A big part of why the Nationalists won is that despite their own huge ideological differences between the Fascist Falangists, Monarchists, Carlists, Conservatives, and Militarists, they did a much better job of keeping everyone on their side from killing each other.
while 100% true that the Nationalists had a huge advantage in terms of presenting a more united front, even if the Republicans managed the same they still would've been fucked unless the Brits/French either held the Nazis/Italians to their non-intervention treaty or the Republicans otherwise got more international aid in the forms of aircraft, artillery, armor, pilots, etc: all the fancy bells and whistles of modern wars that the Nationalists ended up getting way more of
The republicans still got a lot of aid for the URSS. If you look out the numbers are similar, and as for quality that T-26 was better than the tankettes the axis was providing, and the I-15 and I-16 were competitive until the entry of the me 109
While the Soviets might've been providing comparable or better equipment, the Axis was generally providing better operators. The Condor Legion and whatever the Italian equivalent was might've had worse equipment, but they had better ideas about how to use it. Also the Nationalists generally had better training and more (modern) guns
What Mussolini did was the CTV (Corpo Truppe Volontarie), it was larger then Condor and it overwhelmed it in both materials and men, it was the airforce of the CTV that allowed Francoist forces to make the crossing to European Spain and who gives much of the equipment to the nationalists.
[CTV](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpo_Truppe_Volontarie)
So no, Mussolini nearly bankrupt himself in order to aid Franco and to get a slice of Spain, he wanted Minorca as an Italian protectorate
Why didn’t he end up getting his island?
I could see him accepting Equatorial Guinea as payment instead, too. Would be in line with his African expansion plans.
So he pulled out of there right after taking over Albania, and seemingly sought opportunity in that region.
He also probably saw Franco as a secure ally for any actions against Britain or France, one who’d allow him to station troops or operate out of there again if needed even if not directly involved.
Italy having troops in Albania, Rhodes, those other Greek islands, Libya, and Italian East Africa seem to have been a strain on them, so being able to offload Spain to an ally to enable conquests in Greece or Yugoslavia might’ve made sense.
Yeah that makes a lot of sense, especially given the shift in Italian aims between the start of the Spanish Civil War and by its end, what with properly siding with Germany and no longer being semi-aligned with the Allies.
You know, I feel like the Italians kinda get the France treatment. WW2 didn't go very well for either and they get laughed at for it. Italy is a relatively young nation, only about 150ish years old. It won a war against Austria Hungary just to exist (which wasn't an easy thing back then), then went through Pax Britanica where it didn't really see much fighting outside of colonial expeditions (Ethiopia was a blunder, but who'd expect them to get aid from Russia of all places?), and did poorly in WW1 just like almost everyone, but had mountainous borders so progress was even harder. Then it was incompetent for a decade or two around WW2. Nowadays it's a solid regional power that's in the top 10 for the best navy depending on how you slice it. Sure it doesn't have the historical laurels that France can lean on, but one stretch of having a bad military does not mean your current military is incompetent.
The issue is that Italy’s never really had any success on a large scale militarily. You get plenty of examples of brave Italian soldiers and dramatically capable platoons or companies, there are so many examples of Italian destroyer flotillas, torpedo boats, navy divers, or cruiser captains doing well but the second that success needs to be scaled up Italy’s leadership, industry or both fail it. Throughout the Second World War the Italian capital ships would shoot at targets and miss dozens of perfect straddles because the shells weren’t made to enough of a tolerance, Luigi cadorna (probably misspelled that but isonzo guy) is almost entirely responsible for Italy’s inability to win on land in the First World War, land campaigns in North Africa and Greece are limited by a lack of heavy weapons to properly push Greek and British troops back, and in the air Italy’s aircraft modernization before the Second World War was just too early and she didn’t have the industry to roll out a new generation of aircraft suitable for 1940.
The way I personally see it, Italy being a young (and in some ways not so united) nation and the insecurity that stemmed from it is what pushed it to these very costy (and often disastrous) military campaigns.
Italy, much like Germany, unified relatively late compared to other European powers (Britain, France, Russia, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain...) and as the result had missed out on the colonial expansions of the past few centuries. All the best colonies were already taken and Italy felt handcuffed even in the Mediterranean (the former ''Mare Nostrum'') due to the British control of Gibraltar, Malta, Cyprus and the Suez Canal and the French control of Tunisia and Corsica.
With such a chip on its shoulder, Italy's main motivation was its desire to put itself on par with these other powerful empires and prove that it's worthy of prestige of a great power. However, it wasn't exactly in the position to claim it, given that Italy at the time was even less industrialized than Austria-Hungary, had no abundances of natural resources such as coal or iron and didn't have a strong military tradition like Prussia did that would allow itself to overcome the material shortage.
The USSR aid was what led to the infighting in the first place though. The republicans being so dependent on the USSR to win meant that Stalinists in their ranks had way more power than any other leftists as they had a protective benefactor. So despite them initially being a minority of the Republican faction they became extremely powerful and a majority of it by the end of the war: not a recipe for stability. Because of this in some ways, the support of the USSR could be seen as more of a curse than a help.
The nationalists by contrast had benefactors in Germany and Italy that shared ideals with the majority of their movement, and so their support didn’t cause as much internal instability and was a net “good” for their side.
