict (or discussion of same), everybody is potentially an adversary, and people who try to wrestle with the complicated-ness of it all often wind up being everybody's adversary.

 

[feltfan]

I would say from your lenghty response that the revisionism has already been emplaced by a sympathetic Left to the former Communists. Every point listed in your post can be countered. As for atrocities mentioned, equally egregious trangressions from the Communists may also be cited.

However, since this is a really a political thread disguised as a historical thread, I will refrain from further comment so as not to violate the policy of the Fedora Lounge.

Why not keep it a historical discussion?
Salv brought up specific historical points.
Can you show them to be inaccurate? By
saying, "the revisionism has already been emplaced [sic]
by a sympathetic Left [sic] to [sic] the former Communists [sic]"
you bring the discussion to politics and away from historical
citation. For the record, I am not sympathetic to communists
(particularly in this context) and don't see any such sympathies
in what Salv wrote.

As for the ideology, I'd have a look at the Falangists. Here's
a quick glance (assuming you read Spanish):

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falange_Espa%C3%B1ola

BTW, "revisionism" is the engine by which all new history is
created. All it means is the presentation of a new view of
a historical period or event. Given that we learn things as
time goes on, revising our view of historical events is desireable.
It is not an inherently negative or distorting approach unless it
the word is being used to devalue the views of others in the
absence of substantive points.

 

[Martinis at 8]

You only live but once and when you're dead you're done...So let the good times roll -- Louis Jordan .

Actually,

You only live twice:
Once when you are born
And once when you look death in the face.--Ian Fleming

 

[Salv]

Why not keep it a historical discussion?
Salv brought up specific historical points.
Can you show them to be inaccurate? By
saying, "the revisionism has already been emplaced [sic]
by a sympathetic Left [sic] to [sic] the former Communists [sic]"
you bring the discussion to politics and away from historical
citation. For the record, I am not sympathetic to communists
(particularly in this context) and don't see any such sympathies
in what Salv wrote.

I've tried to be as neutral as possible throughout this thread, so thanks feltfan for this considered response. Also for the record, my sympathies lie entirely with the Spanish working- and peasant-classes who saw in the Republic a chance to finally have some control over their own lives.

Like feltfan I have no sympathies for the communists in Spain. It's clear that the Soviets proved to be no friends to the Spanish Republic, but were instead using the SCW to further their own aims at the expense of the non-Communist (and generally anti-Communist) Republic. You have to remember that the socialists, anarchists, Trotsky-ites etc. within Spain hated and distrusted the Soviets, but were forced to work with them as they controlled the supply of arms.

BTW, "revisionism" is the engine by which all new history is created. All it means is the presentation of a new view of
a historical period or event. Given that we learn things as
time goes on, revising our view of historical events is desireable.
It is not an inherently negative or distorting approach unless it
the word is being used to devalue the views of others in the
absence of substantive points.

Story's post with the recent news report about Guernica is the obvious example of "revisionism" in this sense. The original death toll was said to be over 1200, but recent studies have shown it to be in fact 10% of this figure. 120 dead civilians is still 120 too many though.

 

[Lincsong]

Basically, I would have attacked the Republicans first, then go after the Nationalists. Unfortunately there wasn't any repatriated Spanaird who lived abroad and learned about American democracy and free enterprise to go back and rebuild Spain. Franco was big on cronyism, but the Republican's were on the path to more senseless bloodshed.

 

[Lincsong]

A bump

Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges.:rage: :rage:

 

[Salv]

While in New York a couple of weeks ago I visited the Museum of the City of New York for their exhibition Facing Fascism: New York and the Spanish Civil War which runs until August 12th. From the museum's website:

"No men ever entered the earth more honorably than those who died in Spain," wrote Ernest Hemingway in 1939. Between the years of 1936-1939, an estimated 1,000 Americans, many from New York, died fighting to protect the elected government of the Spanish Republic against a rebellion led by General Francisco Franco and backed by Hitler and Mussolini. Facing Fascism: New York and the Spanish Civil War examines the role that New Yorkers played in the conflict, as well as the political and social ideologies that motivated them to participate in activities ranging from rallying support, fundraising, and relief aid, to fighting--and sometimes dying--on the front lines in Spain. The stories of these New Yorkers will be told through photographs, letters, uniforms, weapons, and an array of personal and historical memorabilia.
The exhibition is accompanied by a publication of the same title, edited by Peter N. Carroll and James D. Fernandez, and co-published by New York University Press and the Museum of the City of New York (March 2007).
Facing Fascism: New York and the Spanish Civil War is a collaborative project of the Museum of the City of New York, the Abraham Lincoln Brigade Archives, Instituto Cervantes New York, and Tamiment Library, NYU. Lead funding comes from the Puffin Foundation, Ltd., with additional generous support from the Fundacion Pablo Iglesias.

