Talk:Spanish Civil War/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 "Attributions" 2 "...in the night to..." 3 SIM 4 Narrative peters out 5 VI Brigade of Navarre 6 "communist synchronizing" 7 Nationalist and Republican articles 8 Margaritas 9 A Coruña 10 "League of Nations Non Intervention Committee" 11 British government's opinion 12 minor edit 'The war: 1938' 13 Recent changes in lead paragraph 13.1 Black 13.2 Please, don't delete this phrase 14 Soviet and other foreign "volunteers" 15 Paseitos 16 Centrism and Freemasonry in the Civil War 17 Churchill bribery; Stalin conclusion;Italian arms;Paseo 18 Miguel de Unamuno 19 Online Legislative Database 20 Juan March Ordinas 21 Commies couldn't beat a bunch of Fascists? 22 Murder of Calvo Sotelo 23 Citations messed up? 24 Balance 25 Associated with...? 26 why do people sympatize with the communists? 27 Robert Capa photo 28 anti-clerical violence

"Attributions"

Does anyone have any idea what is mean by "...restricts the attributions of war commissars..." in the entry for April 16, 1937? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:50, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

"...in the night to..."

Can anyone decipher "in the night to the 19th of June" (entry for June 17, 1937). -- Jmabel | Talk 20:45, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

SIM

I find the August 15, 1937 entry confusing. I edited it for grammar, but it's still unclear. As it stands it says, in part "SIM created; political meetings in Barcelona forbidden. The SIM (Servicio de Inteligencia Militar) gives back the control of secret police activities to the government, rather than it being in the hands of Soviet and Communist intelligence organizations..."

Was it just in Catalonia, or was it national, throughout the Republican Zone? If the former, who created SIM, the central government or the Catalan government? Was it not, itself, communist-controlled, and if not, just what were its politics? -- Jmabel | Talk 22:55, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Narrative peters out

After September 22, 1937, this very detailed narrative peters out to something like what was there a few months ago. This reinforces my intent to prune this down on this page and move the detail elsewhere. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:13, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

VI Brigade of Navarre

The entry for September 22, 1937 is unclear: "The VI Brigade of Navarre overruns Peñas Blancas." On which side was the VI Brigade of Navarre? I'm guessing Nationalist, but it should say. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:13, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Is this one of the same brigades referred to October 10, 1937 as the "The Navarrese Brigades"?

- That is true, the 6th brigade of Navarre was in the National side, as were the rest of the Navarrese brigades.-Joe, Spain (30 Aug 2005)

"communist synchronizing"

What, if anything, does "communist synchronizing" mean in the newly added entry for October 1, 1937: "Caballero is traveling the country holding lectures against communist synchronizing and Stalinism." -- Jmabel | Talk 17:47, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Nationalist and Republican articles

It seems WP does not have individual articles for the two sides. Don't these deserve articles of their own, beyond the generic Republican (which gives a single sentence mention) and Nationalist articles we currently have? Seems like a big oversight. -R. fiend 21:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:29, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Margaritas

Is it true that the Carlist Margaritas are named after Marguerite of Navarre? She looks too transigent with Protestants and she would only be an ancestor through the French Bourbon side. --Error 23:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

-The carlist Margaritas are not named after Marguerite of Navarre but after Margarita de Borbón-Parma, wife of the carlist king Carlos VII, who, in the 3rd carlist war, organiced and promoted the medical assistance on the carlist side.-Joe, Spain (30 Aug 2005)

A Coruña

I notice that A Coruña was removed without comment from the list of cities that fell July 17, 1936. Can someone please explain? I, for one, don't know the history down to this leel of detail, and cannot tell whether this is a correction or not. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:14, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

"League of Nations Non Intervention Committee"

the League of Nations and the Non Intervention Committee were two seperate entities. That people looked to London and not Geneva for resolution has been described as another point on the "roll call of the leagues failures" - (Mazower,Dark Continent). Mark (User:Mark~ 19 June 2005)

British government's opinion

The British recognition of franco's regieme would have been far from 'reluctant'. As noted in The Times house of commons review Friday July 31st 1936, the government was in support of the rebels; however the republics undisputable position as the democratically elected representatives of spain prompted the PR smokescreen of "Non-Intervention". There is also evidence to suggest significant clandestine British intervention on the side of Franco. They were probably only too glad to see the republic (which they saw as a Spanish 'Kerensky') fall, and with it the risk of losing the £40,000,000 of British investment in Spain. Mark (User:Mark~ 19 June 2005)

minor edit 'The war: 1938'

I didn't like the wording of the second sentence under the heading 'The war: 1938' (excluding the note & link for more detailed chronology), so I changed it. Just a minor nitpick.

It used to read: "The city belongs at the beginning to the Republican part, then in January the Nationalists conquered Teruel."

My edit reads: "The city belonged to the Republicans at the beginning of the battle, but the Nationalists conquered it in January."

Recent changes in lead paragraph

I'm trying to avoid edit warring, but I believe that the following edit, now made twice by User:Miguelin is a step in the wrong direction. I've used color to mark differences, sorry if I missed something, feel free to mark anything I missed.

Old version:

…The Spanish Civil War (July 1936–April 1939) was a conflict in which the incumbent Second Spanish Republic and left-wing groups fought against a right-wing nationalist rebellion led by General Francisco Franco, who succeeded in overthrowing the Republican government and establishing a dictatorship. It was the result of the complex political and even cultural differences between what Machado famously characterized as the two Spains. "Red" Spain represented liberals, who subscribed to the democratic principles of the Constitution of the Second Spanish Republic, as well as those advocating communist or anarchist revolution. "Black" Spain represented the landed elite, the urban bourgeoisie, the Roman Catholic Church and conservative sectors.…

Miguelin's version;

…The Spanish Civil War (July 1936–April 1939) was a conflict in which the incumbent Second Spanish Republic and left-wing groups fought against a fascist rebellion led by General Francisco Franco, who succeeded in overthrowing the Republican government and establishing a dictatorship. It was the result of the complex political and even cultural differences between what Machado famously characterized as the two Spains. The republicans (called "reds" by the fascists) defended the democratic operation of the State by means of the effective Constitution, the Constitution of the Second Spanish Republic. "Black" Spain represented the landed elite, the urban bourgeoisie, the Roman Catholic Church and conservative sectors. …

Just to make myself clear: in casual conversation, or in my own personal writing, I probably wouldn't hesitate to call the nationalists "facsists". However, the relation of Franco to fascism is complicated and long-disputed, and certainly not everyone on the nationalist side was a fascist. I think "right-wing nationalist" is far more appropriate here than "fascist". I believe we've been over basically this ground before.

As for the other difference: (1) I think it borders on revisionism either to leave out the communists and anarchists or to say that they were all fighting simply to uphold democracy and the constitution. (2) I'd be far more willing to just get rid of "red" and "black" than to have this particular wording "(called "reds" by the fascists)": they were called "red" by plenty of neutral parties and by many of themselves as well. (3) I think his version is just plain poorly worded.