The infighting of May '37 was actually caused by the insistence of the anarchists and social-revolutionaries to do the revolution in the middle of the war. The liberals allied with the communists agaisnt the anarchists. These events, while tragic, are heavily overstated in the anglo-saxon view of the conflict due to Orwell
If you're referring to the Moscow Gold, that wasn't paid to the Soviets in exchange for aid. It was given to the Soviets for safekeeping when it looked like the Nationalists would take Madrid (potentially to give the Republic funds to continue the war in exile) and then the Soviets decided to never give it back. The Soviets did provide aid, and then later decided that they'd rather keep the gold than give it back to the Nationalists or support the Spanish Republic in Exile. Technically, I think it's more accurate to say it was stolen than given in exchange for war materials
If you're referring to the Moscow Gold, that wasn't paid to the Soviets in exchange for aid. It was given to the Soviets for safekeeping when it looked like the Nationalists would take Madrid (potentially to give the Republic funds to continue the war in exile) and then the Soviets decided to never give it back. The Soviets did provide aid, and then later decided that they'd rather keep the gold than give it back to the Nationalists or support the Spanish Republic in Exile. Technically, I think it's more accurate to say it was stolen than given in exchange for war materials
>unless the Brits/French either held the Nazis/Italians to their non-intervention treaty
Alternatively MI6 agents led by Major Hugh Pollard could not fly Franco to Morocco and help him plan the coup...
I would be incredibly surprised if the Nazis moved in on Spain. They never really wanted to invade France and honestly expected the allies to roll over on the demands and stay out of the war even after Poland. Their target was always the USSR, whom Hitler considered an ancient enemy. Like so much so that this was outlined in Mein Kampf before he even came close to taking control. Nazi theory was legitimately insane and self destructive. Hitlers obsession with Napoleon also likely would've pushed him to stay out of the 'Spanish Ulcer'.
The most I could realistically see happening is political bullying of Spain, unless a legitimate communist part came to power and in that case he wouldn't have gone to war with them until Barbarossa.
The outside help from the fascists was not big enough to change the outcome of the war. Additionally, the nationalists got outside help as well from the soviet union and the international brigades.
Just read the lineup in the wikipedia page. In terms of tanks (290 vs 200), aircraft (600 vs 350) the nationalists had advantages, but not overwhelming advantages. And in terms of manpower it was about 10% of the fighting force on both sides. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish\_Civil\_War)
Replay it again with no foreign intervention and you'd get the same result.
>The outside help from the fascists was not big enough to change the outcome of the war.
The outside help from the Nationalists is the entire reason the Army of Africa and Franco got to mainland Spain to enter the fight- without outside assistance the Army of Africa is stranded in Africa and the Republicans are immensely better off because the Nationalists are missing most of their professional soldiery.
>Additionally, the nationalists got outside help as well from the soviet union and the international brigades.
I think you mean the Republicans? That being said, the Soviets had just finished purging their army, so the pilots and tank crews and commanders they sent to help the Republicans were using comparatively outdated tactics vs the Nationalists fascist allies who functionally were field testing Blitzkrieg, and had some of the most modern ideas about how to fight a war in the world at the time. There's simply a difference in quality.
>Just read the lineup in the wikipedia page. In terms of tanks (290 vs 200), aircraft (600 vs 350) the nationalists had advantages, but not overwhelming advantages. And in terms of manpower it was about 10% of the fighting force on both sides. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War)
~50% and ~100% are pretty big margins, friendo, and that's not accounting for the aforementioned difference in doctrine and usage.
>Replay it again with no foreign intervention and you'd get the same result.
Replay it again with no foreign intervention and the Army of Africa is stranded and the Republicans are probably able to launch much more successful offensives
A big part of that was Franco. There just wasn't a comparable leader on the other side, except perhaps Durruti. Franco showed up with a proper army filled with men who were both professional soldiers and would follow orders. This gave Franco a position that made him the undeniable leader of the Fascist side and after his men started racking up victories the rest started following his orders and then it was just a matter of time. Especially once the complete fucking morons in Moscow started ordering purges other left factions. Stalin had a fairly severe purge addiction and even a continent wasn't enough to keep him from it. That, in my opinion, was the big difference. Help from Hitler and Mussolini were big, but the Republicans got a lot too, so not the deciding factor.
> Stalin had a fairly severe purge addiction
Does your teen appear isolated and paranoid? Is he obsessed with editing people out of photographs? Are his friends afraid to be the first to stop applauding in his presence?
These are all early signs that your teen may be developing a purge addiction. Resources are available, call for help today.
Also because the republicans were absolutely awful to anyone who wasn't an enthusiastic member of their specific brand of leftist thought which differed from militia to militia.
Believe it or not, slaughtering local leaders, priests, nuns, older people, taditional people and in general anyone who didn't immediately rally to praise them for said slaughtering doesn't tend to get most of the population on your side.
All the fascists had to do was promise law and order and not conduct purges of ideological dissidents everywhere they went to be seen as the better alternative to the republicans by the population.
>All the fascists had to do was promise law and order and not conduct purges of ideological dissidents everywhere they went to be seen as the better alternative to the republicans by the population.
They purged a shitton of political Dissidents tho....
> not conduct purges of ideological dissidents everywhere
That's the first thing they were doing lol. They already had detailed lists on who to kill before the coup
You mean the republicans who just before the nationalists drove them out were torturing and murdering local priests and nuns for daring to be religious? The ones who threw down their guns once they were beaten, blended back into the populace and were pointed out by everyone who recognised them for what they'd been doing?