It's an excellent exhibition, with personal effects of some of the volunteers, and original publications from both sides of the conflict. Well worth a trip if you're in the city. I took a few photos of some of the exhibits:

Charles Nusser's passport, explicitly forbidding travel to Spain

Bombardment by Philip Guston:

Tracksuit top worn at the 1936 People's Olympiad in Barcelona:

Uniforms and weapons worn and owned by volunteers:

 

[carebear]

In my recent reading, one thing that struck me was how the Soviets shanghaid many of the volunteers into staying past their voluntary enlistments so as not to lose the propaganda value of having them in the fight. How they were seen as essentially uncontrollable by the Sovs, due to not being Spanish nationals (thus tied to that country) and were often put in the forefront of attacks and/or denied support and supplies.

The betrayal of the volunteers is not something that appears to get a lot of press though, it's all "international solidarity".

 

[Diamondback]

Didn't General Patton have something to say about this? Something like, "With Nazis on one side and Commies the other, I'd attack in both directions!" or somesuch?

Good, if expensive to follow, advice...

 

[Sefton]

Thanks for posting those photos Salv. I don't expect I'll make a trip to New York anytime soon although I'd love to see the rest of the exhibit,it looks like it brings home the personal side of the war well.:eusa_clap

 

[Salv]

In my recent reading, one thing that struck me was how the Soviets shanghaid many of the volunteers into staying past their voluntary enlistments so as not to lose the propaganda value of having them in the fight. How they were seen as essentially uncontrollable by the Sovs, due to not being Spanish nationals (thus tied to that country) and were often put in the forefront of attacks and/or denied support and supplies.

The betrayal of the volunteers is not something that appears to get a lot of press though, it's all "international solidarity".

Where have you read this? I'd be interested in reading more. The Brigades were first suggested by the Soviets, and so were always Communist-run, and I can readily believe that the difficulties volunteers had in returning home were due to Soviet intereference. However, the impression I have is that the Spanish nationals - or rather the non-Communist nationals that made up the militias, e.g. members of the Anarchist unions, Marxist members of the POUM, etc - were the ones who were denied supplies and were effectively sidelined, while the Brigades had whatever equipment could be supplied to them. The militias had to agree to join regular army units, which were Soviet supplied and therefore Soviet dominated. Many refused, leading to the events in Barcelona in May 1937, which Orwell witnessed, when regular Republican troops and anarchists fought a pitched battle in the streets surrounding the telephone exchange.

Didn't General Patton have something to say about this? Something like, "With Nazis on one side and Commies the other, I'd attack in both directions!" or somesuch?

But of course, it wasn't commies on one side at first.

Thanks for posting those photos Salv. I don't expect I'll make a trip to New York anytime soon although I'd love to see the rest of the exhibit,it looks like it brings home the personal side of the war well.

There's a book to accompany the exhibition, with photos of many of the exhibits, and essays about various aspects of NY's role in the war. Not the same as seeing the real artefacts, but still worth a read.

This Zapatero-Rodriguez character, (I hope he and I aren't distantly related) should focus on the future for Spain instead of bringing up 60 year old grudges. So much for the hard-headed Spanaird stereotype.

There's a generation of Spaniards now living who never knew life under Franco's dictatorship, and they want to know what happened to their parents and grandparents. There are up to 30,000 Spaniards dumped in mass graves who deserve the right to a proper burial. And you can only think in terms of "grudges" - I doubt that "This Zapatero-Rodriguez character" would care in the least that you don't want to be related to him.

 

[carebear]

Salv,

"The Battle for Spain" by Antony Beevor.

Chap. 24 is most on point but he discusses it throughout.

 

[Salv]

Salv,

"The Battle for Spain" by Antony Beevor.

Chap. 24 is most on point but he discusses it throughout.

Thanks - I'll re-read that chapter.