Since I've already reverted him once, I will not be the next to do so, but I'd very much appreciate if others would weigh in on this. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:15, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I've only edited on this page for the first time today - so I'll let someone who's been in on this debate longer do the reverting, but I agree entirely with Jmabel. --Bengalski 22:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Black

Did black really have that political connotation? Black is the color of priests, but also of the Anarchists (compare the flags of Falange ana CNT). Falangists were blue. Besides, PNV would not consider themselves as "red". Don't know about Catalan nationalism. --Error 00:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• As I said, we can lose "red" and "black". I am otherwise reverting the edit. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:48, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Please, don't delete this phrase

"The republicans defended the democratic operation of the State by means of the effective Constitution, the Constitution of the Second Spanish Republic." Miguelin 22:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Having already deleted it twice, I personally will not be the next to delete it, but it is not good English, it is basically redundant to other statements already there, and I would welcome its deletion. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:18, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Miguelin, I deleted the phrase again. The previous version had already incorporated the meat of it into the previous sentence, so when you reinstated it there was just a very glaring repetition. I think your point is very adequately made in what we have now:

Republican Spain represented those who defended the democratic principles of the Constitution of the Second Spanish Republic, as well as anarchists and socialists pursuing social revolution.

If you disagree, can you explain what substantive point you think is now missing? You have the point about democratic principles, and the reference to the constitution. I agree 100% with Jmabel though that it would be (more than borderline) revisionist to characterise the whole of the anti-fascist side as motivated by defence of the democratic constitution. The largest political or trade union organisation numerically at the start of the war was the CNT - it would be absurd to say that the CNT fought for the constitution or liberal democracy. (Actually, were most ordinary people fighting Franco either committed constitutionalists or dedicated revolutionaries? But that's another discussion.)

I also changed communist to socialist in the sentence. This because: 1) at least at the start of the war, the socialist party and UGT were much more important than the communists; 2) i would argue that communist policy wasn't revolutionary in any sense. You would probably be correct to put them in as constitutionalists (at least until comintern told them otherwise).

As a general observation, this article has lots of good information but presentationally it really needs a lot of work. In fact a lot of cutting. Just looking at the first para - the second half of it (after the line about nationalist spain)is mostly repetition, or is covered well further down and doesn't really need to be in the lead section. I wouldn't mind spending some time editing it, but maybe there has to be a discussion first about how it can be done.--Bengalski 10:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Bengalski, you are right about the initial predominance of the socialists over communists, and certainly about the fact that the communists functioned (opportunistically) as constitutionalists.

As for "redundancy": I am sure there cuts or rearrangements that could be made in the article (there have been massive ones already), but it's OK if some content in the lead is redundant to material further down. The idea is that someone should be able to get an overview of the topic by just reading the lead. This is pretty standard for long articles. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:24, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, you're right of course. Tho I would say for a good article you want a lead to be two things: an decent overview; a snappy introduction that encourages people to read on. My impression was just that the intro was a bit too dense, I found it a bit hard to read. That's understandable given intensive wiki editing with everyone wanting to get their point in; but I still think we could achieve something a bit more artful. Though it might mean sacrificing a little bit of comprehensiveness to get the balance right.--Bengalski 19:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I guess that if you think you can do this, take a shot at it, but this has been pretty stable for a long time, and I suspect that any radical cutting is going to send it careening off into instabliity for a while. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:18, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

This phrase is not correct: "Republican Spain represented those who defended the democratic principles of the Constitution of the Second Spanish Republic, as well as anarchists and socialists pursuing social revolution.". The Republicans defended the democratic operation of the State by means of the effective Constitution, this is the truth. Miguelin 23:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

What are you claiming? That (for example) the anarchists who were attempting social revolution in Barcelona should not be counted as having been on the Republican side in the war? Or that they were in favor of the constitution? - Jmabel | Talk 03:08, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

There were very few radical anarchists. The anarchists did not have deputies in Cortes. The Republicans defended the democratic operation of the State by means of the effective Constitution, independently of political ideologies. Miguelin 05:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Miguelin, how is your proposed sentence different from the current one? Also, what do you mean by "effective Constitution"? --Michael Snow 05:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Soviet and other foreign "volunteers"

This sentence has been reverted & placed here for clarification:

"While some have contended that the Soviets were motivated mainly by the desire to sell arms and that they charged extortionate prices [1], they also sent more than 2,000 volunteers, mainly tank crews and pilots, who actively participated in the war, including in combat, on the Republican side [2]."

Point that needs clarification: as stated here, the use of the term "volunteer" from the Soviet Union needs clarification. The reason being is other "foreign national volunteers" were exactly that, non-state sponsored "volunteers". If indeed the Soviets "sent more than 2,000 volunteers, mainly tank crews and pilots", etc., this is not the same as other foreign national volunteers; this is state sponsored intervention by a foreign government.

The Abraham Lincoln Brigade, by contrast, consisting of American "volunteers", were not "sent by America", nor the volunteers of France, Canada, Netherlands, Britain, etc. etc. This wording clearly needs more precise distinction. nobs 16:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

1. You didn't just revert to the previous text, you removed the passage entirely.
2. Your issue seems to be only with the word "volunteers". Would you have any problem changing that to "Soviet citizens" and restoring the passage? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:14, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I would propose some reference like "the Soviet government sent 2000 personal, mainly tank crews", etc., simply to clarify the distinction between "volunteers" (which is somewhat akin to todays unlawful combatant), and active state-sponsored interventionism into a domestic civil war. nobs 18:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Fine, could you restore this with a wording amenable to you? And could you spell "personnel" correctly when you do? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:37, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience; I'm still learning proper protocols. thx. nobs 18:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Updating this thread, after an edit by Ghepeu, I've reverted. The soviet combatants had an official task asigned by its country, so they were not volunteers in the same sense as the IB. For a recent academic work (which deals with the Soviet involvement in the war, Komintern and NKVD excluded), see [3] (needs registration), an online copy of Daniel Kovalsky's book "Stalin and the Spanish Civil War", i've cited elswhere --Wllacer 08:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Similar logic with the German and Italian "volunteers" . The Condor Legion was sent by the Nazi government. This is very different from the genuince German volunteers in the international brigades. DMorpheus 12:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Paseitos

Recently, in the longstanding "In these paseitos ("promenades"), as the executions were called, perpetrated by both sides…", paseitos was changed to paseos. I believe the diminutive was correct, but I have no citation and I'm not certain. Does anyone know for sure, preferably with citation? Or does anyone other than the person who changed this think the change is correct? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I can assure you that whenever I have heard the expression, the word used have been 'paseo' no 'paseito' (that is the diminutive of paseo). However, Spain is very big and the words used vary in every region but I believed that 'paseito' is usually used with a more euphemistical or ironic purpose.