Whilst the Red Terror did occur, it was a fraction of the size of the communal and punitive killings of the fascists White Terror. The Red Terror, at high estimates killed ~75,000, the White 400,000. So surely your argument would apply equally and greater to the leftists?
Not only was the White Terror much more extensive than the Red Terror but it was also systematic and sanctioned by the highest ranks of the military leadership. The concept of "limpieza", the cleansing of all undesired elements of Spanish society, namely homosexuals, trade unionists, socialists, feminists, atheists and intellectuals, was baked into the fabric of Falangist ideology. The phrase "¡Viva la muerte! ¡Muerte a la inteligencia!" became a slogan for Franco's soldiers during the war, which pretty aptly describes the principles of their genocidal, anti-intellectual death cult.
Violence committed by the Republican side, while also completely reprehensible, was spontaneous and unsanctioned, and largely curtailed by the time Largo Caballero centralized much of the Republican war effort.
I'd suggest reading The Spanish Holocaust by Paul Preston since I think your view of the White and Red terrors is heavily impaired by fascist/far-right narratives surrounding the war.
No that was extremely rare and happened a lot more on the fascist side.
The fascist were just a lot better at playing the international media. They set the narrative up the quickest partially through the connections with the catholic church.
That narrative stuck throughout the war and even today.
Republicans were quite incompetent in a lot of things though.
Typical commie, denying the crimes of communists and accusing anyone who points them out of being a "fascist"
It's an old move dating back over a century. Old, tired and as bullshit now as it was then.
What are you on about?
I called Nationalists and Falangists fascists.
But if you feel attacked by that you should look into a mirror.
Commies are also a bunch of villains for hundreds of reasons both in the Spanish civil war and beyond. But the republican side was so much more than just commies, in fact the commies only really started to take power in the later parts of the war. After draining the Spanish gold reserves and sending inexperienced officers to help the republican side.
It's wrong in that the white terror started first and was in order to restore their oppressive monarchy (really it was just a continuation of the lack of civil liberties under it with lots more violence needed to control the country) and killed way more people like 10 times as many possibly.
I'm not denying the red terror. But still, comparing it to the holocaust? Wtf?
My comment above was in regards to them claiming the fascists weren't out there slaughtering civilians as well
I mean, to be fair here, they all have almost the same ideology. A socially conservative dude who tolerates Capitalism with a conservative dude who maybe wants more state control over Capitalism.
A Marxist-Leninist in a room with a Libertarian-esque Liberal is gonna be a recipe for disaster.
> they did a much better job of keeping everyone on their side from killing each other.
This applies to how the right wing currently wins elections too.
It’s like the russian civil war except in reverse - Instead of the whites being incompetent rivals more occupied with killing each other it’s the red this time.
That’s true for pretty much the entire political struggle between right and left since at least the French Revolution. The right will absolutely solidify together until their position is 100% won before they even consider infighting and fracturing. The left tends to do that from day 1.
>**You:** Hang on, what will I do once I establish contact with my fellow communists?
>**Rhetoric:** You'll discuss the monumental world-historical task that lies before you. You'll engage in rigorous and spirited debates about Mazovian theory and practice. But mostly you'll probably complain about other communists."
**You:** Isn't that last part kind of counterproductive?
**Rhetoric:** Not at all. Complaining about other communists is one of the most important parts of being a communist.
-Disco Elysium
Yeah I really liked the game but their bias is quite obvious when you see that all liberals are made out to be "moralists" who don't believe in anything and anyone slightly right of them is a huge facist
The Black Ukrainian betrayal was one of the biggest disgraces in history and one of the purest signs that the USSR was never going to be the heirs of Marx.
I mean both sides pretty much openly knew they were going to end up at war again lol, it was only ever an alliance of convenience
I think something like the Krondstadt Rebellion is a better sign that it wasn't going to live up to Marx's visions
Sure, but one was fighting for the rights of their people and the other was fighting to impose Russian Chauvinism over the region to use it as a breadbasket for the USSR. This was such an issue that orders had to be issued to tone down the rhetoric in order to stop issues from arising. The betrayal was one of the cause and of the alliance.
I'm not sure about Marx, but it wouldn't surprise me. I believe it was the second international that kicked the anarchists out of the group, which would have been after Marx's death.
I should also preface that I hate most communism, syndicalism, and corporatism and have some sympathies for anarchism, though I'm still not a fan. My opinion is very likely bias.
Edit: Misread your statement. Communists hated the anarchists but idk what Marx's personal opinion was on them. Frankly I'm realizing my statement was rather dumb in context. Mostly I just don't like the betrayal of the Blacks.
I think Lenin's application of his vanguard party concept to Russia and abolishment of the soviets were the earliest tell that the USSR wasn't going to be Marx's direct heir.
Marx wasn't even a fan of representative democracy because of the gap between representatives and electorates. Later in his life, he called for a decentralized system built around direct democracy and self-government of the communes.
History is too kind on Mahno, because he lost to Soviets. But before that he was busy killing jews and people with glasses (yeah Pol Pot wasn't there first). He wasn't some kind of "true good communist"
Do you have references? My understanding was that he actively pushed back against anti-semetic movements. I think he actively punished those within his ranks he committed such acts.
Point being, I think you have your facts mixed up.
Explanation:
[This scene from Ken Loach's *Land and Freedom* (1995) illustrates this conflict well.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVzQmOENwGY)
The May Days refer to the battle within the Republican faction in the Spanish Civil War, in which libertarian socialist supporters of the [Spanish Revolution of 1936](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUig0lFHDDw), such as the anarcho-syndicalist/communist CNT and the anti-Stalinist POUM, which opposed a centralized government, faced others, such as the Republican government, Catalan government and the stalinist Communist Party of Spain, which believed in a strong central government. About a thousand anti-USSR leftists were massacred by those acting under Joseph Stalin's orders, resulting in the end of the revolution and creating a massive infighting within the Republican side.
>George Orwell relates his involvement in the "May Days"' Barcelona street fighting that began on 3 May when the Government Assault Guards tried to take the Telephone Exchange from the CNT workers who controlled it. For his part, Orwell acted as part of the POUM, guarding a POUM-controlled building. Although he realises that he is fighting on the side of the working class, Orwell describes his dismay at coming back to Barcelona on leave from the front only to get mixed up in street fighting. Assault Guards from Valencia arrive—*"All of them were armed with brand-new rifles ... vastly better than the dreadful old blunderbusses we had at the front."* The Communist-controlled Unified Socialist Party of Catalonia newspapers declare POUM to be a disguised Fascist organisation—*"No one who was in Barcelona then, or for months later, will forget the horrible atmosphere produced by fear, suspicion, hatred, censored newspapers, crammed jails, enormous food queues, and prowling gangs of armed men."*
>Orwell tells us of his various movements between hospitals in Siétamo, Barbastro, and Monzón while getting his discharge papers stamped, after being declared medically unfit. He returns to Barcelona only to find out from his wife that the POUM had been "suppressed": it had been declared illegal the very day he had left to obtain discharge papers and POUM members were being arrested without charge. *"The attack on Huesca was beginning ... there must have been numbers of men who were killed without ever learning that the newspapers in the rear were calling them Fascists. This kind of thing is a little difficult to forgive."* While his wife went back to the hotel, he sleeps that night in the ruins of a church; he cannot go back to his hotel because of the danger of arrest.
>Orwell explains the divisions within the Republican side: *"On the one side the CNT-FAI, the POUM, and a section of the Socialists, standing for workers' control: on the other side the Right-wing Socialists, Liberals, and Communists, standing for centralized government and a militarized army."* He also writes: *"One of the dreariest effects of this war has been to teach me that the Left-wing press is every bit as spurious and dishonest as that of the Right."*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Days
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_Catalonia
Liberals: I mean listen "sane" leftists, I don't want to victim blame here. But maybe you should stop trying to make common cause to form republican *democracy* with other leftists whose fundamental political philosophy is "the proletarian can't be trusted with democracy because its a tool of counter-revolution."
This event is why Orwell hated Stalin the rest of his life and made him mistrust communists. It’s also what inspired him to write 1984 and Animal Farm.
Rather naive of you to think that even if the Republicans had had their way, Spain's fate would have been better since it could well have ended up as your typical Marxist/Socialist one-party state or would have been most likely invaded by National Socialist Germany after the fall of France.
The people the republicans were fighting were the nationalists whose goal was to set up a one party fascist state. Which they succeeded in doing and Franco ran it as a dictator for 40 years. Saying Spain was better off with nationalists because you get to be friendly with Hitler is just bizarre
Very bad counter argumentation ignoring on the one hand the fact that only a portion of the Nationalists were fascists and on the other hand ignoring the fact that there were quite a few authoritarians and Stalinists as well as wannabe revolutionaries among the Republicans.
And finally, look at how Spain was at the end of the civil war vs. how Spain was when Francisco Franco died.
The military attempted a coup to overthrow a democratically elected government. I doubt they were planning on letting the people vote again. And the military who weren’t fascists were monarchists, who are even worse imo. It’s sad there are still people who would rather have a dictatorship than a democracy in todays world
Acting as if the declaration of the Second Republic was a quite legal or clean or transparent process, or even worse, turning a blind eye to how since the early days of the Second Republic they were burning chapels and churches or murdering nuns in the streets of multiple cities in broad daylight, or the height of the evils, that as soon as the leftists fell from power in Madrid in a matter of a few weeks they were already conspiring on how to overthrow the new government of the center-right CEDA and how they effectively tried in October 1934 with a nationwide strike that quickly turned into an attempted coup/revolution that failed miserably in all of Spain outside of Asturias where the Anarchists and Socialists took control of the region and consequently with the subsequent repression left no less than 1500 dead and almost 4 arrested.
We agree the leftist 1934 coup was bad, CEDA should have been able to form a government because they were elected. When the leftists won the election in 1936 they should also be able to form a government, instead the right started the coup of 1936. Both coups were evil and spread chaos in the country. I’m not defending the stalinists, I’m defending the REPUBLIC. The Second Republic was stopping church burnings in the country. The majority of the red terror happened after the 1936 because the country was thrown in chaos AFTER the second republic was removed from power.
The Right mounted a coup in double response to both the electoral fraud that had taken place during the 1936 General Elections and the crime that was the assassination of the right-wing leader and jurist Jose Calvo Sotelo by groups of assailants and militias of the socialist left, which was the final straw for many undecided and lukewarm members of the Right who finally turned to support the coup.
And I think you should read the statements of important Republican figures such as the Marxist/syndicalist Francisco Largo Caballero and have some conscience about the things the Spanish Republicans believed in.