If you want some citation you can simply use Google. I looked for "Guerra Civil" and "Paseos" and obtained 150,000 results. Repeating the search with "paseito" I got 427 matches. I also searched a more specific expression "paseos durante la Guerra Civil" (paseos during the Civil War) and got two results. Repeating the same search with paseitos returned no result. Zapatancas 09:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Centrism and Freemasonry in the Civil War

I believe that centrist parties usually fell nearer the 'Rebels' than the Republic. In fact, the war started some months after a left-wing coalition (the Popular Front) won the election. The defeated government was supported by an alliance of right-wing parties (the famous CEDA) and centrist parties. In fact, the rebellion in Asturias in 1934 started after three minister of the CEDA (if I remember well) got into the Republican Government presided by Lerroux. I also believed that in the elections of 1936, in some areas, center and right-wing parties formed coalitions.

Because of that, to claim that centrist parties fought in the Republican side is a mistake in my opinion. In any case, I would be glad to hear other points of view.

Regarding Freemasonry, its importance was huge in the years before the war. Azaña, the president of the Republic during the war and President of the Government several times before it, was a Freemason who entered the order in 1932 because he coveted its power and influence. Roosevelt is known to have been a Freemason and is said to have preferred the Republican cause due to this. (Although I believe that preference had no material results I think it is significant if the attitude of the US towards the Civil War is to be explained.)

If you want some citation I could recommend you "LAS CAUSAS DE LA DERROTA DE LA REPÚBLICA ESPAÑOLA" (more or less "Causes of the defeat of the Spanish Republic"), written by Stoyán Mínev, deputy of the Communist International in Spain during the war. The book devotes a whole chapter to explain the influence of Freemasonry, that is considered a major factor (together with several others, of course) in the conflict.

Probably, that book is difficult to find out of Spain (and in Spain, to be honest) so I would also propose you "The Cypresses believe in God" by José María Gironella, which I suppose is easier to find (I have found a lot of links to it using Google at least). It is a novel about the years prior to the Civil War whose aim is to explain with total objectivity the causes leading to the conflict. In my opinion, it is a must for everybody who wants to understand the war and its causes.

There you have a lot of information about Freemasonry and its influence in those years as some of the characters are Freemasons. Zapatancas 09:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Please, can you give fuller citations on these books and be clear about just what you are taking from where (especially on the influence of Freemasonry)? I'm not objecting to such material being in the article, but because it is clearly going to be controversial, it should be well-cited. (You may want to see Wikipedia:Cite sourcesif you are not already familiar with it.) -- Jmabel | Talk 06:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Churchill bribery; Stalin conclusion;Italian arms;Paseo

I agree with earlier above's "far from reluctant" re Brit.Gov.I also see no reason why sources either way should be controversial , and agree that expansion is needed, to relate this war to its preceding revolution, whether here or at that other article.

Separately,about 4 years ago BBC radio referred to Churchill in connection with the subsequent Franco neutrality and reported an explosive fact. I have no proof of this, but believe that Martin Gilbert related it from Brit Gov't archives: that Churchill/The Admiralty secured Spanish neutrality during WWII by "influencing" a couple of Admirals and Generals close to El CaudilloFrancisco Franco. I do remember that the sum was 5 million in Sterling . I believe that this fact is completely un-known within Spain itself , and that it would prove to be utterly explosive. I request anybody with access to recent documents to confirm this. It could come under consequences or Spain etc.

I made a reference recently as to the fact that Stalin pulled the plug (on the Soviet supply of arms), having decided that it were better for the fascists to succeed , and that he did this in expectation of the greater fascist war looming, the which he saw as presenting great opportunity. This may have some bearing here, too, but needs sourceing. Alan Bullock only says that Stalin decided that there was no further advantage to be gained after Munich.

In Spain some towns right beside one another prefer different diminutive: some use -íllo , some use -íto. (V)amos a dar un paseíllo por alli . Example - vaso, vasillo/vasito. It could even be that paseíto was used because it was not a soft pasaíllo. Or because a vasillo more often than not means a small-but-first-of-many glass, like copilla .Executions were generally made in the prettier picnic spots where, now, Easter Sunday excursions are made. In the same inversion a paseito would suit a death march.

And, Rusos are still remembered badly from both ends of the political spectrum, for opposite reason. But: Can we find that Gold? Is Koestler's book following the Stalinist political cynicism called The Yogi and the Commissar? Why do Italian arms seem rather absent- indeed all arms ; and the gold shipment from Cartagena to Odessa ? EffK 10:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Miguel de Unamuno

I've put Unamuno on the list of and nationalist supporters. . He was an early supporter of the rebels, and was scrapped of his rectorship by the republicans therefore. But he seems to have become increasingly unsatisfied with the evolution. His clash with Millán Astray has become topical on the antifranquist propaganda, but he still had the personal support of the Franco's family, and his funeral had a falangist guard of honour ... Que país--Wllacer 11:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• The republican decree "depurating" Unamuno (23/VIII/36) is available at [4]
• The nationalist decree (1/IX/36) restoring him, at [5]
• The nationalist decree destituting him again, but "only" as rector (22/X/36) at [6].--Wllacer 13:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Online Legislative Database

To all interested in spanish history. The Boletin Oficial del Estado (Spanish state official paper) has set up a web site with scanned images of ALL of its content from 1875 up to 1967. It's part of a more general site. You can find there ALL the laws and decrees of the spanish goverment (of both parties during the war) and many other petty official documents. I'm using it since a couple of days (just look a couple of lines upward) but it's amazing--Wllacer 13:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Wllacer, those URLs don't seem to be working, are you sure you got them right? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops. I added an unneeded pipe char. They are working now. Thanks Joe --Wllacer 08:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll add a note at Wikipedia:Free or semi-free non-Public-Domain information resources. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Juan March Ordinas

Cut for the moment, but something like it should be restored if everything it claims can be backed up: "It is well known that Juan march ordinas, an active british agent was fully involved in the organization and funding of the rebellion." Besides the lack of capitalization and the egregious "It is well known that…": certainly March was involved in funding the rebellion. I'd want to see a citation for the claim that he was involved in organizing it, and would certainly want to see a citation for the claim that he was "an active British agent" (not to mention clarification on the vary ambiguous word "agent"). - Jmabel | Talk 03:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well. Just have a look to the interesting book by Pere Ferrer Guasp "Joan March, la cara oculta del poder". Edicions Cort. Palma-Illes Balears. You will find a letter from the American Military Attache to Brigadier General Raymond E. Lee stating that March was the man instrumental in financing Franco's campaign and that a group of the top Spanish generals was approached by March to create a hostile attitude toward Spain's entry into the WWII. If you read this book and the one by Diaz Nosty perhaps you'll get a clearer picture and find the claims convenient. Up to you to restore the citation. EGB 01:15, 16 February 2006 (Z)

In Seattle, I'm unlikely to be able to "just have a look" at the book. We probably don't have a single decent Spanish-language bookstore within 800 miles, so unless the University library here has the book, I'm in no position to discover what that book does or does not say. But as I remarked, "certainly March was involved in funding the rebellion." My question is about the claim that he was involved in organizing the rebellion and that he was an active British agent. Your response doesn't assert either of the two claims I challenged: does your source bear them out? And, in particular, if he was at some point a British agent, was he one in 1936, at the time of the rebellion? Also, what's the date of the book, the date of the letter, and the page number of the citation, so this can be cited if relevant? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You will find the book in many on-line stores, like this one

Commies couldn't beat a bunch of Fascists?