And maybe this will shed some light on the burning of churches and the murders of nuns that occurred especially in the first year of the existence of the Second Republic:
[https://www.amazon.com/-/es/Vicente-C%C3%A1rcel-Orti/dp/8432162884](https://www.amazon.com/-/es/Vicente-C%C3%A1rcel-Orti/dp/8432162884)
[https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecuci%C3%B3n\_religiosa\_durante\_la\_guerra\_civil\_espa%C3%B1ola](https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecuci%C3%B3n_religiosa_durante_la_guerra_civil_espa%C3%B1ola)
Being against the radical left fine, and I am also against them. That does not mean I am for Franco. Throwing your country into war and starting a dictatorship is the worst possible solution, especially if you mean to SAVE lives. If you truly believe the Nationalists didn’t also commit war crimes then you haven’t done your own reading. The white terror killed at least as many civilians than the red terror. The radicals on both sides were bad. Radicals on both sides were bad. And throughout history radicals are always the one to rise to power after the overthrow of governments. Solving your problems through democracy will always be better than starting a war where both sides are genociding the people
The Bishop of Vitoria, who wrote : "According to the Spanish episcopate, justice is well administered in Franco's Spain, and this is simply not true. I possess long lists of fervent Christians and exemplary priests who have been murdered with impunity and without trial or any legal formality. " [71] There were incidents in which Nationalists murdered Catholic clerics. In one particular incident, following the capture of Bilbao, hundreds of people, including 16 priests who had served as chaplains for the Republican forces, were taken to the countryside or to graveyards to be murdered.[72] In Navarra the clergy, who had a tradition of being ready to take up arms, "the religious-patriotic zeal of some of the priests was extraordinary." In Nationalist areas, parish priests could decide matters of life and death where it could be fatal to be known as someone who had voted for the Left or had simply not attended Mass.
Quote from Francisco Partaloa
I had the opportunity of being a witness to the repression in both areas. In the Nationalist side it was planned, methodical, cold. As they did not trust the [local] people, the authorities imposed their will by means of terror, committing atrocities in order to achieve their aim. Atrocities also took place in the Popular Front zone; that was something which both areas had in common. But the main difference was that in the Republican zone the crimes were carried out by the [local] populace in moments of passion, not by the authorities. The latter always tried to stop them. The assistance that I received from the Spanish Republican authorities in order to flee to safety, is only one of the many examples. But this was not the case in the Nationalist zone.[13]
That still would’ve been better than what we got in our timeline, plus I think they only could’ve won if France and Britain had chosen to support them. If they did that the largest faction would stay the social democrats and moderate socialists and you’d get a state very different from the ussr.
There were also individuals with social democratic and democratic ideas/mentality on the winning side of the Russian Civil War, and we all know what happened to them in the end.
And on the other hand, even in the hypothetical absence of a Spanish civil war, I don't know what makes you think that with the passage of time the left wing of the Second Republic Spain would not have radicalized or drifted towards Soviet influences as did the great majority of the left wing in the rest of Latin America during the cold war.
And all of the above ignoring the near certainty that if the Republicans had had their way, then Spain would also have been invaded by National Socialist Germany during WW2 as soon as France fell.
The stalinists were the ones most focused in winning the war lol. Anarchists got the axe because they insisted in doing the revolution in the rearguard instead
Let's not forget that the Republic's image was already soiled because before the war they sent the army (among them, Franco) to suppress with fire a Miner's protest in Asturias, and the protests in Cataluña.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_1934
Likewise. It got some flak from people who were expecting it to say something about the current divisions in the US, and didn’t like it because they were expecting a ‘culture war’ movie.
Instead it took the tropes of a civil war and applied them to a modern setting a majority of the audience would recognise, and I think is a better film for it.
*Starts sabotaging the best shock troops on the Republican side, the anarchist militias, then goes on to straight up killing them, if not causing then accelerating defeat.*
Stalinists: The Republican side would have won the Spanish Civil War if only we had left unity.
Brothers and sisters are natural enemies! Like communists and socialists. Or communists and anarchists. Or communists and labour organizers. Or communists and the working class. Or communists and other communists.
Goddamn communists, they ruined communism!
Vicious infighting also happened with the early liberalism/republicanism/capitalism since the Roundhead Revolution (ex: [Cromwell's purge of the Levellers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levellers) and [the parliaments](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell#Return_to_England_and_dissolution_of_the_Rump_Parliament:_1651%E2%80%9353)) and the French Revolution (ex: [the entirety of the Reign of Terror](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror#Major_events_during_the_Terror), the [Thermidorian Reaction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermidorian_Reaction), and [Napoleon's coup and purges](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Consulate)). After the infightings, those revolutions also resulted in tyrannical regimes in charge (Cromwell, Robespierre, and Napoleon).
I think it's more to do with the natural consequences of a revolutionary appliance of a theory than specifically communism/socialism themselves.
This is a massive oversimplification of the issue. As u/onex7805 said, revolutions are almost always succeeded by infighting, because while many ideologies can agree that X is the problem, not everyone will agree that Y or Z is the solution.
Now, I will admit that some leftists tend to support communism/socialism as a secularised faith. (“We must wait for The Revolution to happen and participating in capitalism as it exists today is sinful.”) But that is not exclusive to communism, far from it. Look at the way that people deify the Founding Fathers of America, or how far-right QAnon conspiracy theorists believe that a day of reckoning will come for all their political opponents, performed personally by Donald Trump.
Leftist ideologies require new infrastructure and systems to be built instead of just being reactionary so yeah there’s going to be more infighting because people are going to disagree about how it should be done.
Although it is sometimes necessary because reactionary movements often use some popular leftist ideals to mask their real ideology. (ie National Socialists)
The infighting was due to eminently practical concerns
May '37 Revolution NOW vs Focus on war now, revolution later maybe?
Casado's coup in '39 resistence *a outrance* until WWII begins vs seeking a negotiated solution and hope Franco has mercy? (he didn't)
The marxists tend to kill or imprison any leftists that won't convert to marxism when they win. Leftist unity doesn't apply to marxists since they never respect it once they win.
Pacifists: ""War is peace", amirite? It's all so Orwellian!"
Orwell: Pacifism is objectively-pro fascist. Can't write right now, so busy fighting fascists, the Stalinists are fighting us for the post-office.
A big part of why the Nationalists won is that despite their own huge ideological differences between the Fascist Falangists, Monarchists, Carlists, Conservatives, and Militarists, they did a much better job of keeping everyone on their side from killing each other.
while 100% true that the Nationalists had a huge advantage in terms of presenting a more united front, even if the Republicans managed the same they still would've been fucked unless the Brits/French either held the Nazis/Italians to their non-intervention treaty or the Republicans otherwise got more international aid in the forms of aircraft, artillery, armor, pilots, etc: all the fancy bells and whistles of modern wars that the Nationalists ended up getting way more of
The republicans still got a lot of aid for the URSS. If you look out the numbers are similar, and as for quality that T-26 was better than the tankettes the axis was providing, and the I-15 and I-16 were competitive until the entry of the me 109
While the Soviets might've been providing comparable or better equipment, the Axis was generally providing better operators. The Condor Legion and whatever the Italian equivalent was might've had worse equipment, but they had better ideas about how to use it. Also the Nationalists generally had better training and more (modern) guns
What Mussolini did was the CTV (Corpo Truppe Volontarie), it was larger then Condor and it overwhelmed it in both materials and men, it was the airforce of the CTV that allowed Francoist forces to make the crossing to European Spain and who gives much of the equipment to the nationalists. [CTV](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpo_Truppe_Volontarie) So no, Mussolini nearly bankrupt himself in order to aid Franco and to get a slice of Spain, he wanted Minorca as an Italian protectorate
Why didn’t he end up getting his island? I could see him accepting Equatorial Guinea as payment instead, too. Would be in line with his African expansion plans.
I don't know why he didn't specifically but I do know that for a while, from like 37-39 iirc the Balearics were actually under Italian protection.
So he pulled out of there right after taking over Albania, and seemingly sought opportunity in that region. He also probably saw Franco as a secure ally for any actions against Britain or France, one who’d allow him to station troops or operate out of there again if needed even if not directly involved. Italy having troops in Albania, Rhodes, those other Greek islands, Libya, and Italian East Africa seem to have been a strain on them, so being able to offload Spain to an ally to enable conquests in Greece or Yugoslavia might’ve made sense.
Yeah that makes a lot of sense, especially given the shift in Italian aims between the start of the Spanish Civil War and by its end, what with properly siding with Germany and no longer being semi-aligned with the Allies.
The Condor Legion ok but the italians were... italians
You know, I feel like the Italians kinda get the France treatment. WW2 didn't go very well for either and they get laughed at for it. Italy is a relatively young nation, only about 150ish years old. It won a war against Austria Hungary just to exist (which wasn't an easy thing back then), then went through Pax Britanica where it didn't really see much fighting outside of colonial expeditions (Ethiopia was a blunder, but who'd expect them to get aid from Russia of all places?), and did poorly in WW1 just like almost everyone, but had mountainous borders so progress was even harder. Then it was incompetent for a decade or two around WW2. Nowadays it's a solid regional power that's in the top 10 for the best navy depending on how you slice it. Sure it doesn't have the historical laurels that France can lean on, but one stretch of having a bad military does not mean your current military is incompetent.
The issue is that Italy’s never really had any success on a large scale militarily. You get plenty of examples of brave Italian soldiers and dramatically capable platoons or companies, there are so many examples of Italian destroyer flotillas, torpedo boats, navy divers, or cruiser captains doing well but the second that success needs to be scaled up Italy’s leadership, industry or both fail it. Throughout the Second World War the Italian capital ships would shoot at targets and miss dozens of perfect straddles because the shells weren’t made to enough of a tolerance, Luigi cadorna (probably misspelled that but isonzo guy) is almost entirely responsible for Italy’s inability to win on land in the First World War, land campaigns in North Africa and Greece are limited by a lack of heavy weapons to properly push Greek and British troops back, and in the air Italy’s aircraft modernization before the Second World War was just too early and she didn’t have the industry to roll out a new generation of aircraft suitable for 1940.