What a bunch of losers! (Romanyankee78 16:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC))

En el frente de Jarama

No tenemos aviones,

Ni tanques, ni canones.

-- "Quince Brigada"

Jmabel | Talk 05:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

and that means....? Romanyankee76(68.227.211.175 02:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC))

[7]

SReynhout 21:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Too bad. Doesn't matter sympathetic pinko's. Stalin gave them those other things anyway. Definitly tanks. And they still lost!! The Commie side had just as many troops. (Romanyankee78 20:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

What is your purpose here? The "favorite" does not always win.--the Dannycas 00:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What kind of question is that? What is your purpose here? Yeah, the favorite doesn't always win. And that commies are just as bad if not worse than nazis. (Romanyankee78 19:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC))

All bull*. Its pretty clear that Stalin´s tanks didnt go to the real popular militia. It wasnt in Stalins interest to have a communist society in Spain. First because it would be near France, Stalin´s new ally. Second because a new (real) commie state would be a threat to Stalin hegemony in the communist movement, ideology, and so on. Besides, Franco had direct support from Hitler and Mussolini armies.

No, thats all bull*. Stalins tanks DID go there. Especially at the Ebro. And he DID want a commie state in Spain. What kind of comment is that? He Didn't? Its common sense that he did!! Thats the reason why orville was so disillusioned with the popular front! As well as others. The russians had agents there to direct the course of the war among other things. they were also imprisoning dissidents in there own ranks, especially anachists! Anyone that beleives the commies were not effective or had no role here is an idiot RomanYankee(24.75.194.50 21:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC))

Murder of Calvo Sotelo

The article mentions the murder two times: the first time, it says that on April 7 1936, President Niceto Alcalá-Zamora is deposed by the new Parliament, which names Prime Minister Manuel Azaña as the new President. Then it says that Calvo Sotelo protests, Dolores Ibarrui vows he will lose his life for speaking out against the new government and the following day he is murdered: on April 8, it seems, because the article doesn't clearly states how much time passed. The second time the article says that there are months on disorders, and Calvo Sotelo is killed by a left-wing group after the murder of José Castillo by a right-wing group. You should reword the article, because as it was it seems to contradict itself. Also, you can't simply state that the murder was ordered by the government without clearly indicating a source that supports this claim. GhePeU 23:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Assault Guards were under the direct supervision of the Ministry of Interior. Will remove contradictions. Ksenon 18:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a proof that the government ordered the killing. According to encarta[8] "on July 12 three Falangists murdered Lieutenant José Castillo, a pro-republican officer in the Assault Guards, a government paramilitary group. Later that night, in the early hours of July 13th, Assault Guards in uniform went to the home of José Calvo Sotelo, an anti-republican leader of an Alfonsine monarchist group. They murdered him in a police truck and dumped his body at a nearby cemetery." I didn't found any sources that confirms that the killing was ordered by the government, and according to some other web pages, one third of the assault guards later joined the Nationalists. GhePeU 18:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You reverted to an unacceptable version that 1) is confusing, as I explained before and 2) implies that the killing was explicitly ordered by the government. GhePeU 21:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What really mattered, in a country on the brink of Civil War, was not the factual truth, but the then vehement suspicion of governamental induction , support or, at least, inactivity.

The main source for the events of that night (the "Causa General"), although hardly explicitly cited is resumed in [9] (you can leave the evident statements of intention, which includes the blame on the government, and stick to the factual). Calvo Sotelo's killing is suspicious by all means.

Most notably is that the principal actors were persons of the environment of Indalecio Prieto, a socialist party leader. The factual killer was the head of his bodyguards. Prieto acknowledged to have hid Cpt. Condés after the killing. The robbing of the summary didn't help either to clarify things. To add another strange twist, the bodyguard of Margarita Nelken (also a socialist deputy, and suspected NKVD operative) was also there.

See also

[The killing of the Tte. Castillo|http://www.guerracivil1936.galeon.com/diario09.htm]

[Background of Cpt. Cortes|http://www.guardiacivil.org/revista/result.jsp?id=29]

[Background of Calvo Sotelo|http://www.generalisimofranco.com/Calvo_sotelo/000.htm]

--Wllacer 10:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, great sources. The involvement of the NKVD would also be beneficial in supplementing the article. Ksenon 19:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Reworded. The text was confusing, because it reported the killing once in relation to the election of the new president in April and a second time in relation to events occurred in July. GhePeU 21:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

To GhePeU: Nice new text. Terse but probably the best description objectively possible. To Ksenon: To be honest a NKVD connection in Calvo's murder, has been AFAIK never raised in the mainstream literature, but as I read the sources and i stumbled upon Nelken's name, I could not avoid noticing it. Margarita Nelken and Julio Alvarez del Vayo (two top socialist politicians then) where widely suspected, in the mexican exile in the 40's of beeing high standing soviet agents (for a reference, pls. locate in the web the FBI's FOIA web site dedicated to Trosky's murder), and IIRC a few snippets of the Venona traffic. --Wllacer 19:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Citations messed up?

copied from Talk:Spanish Civil War/to do:

why is a propaganda speech by benito mussolini cited as the source for numbers on people killed in the uprisings preceding the spanish civil war? can we really consider a speech that characterizes the U.S. as a puppet of Jewish financiers as a reliable source for numbers of people killed in Spain? —This unsigned comment was added by 199.212.53.54 (talk • contribs) 27 March 2006.

The footnoting mechanism seems to be messed up: superscript 3 seems to lead to footnote 2, and there is no footnote 3. I'm guessing that footnotes 1 and 2 are meant to go the same place. If no one can say definitively in the next few days, I'll fix it on this presumption. - Jmabel | Talk 16:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Balance

I think this is a really excellent article, but if someone with good editing skills could go through and try to make sure that claims are balanced on both sides, I think it would be even stronger. An example: anti-clerical violence. It is documented that it occured, and the article does a good job of showing that, but we could use the context of that violence, which is that many common people perceived the Church as a tool used by their so-called oppressors to maintain a status quo which did not serve their interests, and there is at least some validity to that view. My point is absolutely NOT that we should "take sides" but rather that there WERE two (or more) sides to every aspect of this conflict. -A

...or think of it in the context of Soviet Russia. Communism meant atheism. There was no room for religion, with especially brutal killings taking place. It's hard to portray nuns as oppresors of the old system, somehow justifying their mass massacres. The church's traditional dominance is already mentioned in the article. Ksenon 18:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The only need to mention aggreesion against the church in this article would be to display it´s simplistic propaganda use. The numbers and stories are inflated, simple-minded propaganda by the facists, that was created to demonize the Republic as an atheist commie state. --81.71.33.141 19:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Associated with...?

I added Langston Hughes as associated with the Republican side, but I am a little unclear as to what qualifies someone as associated with it. I'm sure you could make an endless list of people "associated" with one side, so what are the limiting criteria? He was a relatively important figure and did declare his support for the Republican side, although I'm not sure how much, if any, direct involvement he had. Anyway, that sounds good enough for me, but if anyone disagrees that's what that nifty "edit" button is for. Nouseforaname312 07:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I removed it because Ezra Pound wasn't listed as being identified with the Loyalist side, even though he did support them. So I guess this only considers people who actually faught for, rather than simply supported, the sides. Nouseforaname312 00:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

why do people sympatize with the communists?

both sides were bad and extreme. It seems to me that people are choosing extremes regarding this conflict and its the left-wing obviously. What a disgrace!! Thats why its good they lost. One less commie regime to worry about. And now look. its a democracy.

Romanyankee(24.75.194.50 13:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC))

This page is intended for discussion relevant to the writing of the article, not as a place to vent.

That said, I'll try to answer your question as if it wasn't merely rhetorical, except to point out that the same logic would say it would have been good if the Nazis had won on the Eastern Front.

For starters, many who sympathized with the republic did not specifically sympathize with the communists. This was an insurgency against an elected government: supporting an elective democracy did not necessarily mean supporting every party in the government. Certainly, even within Spain, the anarchists and communists (both on the Republican side) had no great love for one another.

Next, remember that this was about three years after Hitler's rise to power. In retrospect, those who thought that the most important thing to do for Europe was to stop the rising tide of fascism and Nazism were (in my view at least) simply correct.

Also, most people on the left had (incorrectly, as it happens) disbelieved reports of the Holodomor, writing them off as propaganda, and (at least as the war started) most of Stalin's other crimes were still in the future. It's an ugly oversight, but it didn't stop the U.S. and the Western Allies from allying with the Soviets against the Nazis a few years later.

Finally, don't forget this was the middle of the Great Depression. To many, capitalism looked doomed. If one believed that the only remaining choice was between the Nazis and the Communists… well, I'd pick the Communists in an eyeblink. - Jmabel | Talk 17:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes another reason to support what I'll loosely call the 'left' was the repression long associated with with right in general and the church& nobility in particular. Thus the atrocities connected with churches had a background in church-supported repression going on for centuries. DMorpheus 23:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a couple of assorted links I just recently read, and which might be of interest in this context [10] gives a glimse about the political spirit in Spain already in 1934, and [11] (may need registration), an online copy of Daniel Kovalsky's book "Stalin and the Spanish Civil War". The book in itself is highly interesting read, but related in this thread, look at part III, which deals extensively with soviet propaganda activity before the war.

Joe, by 1936, also very few were aware of the incredibly horror which Nazism harbinged. One of most enlighted contemporaneous study about Nazism (Trosky's) IIRC barely touched its malign nature. It's worth of note that most in the Spanish far right at the time (f.i. the group around the highly influential periodical Accion Española, and the carlists) were highly suspicious about Nazi ideology.

Dmorpheus: This is not the place, but your statement of "church ... represion" barely resist a minimal critical examination. The furibund (and more than once bloody) anticlericalism of most of the spanish "left" for most of the XIX and XX century, needs an explanation which must go beyond the simple "volterian" (your note) or the "masonic influence" thesis --Wllacer 08:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What? Like the Left was not repressive. In fact that is why fasism existed. The Left being repressive caused a counter idelogy to occur. And one didn't have to join either the commies or the nazis during the depression. That sounds like bleeding heart sympatehy for the commies. yankeeroman(68.227.211.175 23:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC))

Look, The Carlists or Falangists did not win the battles, they mostly took care of rear-area dirty-work. The foreign armies and weaponry won the battles for Franco. Your question on “why do people sympathize with communists” is based on the misconception that the Republic was a commie state, but the fact is that they were only one of many factions within its ranks. Resisting a foreign invasion has nothing to do with “bleeding heart sympathy for the commies”.--81.71.33.141 13:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the Franco armies did the job and won the battles. The italians fought one battle alone (and lost—miserably. Albrecht) it was the franco armies that won the war. The condor legion was the only support the nazis gave. Republican Spain was in the control of the communists as time wore on. RomanYankee(24.75.194.50 13:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC))

Robert Capa photo

Robert Capa died in 1954. I'm not an expert on copyright, but I believe that under both US and UK copyright law, the copyright lasts 70 years after the death of the author. Some other English-speaking countries (Australia, Canada, etc) may have either 50 years or 70 years. So the famous Robert Capa photo (soldier at the moment of being shot) is still under copyright in most English-speaking countries and cannot be used here, and "fair use" doesn't apply in this case. -- Curps 05:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I read somewhere that there are suspicions about its genuinity. So it could be as staged as the Iwo Jima and Reichstag ones. It is also as iconic as those though. --Error 00:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been questioned. The usual doubts expressed have been about how he managed to snap at so perfect a moment. I don't think there is anything definitive about it being faked, though. - Jmabel | Talk 05:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

anti-clerical violence

The citations for the claims about anti-clerical violence don't fill me with confidence. This Carroll character has written a book describing "Christ as the Lord of History" -- an unhistorical attitude if ever I saw one. Furthermore, the footnote claims that he "got the information" from a book published a year after his one. Is there any neutral source for these claims? BillMasen 16:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There are hundreds of references only in spanish dealing with it. I'd say, nowadays is one of the least disputed aspects; but as is usual, there are sharp variations of tone and overt bias. but a quick overview says that the most cited, and probably the most respected, secondary source is A. Montero's "Historia de la Persecucion Religiosa en España" , a doctoral thesis from 1961. It established the consesus number of over 6000 victims of religious persecution, once the war started. The author, alas, is a priest, now a bishop, so you might not consider him neutral.