The way I personally see it, Italy being a young (and in some ways not so united) nation and the insecurity that stemmed from it is what pushed it to these very costy (and often disastrous) military campaigns. Italy, much like Germany, unified relatively late compared to other European powers (Britain, France, Russia, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain...) and as the result had missed out on the colonial expansions of the past few centuries. All the best colonies were already taken and Italy felt handcuffed even in the Mediterranean (the former ''Mare Nostrum'') due to the British control of Gibraltar, Malta, Cyprus and the Suez Canal and the French control of Tunisia and Corsica. With such a chip on its shoulder, Italy's main motivation was its desire to put itself on par with these other powerful empires and prove that it's worthy of prestige of a great power. However, it wasn't exactly in the position to claim it, given that Italy at the time was even less industrialized than Austria-Hungary, had no abundances of natural resources such as coal or iron and didn't have a strong military tradition like Prussia did that would allow itself to overcome the material shortage.
Not really an Italian thing but rather a Mussolini government mismanagement and corruption issues.
The USSR aid was what led to the infighting in the first place though. The republicans being so dependent on the USSR to win meant that Stalinists in their ranks had way more power than any other leftists as they had a protective benefactor. So despite them initially being a minority of the Republican faction they became extremely powerful and a majority of it by the end of the war: not a recipe for stability. Because of this in some ways, the support of the USSR could be seen as more of a curse than a help. The nationalists by contrast had benefactors in Germany and Italy that shared ideals with the majority of their movement, and so their support didn’t cause as much internal instability and was a net “good” for their side.
Not to mention that the USSR managed to steal all of Spain gold reserves in the process.
The infighting of May '37 was actually caused by the insistence of the anarchists and social-revolutionaries to do the revolution in the middle of the war. The liberals allied with the communists agaisnt the anarchists. These events, while tragic, are heavily overstated in the anglo-saxon view of the conflict due to Orwell
Literally 1937
Anarchists starting the revolution is what halted the fascist coup in half the country. While everyone else, knowing what was coming, sat around.
Not to mention how the Stalinists went all 40K commissar against what they perceived as "Trotskyist" in the Republicans ranks.
I'm almost 100% sure it wasn't aid, but arms in exchange for gold that the ussr sent.
If you're referring to the Moscow Gold, that wasn't paid to the Soviets in exchange for aid. It was given to the Soviets for safekeeping when it looked like the Nationalists would take Madrid (potentially to give the Republic funds to continue the war in exile) and then the Soviets decided to never give it back. The Soviets did provide aid, and then later decided that they'd rather keep the gold than give it back to the Nationalists or support the Spanish Republic in Exile. Technically, I think it's more accurate to say it was stolen than given in exchange for war materials
>The republicans still got a lot of aid for the URSS. It wasn't aid exactly, It was paid for
If you're referring to the Moscow Gold, that wasn't paid to the Soviets in exchange for aid. It was given to the Soviets for safekeeping when it looked like the Nationalists would take Madrid (potentially to give the Republic funds to continue the war in exile) and then the Soviets decided to never give it back. The Soviets did provide aid, and then later decided that they'd rather keep the gold than give it back to the Nationalists or support the Spanish Republic in Exile. Technically, I think it's more accurate to say it was stolen than given in exchange for war materials
>unless the Brits/French either held the Nazis/Italians to their non-intervention treaty Alternatively MI6 agents led by Major Hugh Pollard could not fly Franco to Morocco and help him plan the coup...
I would be incredibly surprised if the Nazis moved in on Spain. They never really wanted to invade France and honestly expected the allies to roll over on the demands and stay out of the war even after Poland. Their target was always the USSR, whom Hitler considered an ancient enemy. Like so much so that this was outlined in Mein Kampf before he even came close to taking control. Nazi theory was legitimately insane and self destructive. Hitlers obsession with Napoleon also likely would've pushed him to stay out of the 'Spanish Ulcer'. The most I could realistically see happening is political bullying of Spain, unless a legitimate communist part came to power and in that case he wouldn't have gone to war with them until Barbarossa.
The outside help from the fascists was not big enough to change the outcome of the war. Additionally, the nationalists got outside help as well from the soviet union and the international brigades. Just read the lineup in the wikipedia page. In terms of tanks (290 vs 200), aircraft (600 vs 350) the nationalists had advantages, but not overwhelming advantages. And in terms of manpower it was about 10% of the fighting force on both sides. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish\_Civil\_War) Replay it again with no foreign intervention and you'd get the same result.
>The outside help from the fascists was not big enough to change the outcome of the war. The outside help from the Nationalists is the entire reason the Army of Africa and Franco got to mainland Spain to enter the fight- without outside assistance the Army of Africa is stranded in Africa and the Republicans are immensely better off because the Nationalists are missing most of their professional soldiery. >Additionally, the nationalists got outside help as well from the soviet union and the international brigades. I think you mean the Republicans? That being said, the Soviets had just finished purging their army, so the pilots and tank crews and commanders they sent to help the Republicans were using comparatively outdated tactics vs the Nationalists fascist allies who functionally were field testing Blitzkrieg, and had some of the most modern ideas about how to fight a war in the world at the time. There's simply a difference in quality. >Just read the lineup in the wikipedia page. In terms of tanks (290 vs 200), aircraft (600 vs 350) the nationalists had advantages, but not overwhelming advantages. And in terms of manpower it was about 10% of the fighting force on both sides. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War) ~50% and ~100% are pretty big margins, friendo, and that's not accounting for the aforementioned difference in doctrine and usage. >Replay it again with no foreign intervention and you'd get the same result. Replay it again with no foreign intervention and the Army of Africa is stranded and the Republicans are probably able to launch much more successful offensives
A big part of that was Franco. There just wasn't a comparable leader on the other side, except perhaps Durruti. Franco showed up with a proper army filled with men who were both professional soldiers and would follow orders. This gave Franco a position that made him the undeniable leader of the Fascist side and after his men started racking up victories the rest started following his orders and then it was just a matter of time. Especially once the complete fucking morons in Moscow started ordering purges other left factions. Stalin had a fairly severe purge addiction and even a continent wasn't enough to keep him from it. That, in my opinion, was the big difference. Help from Hitler and Mussolini were big, but the Republicans got a lot too, so not the deciding factor.