A less studied aspect is the destruction of material and cultural wealth, just for hate to the church. It was considerable both before and during the war

--Wllacer 00:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice, you`ve put the NPOV tag. "Lasciati ogni speranza ...". As long as the war is still a political mith (and in the political agenda in Spain), there is no way to be objective. Almost 90% of the literature is openly biased. Curiously works written in the 60's and 70's, or by researchers who started then, are probably still the least biased sources (I mean Thomas, Carr, Bolloten, Payne,... up and including the Salas-Larrazabal brothers (nationalist officers, later Generals) or Tuñon de Lara -a high ranking communist)--Wllacer 00:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The anti-clerical violence needs to be put in context. Firstly, there were killings of non-combatants on both sides, both during the fighting and in the repression thereafter. The article shouldn't single out clerics for special attention - trade unionists, liberal intellectuals and school teachers, or indeed anyone with some perceived 'red' connection was liable for a bullet in nationalist areas. Secondly, the catholic church was by no means a neutral party. At the top, the church actively opposed the republic and incited a 'crusade' going back to Segura's pastoral in 1931, through statements from the hierarchy throughout the war, and including the pope's congratulatory message to Franco in 1939 “Lifting up our hearts to God, we sincerely thank Your Excellency for the desired Catholic victory in Spain." Apart from official pronouncements, you have to look at the repressive role of the church in spanish society under the monarchy/dictatorship pre-31, and indeed again under Franco. Hatred of the church's material wealth may have been considerable - so was its material wealth. As for its cultural grip - Segura's pastoral was a direct response to the republic's moves to laicise a church-dominated education system that left more than 80% of Spaniards illiterate. You only have to talk to anyone educated under francoism to see that things hardly got more progressive in the 36 years after the desired catholic victory. And this is without even getting into the active role some priests played in the war and repression as informers etc.Bengalski 13:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get this 80% figure ? If that is your main source of spanish history, check other books. According to the census of 1930 [12], the ratio of illiteracy was a little bit over 42%. --Wllacer 12:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Him being a bishop doesn't cast him into the depths historical of uselessness as far as I'm concerned, no. If he views God as an agent of history however (and I mean "if": I don't know him) then that indicates a serious bias, as well as a misunderstanding of history.

Whether or not those figures are reliable, the section as it stands is still POV. I fully associate myself with the remarks by Bengalski above. It concerns me that people will read this first paragraph and conclude that the Loyalists killed civilians and the Nationalists didn't. No doubt Franco claimed that trade unionists, liberals and intellectuals were a "fifth column" (a phrase coined by his propagandists) within his own ranks. Not to condone the incontraldos' killings, but the clergy who were killed were killed for that same reason, and their murders are morally equivalent to the civilians murdered by Franco. If clergy were killed simply and solely "for hate of the church", then were trade unionists just killed "for hate of unionism"?

I realise this is a living topic, especially in modern Spain. The reason I have not fixed the section myself is because I don't know enough about Franco's crimes off the top of my head to do so. Perhaps someone here does, and we can come a little closer to neutrality? BillMasen 14:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Somewhere in Talk:Francisco Franco, I gave some references and links regarding to political violence around the Spanish Civil War. Once again i must recall we've gone in the last years a few steps backward re. neutrality. I correct myself, the only posible stance is that both parties were extremely bloodthirsty in the rearguard. And I firmly reject the idea of that there was a "less evil" party. And btw, liberals and non-commited intelectuals lived under almost equal threats at both rearguards. <personal>And i don't need any historian to tell otherwise to my family</personal>

The religious persecution is (you're right) only a subset of this very complex and vexing question. It's importance derives from two facts. First; that, with 1920`s Mexico, they are the only instances of open repression on Christians with victims in the Western World in the XX century. How and why it came to that is an interesting study field in itself. I'm still have to find a good explanation which goes beyond the "infantile" mean "Church", mean "Masons".

Second. The relations between Church and Republic, before and during the war, was one of the most important issues on contemporaneous eyes. And the news of the religious persecution, were heavy blows to republican propaganda abroad. The religious policy is seen by many as one of the cornerstones of the failure of the Republic, and much of the blame is to be put on the republican side.

Just for closing, A. Montero Romero work is pure historigraphical work, so you don't have to worry. I've found a reading sample in the web of "Amnesty International" [13]. I'm afraid it's not on sale by the editor (BAC) now.

--Wllacer 15:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

One more link of the same web. Excerpts from Hugh Thomas' work. It resumes the behind the lines violence [14]. It's short, but I think clear enough --Wllacer 15:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, we're missing a very important point here: the nature of the crimes and who held ultimate responsibility. We can disagree on exact number of victims caused by each side, but most modern and unbiased historians (Thomas, Payne, Beevor, etc.) coincide in stating that killings on the republican side were mainly caused by uncontrolled mobs and diminished with time, as the government slowly regained control of the situation; while on the nationalist side, killings were consequence of direct political orders by the Junta de Defensa and the Nationalist government, and remained at the same level during all the war, with small temporal decreases caused by international protests, as after the Badajoz massacre. In fact, death penalties increased as the war was finishing, and remained an all high until 1941-1942. Anti-clerical violence was visceral and came from individuals or small groups, who kept their crimes until controlled by the government. Anti-republican violence was equally visceral, but came also from the nationalist government and high officers, and kept on until many years after the war.

It's also noteworthy to comment that in Basque country, where most clergyman were openly supporting the basque nationalist movement, the nationalist troops killed many of those "curas vascos" in the same way they executed gudaris (nationalist basque fighters). This even raised a formal protest by the basque bishops before the Pope, to no avail.

Anyway, the anti-clerical crimes existed for sure, but it's difficult to separate them from crimes against supposed "right-wing" supporters, as both fields were greatly related at the time. Richy 16:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me point you to [15], and linked pages. You'll find there (in spanish) an aproximative study about the evolution on the numbers of deaths vs. an auxiliary timeline (the year a province changed hands). The data are hard to interpret, but, on a quick look, do not quite support the thesis of disminishing violence on the republican side, and absolutely not that of constants level on the nationalist side.

Beyond some suspicions I have about the data I worked with (I could elaborate if interested); i realized that I found more questions than answers; but i can't pursue them now.

I you read carefully the Thomas fragment i cited before, the situation on the nationalist side, was not as simple as you put it.

The basque priests court-martialled by Franco (less that 20, IIRC) were cleary political victims, as were also a number on the other side. But the astonishing number of priest, (and specially) monks and nuns, without a political profile, still needs a different explanation.

I forgot to mention in my previous post that with the data used above, the number of religious persons killed represented a full 15% of the number of nationalist victims, a disproportionate number by any account.

In the first pages of "Homage to Catalonia" [16] Orwell reports, in a matter-of-fact manner about Barcelona in late 1936:

"...almost every church had been gutted and its images burnt. Churches here and there were being systematically demolished by gangs of workmen..." And I could recolect thousands of similar citations. No contemporany republican would deny was an intent to erase the Church from Spain in its side. It happened, and for sure it was a great mistake (as the Communist Party realized). I don't care if it was organized or not. It has to be assumed and studied, not hid under the carpet, trivialized, or put on the "collateral damages" list of the Revolution, nor hiper emphasized

--Wllacer 23:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I must start with an apology, as I've managed to shoot myself in the foot, twice. First, for digressing from the original question. And second, for not making crystal clear that I essentally agree with you, Wllacer: anti-clerical crimes existed on the territories controlled by the republic, ran rampant for quite a while, and most neutral historians coincide on it, while possibly diverging on the exact numbers. Not only non-spanish historians, like Payne, Preston, Thomas, Beevor, etc, but also spanish ones, both old and recent (De La Cierva, Reverte, etc...). I'll provide accurate references as soon as I can, so we'll be able to get rid of that POV tag warning (sadly, I don't have my books with me at this time).

That being said, now for the details where we don't agree.

As for the type and "rythm" of repression, thank you for the link you posted. In fact I had put it on my bookmark nearly two years ago and never looked at it again, so I was missing quite a lot of changes. My bad. Anyway, I read for the first time this version precisely on "The Spanish Civil War" by Hugh Thomas. Found it again on other authors, the more recent being both local works: one derived from a TV program, "Les fosses del silenci", by Montse Armengou and Ricard Belis (more or less "The graves of silence"), though I concede that this one is exteremely biased against the Nationalist side. The other being "La repressió a la rereguarda de Catalunya", a two volume work by Josep Mª Solé i Sabaté. I'll give more exact references as soon as I can. And I'll put a closer look at the work you've reminded me and come back later to it.

About my explanation being too much simplistic, I totally agree with you. Trouble with generalizations is that they are, precisely, too general. Of course at the nationalist side there was a great deal of "visceral" repression done outside the normal chain of command, mainly the first weeks after occupation of a new territory. But almost all works on the subject coincide in that it was followed by a precise and methodical purging of any element not adhering to the "Movimiento", as you pointed out when refering to liberals, intellectuals and non-commited people. Thomas, being an author that seems both of us has read, was (IIRC) very clear about it. I must recheck it ASAP.

This is relevant to the discussion in the sense that there wasn't an organized movement from the Republic (meaning the legal government) to promote erradication of the Roman Church; in fact the government deplored such actions, and put an end to it whenever he could, aside from the many individual documented actions of republicans standing against angry mobs to defend catholics. Sadly, that was too late for many innocent people. This of course doesn't mean it didn't happened or that it could be considered less of a crime. It just means that we should take care in stating that the crimes were commited on the Republican controlled territory, not by the republicans as a whole nor by the Republic as such. On the contrary, repression on the Nationalist side was mainly done following the normal Chain of Command and as a matter of official policy. I understand that one could not care if it was "organized" or not from a personal point of view, but if we're to be enciclopedic, distinction must be made where it's due.

Anti-clericalism didn't started on the Civil War of 36-39; in fact, in Spain there's a well established tradition of sacking churches and burning church estate every time people take arms, as the Carlist wars show. But jokes aside, a lot of liberal and otherwise quite sensible people have shown strong, and even hateful, views against the Catholic Church in Spain, as a promoter and supporter of the "España Negra" (i.e., Larra). It's pretty clear now (and it certainly was at the time) that catholic church and right-wing movements were closely interlaced, except precisely in Basque country, and probably most of Catalonia. There was a revolutionary anti-catolicism, of course, and seems it was responsible of most of the crimes, but that was only the latest expression of an idea present also on the first liberals of XIX century, and not at all followed by all revolutionaries. This will need proper expansion, and probably an independent article.

About the basque priests (and I realize this was a digression from the original question), what's relevant of their deaths was not the number (16, according to Anasagasti), but two facts: formal protests were presented to the Pope, and their political profile finally wheighted more than their condition as catholic priests. Which brings up another concept, also expressed in Thomas, as in other authors, iirc: that neither Franco nor most of the rebel military were specially religious, and talk about the "Crusade" to defend the Church started nearly a month after the Alzamiento. Before, even on his very first communique, Franco was talking about saving the Republic from civil conflict.

That would mean (and seems to me it's a shared view from Tussell, Beevor, Reverte, Sabaté, Thomas and others) that the "Crusade against the Red hordes" was in fact a "casus belli" stablished well after the revolt started, well after it failed to seize control from the Republican Government, and well after the rebels started to receive help from fascist european countries.

As a side note, when you say "the number of religious persons killed represented a full 15% of the number of nationalist victims, a disproportionate number by any account.", I'm sorry but don't quite understand what do you mean, could you please expand your point? Anyway, consider that at a time when being openly catholic was seen as a political posture by many people (and a right-wing one, for that), it would be near impossible to tell if someone was shot by political or religious reasons. So this figure would be hard to confirm.

Richy 10:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

We have a lot of common references ;-). With this percentage, I meant that from the total numbers of victims of "red terror", the number of consecrated persons amounts to a 15%, well over it's demographical share (If i've read correctly the 1930 census data, a bit under 1%).Religious understood as "professional" term, not as believers.

And you are right about the term "Crusade" beeing an ex-post-facto term (except in the carlist imaginary). Speaking from memory, it was invented late 36 or early 37, by one of the catalan cardinals (Pla or Vidal)

I got interested in anticlericalism during my studies about Carlism, and a recent rereading of the "Episodios Nacionales" (The "Un faccioso mas y unos frailes menos" [17] is mandatory reading in this sense). What haunts me more is its pervivence in time and its violence (1835, 1907 and 1936 are just high points).

I'll explain why I'm so skeptical about the "espontaneous violence" idea. Nowadays many people forgets that after the 18 July the republican state collapsed and was only slowly reinvented by the Largo Caballero government. Real, revolutionary, power was in the hands, above all, of the trade unions (CNT or UGT) and the party militas. They were "incontrolados" from a governamental point of view, but how much they were from their organizations, is a question i see still open. And what's more, that thesis was "water into the mills" of the PCE (which was the party of "order"). The extreme influence of the works of Tuñon de Lara and Fontana in modern historiography have made it a paradigm, but, i haven't seen a critical examination of it.

(not exactly related) I've seen you have Sole i Sabate. I'd be very interested in your comments.

--Wllacer 16:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC) (i forgot to sign

The main point still seems to be missing in the discussion above: why do we single out clerical deaths in the intro, as if these somehow count for more than other human beings? The only argument I can see is that priests and nuns are being presented as 'innocents', therefore somehow more genuine victims than trade unionists, sisters and cousins of rojos etc. Again, the 'innocence' of catholic clergy in this context is on the one hand worthy of some debate (at the very least), on the other it seems to downplay the many (other) innocents who died. So I would propose: we rewrite the disputed intro so as not to privilege any one group of victims. We then add a new section or page on the role of the church and of anti-clericalism to go into necessary detail on this important topic.Bengalski 00:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Bengalski: I agree that the intro is too long, and why not starting moving the whole paragraph about violence (at times very difficult reading, indeed). It should be placed/merged elsewhere in the body, and leave in the intro just one catch phrase like "the war was fougth with inusual violence, both in the front and the rearguard of both parties, and a harsh repression of the vanquished after the war. Estimated death toll ranges btw 300.000-1.000.000)", which is more than needed in an introduction.

Anyhow, (I might err) you seem obssesed on why too much interest is put on the religious persecution. I think I explained it before, but i will answer you again. In a civil war, brutality against followers of the other party is to be expected. I might cynicaly add, it's no news. Look at the numbers at the Finnish_Civil_War. For a less prolonged war (6 months against 33), point up point down the same percentage of victims. But every war has its peculiar (newsworthy) aspect. On the "red zone", probably -at the very least, in the eyes of the contemporaneous- it was the religious persecution, and (IMHO) in the "national zone" the usage of the "rebelion felony".

You might me allow a last, and personnal, comment. The more I study spanish contemporaneous history, the more i get convinced that one of the greates failures of the spanish left has been its rabid anticlericalism, and -but for the last 40 years but two- it's inability to get rid of it--Wllacer 11:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I find this debate unnecessary. Of course the Commies killed innocent civilians. In every Commie state, or proposed one, there has been massive blood letting on the clergy. Whether it be during the paris commune of 1871, the Soviet Union, or the spanish civil war. So, it shouldn't take a genius to know it happened. yankeeroman(24.75.194.50 18:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC))

Calling the Republic a "commie state" is to grossly misunderstand the nature of the Spanish Civil War. The Communists were not a significant force in the beginning of the conflict, but the western powers hindered weapon sales to the republican side, while at the same time turning a blind eye to the actions of Germany and Italy. Franco invaded his own country from Spanish Africa with foreign armies, blasting Spanish cities with the devastating “condor legion” air force and executed enemy forces in uniform after promising them mercy upon surrender. The “reds” were the only ones who could deliver fighter aircraft and light tanks to counter the German-backed nationalists with their German made artillery, heavy machine-gun battalions and light Panzer tanks. The “reds” turned out to be hostile to the Republic – using artillery and air support for their own forces only, not caring for other formations. Later in the war there was a “civil war within the civil war” as the Republic fought the “reds” over control of the cause. The war was highly complicated, and statements like the one above show clearly how misinformed people really are about this “civil war”. The stories about atrocities against the Clergy were blown out of proportion to demonize the Republic as "atheist reds". --El magnifico 16:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Statements like the one above a what really distorts the truth. The anitclerical violence was true as well as the 'republic' not being under commie influence. Germany gave little support in the condor legion. It was mostly Spanish army support from Italy. Get a grip already RomanYankee(68.227.212.240 03:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC))

The Spanish Communist Party may have been small, but the Socialist Party was also Stalinist, revolutionary (at least in rhetoric), and pro-Soviet. The anarchist CNT union wasn't affiliated with Moscow, but it was extremely violent and revolutionary. So left-wing extremists were powerful even at the beginning of the civil war. In contrast, the Falange (Spanish fascists) was utterly insignificant at the time of the 1936 election. After the Popular Front gained power, the revolutionary rhetoric of people like Socialist leader Largo Caballero scared the pants off the middle class, who then flocked to extreme right groups like the Falange. Kauffner 11:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The Socialist Party was not Stalinist, the Caballero wing might be described as Marxist-Leninist, but it was certainly not Stalinist. You're also completely ignoring the fact that at least half of the Socialist leadership, Indalencio Prieto being the most notable, were remarkably moderate for the time. The anarchists, additionally, were not "extremely violent", far from it. You can call the Falange insignificant, but the minute extent of their support at that time can be dismissed by exactly the same logic with which you dismiss the size of the Communists, as many conservatives and members of the military were also simpathetic to Fascism. The middle-class certainly felt intimidated, but they mostly feared for their property and social status, actual physical threat to the lives of non-political middle-class were extremely rare. In fact, even in the social upheaval that followed the nationalist rebellion, humane landowners and industrialists were usually spared.--Nwe 16:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. So if they didn't take any steps to resist, their property was stolen and they weren't killed. Somehow, I don't think many people found this thought reassuring. Aside from the threat of being attacked personally, revolutionary violence creates two additional issues: First, the anti-clerical violence offended many peoples' religious sensibilities. Second, a revolutionary policy is a disaster for the economy. No would wants to invest in a country if they're expecting expropriations, labor violence, and nationalizations.Kauffner 19:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, Kauffner ..... The Republic was the result of a democratic process. All factions had representatives. To this day – you will find even the far left in most parliaments. The Republic was able to incorporate these factions into a democratic government. Franco’s invasion of 1936 was no rebellion, and could never have happened without the assistance of the German Ju-52 airlift. After the weapons embargo of the western powers made the Republics position hopeless, the only potential supplier of modern weaponry was the Soviet Union. This in turn made the “reds” a much stronger force within the Republic then they were in 1936 - at the outbreak of war. --81.71.33.141 12:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Franco's army was a Spanish one, regardless of how it got to the Spanish mainland. I do not support the uprising; I am only trying to explain it. There is another major factor in the Communist rise to power that hasn't been mentioned yet. The Spanish state and bureaucracy were destroyed in the first couple of months of the civil war. On the Republican side, workers' groups took began performing the functions of government, including police and military. The Communist "Popular Army" was far more effective then the militia created by anarchists and other factions. Militiamen would refuse to leave their home provinces and sometimes even go home on the weekend. Committees are simply not effective when it come to issuing orders to soldiers. Of course the War Department issued the best weapons to most disciplined troops -- any other policy would been pretty stupid. The POUM, the anarchists, Azana's liberals, and the moderate Socialists all have writers to defend them, but they didn't bring much to the table from a military point of view. If the Republic had won the civil war, Spain would have become a Stalinist state, much like post-war Poland or Hungry.Kauffner 16:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

There are still numbers given for the Communists' civilian massacres, and none for the Rebels' civilian massacres. I will make this point yet again, which has been made by others and ignored by others: we should not pretend that the Nationalists murdered no-one. Nor should we claim that to murder a nun or monk is worse than to murder any other civilian. The article at present does neither of those things. Can someone please produce a number for the Rebels' atrocities? BillMasen 19:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Smith2006's edit of 9 August inserted the phrase, "by communist and anarchist milicians among the Republicans", after the numbers of religious killed. This is not neutral and factually inaccurate, as it basically states that only these factions committed any atrocities. As such, it will be removed. Furthermore, the specificity of numbers is not suitable for the tone of that paragraph, and as such, I intend to move it to a more appropriate section. 213.202.154.191 16:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The above is me. It appears there is nowhere else for that little snippet to be moved to. I have removed it and placed it here for reference, in case the article is changed to become suitable for its inclusion (for example, a larger section on atrocities). Supersheep 16:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Twelve bishops, 283 nuns 2,365 monks and 4,184 priests were killed. ^[1][2]

Maybe this could be worked in after the first paragraph of the section The war: 1936, because the initial bloodletting was when most of this occurred. - Jmabel | Talk 23:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)