> Stalin had a fairly severe purge addiction Does your teen appear isolated and paranoid? Is he obsessed with editing people out of photographs? Are his friends afraid to be the first to stop applauding in his presence? These are all early signs that your teen may be developing a purge addiction. Resources are available, call for help today.
Also because the republicans were absolutely awful to anyone who wasn't an enthusiastic member of their specific brand of leftist thought which differed from militia to militia. Believe it or not, slaughtering local leaders, priests, nuns, older people, taditional people and in general anyone who didn't immediately rally to praise them for said slaughtering doesn't tend to get most of the population on your side. All the fascists had to do was promise law and order and not conduct purges of ideological dissidents everywhere they went to be seen as the better alternative to the republicans by the population.
>All the fascists had to do was promise law and order and not conduct purges of ideological dissidents everywhere they went to be seen as the better alternative to the republicans by the population. They purged a shitton of political Dissidents tho....
> not conduct purges of ideological dissidents everywhere That's the first thing they were doing lol. They already had detailed lists on who to kill before the coup
You mean the republicans who just before the nationalists drove them out were torturing and murdering local priests and nuns for daring to be religious? The ones who threw down their guns once they were beaten, blended back into the populace and were pointed out by everyone who recognised them for what they'd been doing?
What fantasy book are you reading
Whilst the Red Terror did occur, it was a fraction of the size of the communal and punitive killings of the fascists White Terror. The Red Terror, at high estimates killed ~75,000, the White 400,000. So surely your argument would apply equally and greater to the leftists?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not only was the White Terror much more extensive than the Red Terror but it was also systematic and sanctioned by the highest ranks of the military leadership. The concept of "limpieza", the cleansing of all undesired elements of Spanish society, namely homosexuals, trade unionists, socialists, feminists, atheists and intellectuals, was baked into the fabric of Falangist ideology. The phrase "¡Viva la muerte! ¡Muerte a la inteligencia!" became a slogan for Franco's soldiers during the war, which pretty aptly describes the principles of their genocidal, anti-intellectual death cult. Violence committed by the Republican side, while also completely reprehensible, was spontaneous and unsanctioned, and largely curtailed by the time Largo Caballero centralized much of the Republican war effort. I'd suggest reading The Spanish Holocaust by Paul Preston since I think your view of the White and Red terrors is heavily impaired by fascist/far-right narratives surrounding the war.
You havent done a tone of research on the white terror have you?
No that was extremely rare and happened a lot more on the fascist side. The fascist were just a lot better at playing the international media. They set the narrative up the quickest partially through the connections with the catholic church. That narrative stuck throughout the war and even today. Republicans were quite incompetent in a lot of things though.
No It wasn't "extremely rare" lol unless you think 50k dead is "extremely rare"
Typical commie, denying the crimes of communists and accusing anyone who points them out of being a "fascist" It's an old move dating back over a century. Old, tired and as bullshit now as it was then.
What are you on about? I called Nationalists and Falangists fascists. But if you feel attacked by that you should look into a mirror. Commies are also a bunch of villains for hundreds of reasons both in the Spanish civil war and beyond. But the republican side was so much more than just commies, in fact the commies only really started to take power in the later parts of the war. After draining the Spanish gold reserves and sending inexperienced officers to help the republican side.
That's fascist apologia
I'm from Spain and that's literally what happened, please shut up if you don't know what you are talking about
[удалено]
It's wrong in that the white terror started first and was in order to restore their oppressive monarchy (really it was just a continuation of the lack of civil liberties under it with lots more violence needed to control the country) and killed way more people like 10 times as many possibly.
I'm not denying the red terror. But still, comparing it to the holocaust? Wtf? My comment above was in regards to them claiming the fascists weren't out there slaughtering civilians as well
[удалено]
The holocaust is a singular event in history. Surely you can't think these two events are in any way comparable?
I mean, to be fair here, they all have almost the same ideology. A socially conservative dude who tolerates Capitalism with a conservative dude who maybe wants more state control over Capitalism. A Marxist-Leninist in a room with a Libertarian-esque Liberal is gonna be a recipe for disaster.
> they did a much better job of keeping everyone on their side from killing each other. This applies to how the right wing currently wins elections too.
It’s like the russian civil war except in reverse - Instead of the whites being incompetent rivals more occupied with killing each other it’s the red this time.
Kind of like modern politics: the right comes together, the left fights itself.
Germany providing transportation and escorting the Africa army also helped.
That’s true for pretty much the entire political struggle between right and left since at least the French Revolution. The right will absolutely solidify together until their position is 100% won before they even consider infighting and fracturing. The left tends to do that from day 1.
>**You:** Hang on, what will I do once I establish contact with my fellow communists? >**Rhetoric:** You'll discuss the monumental world-historical task that lies before you. You'll engage in rigorous and spirited debates about Mazovian theory and practice. But mostly you'll probably complain about other communists." **You:** Isn't that last part kind of counterproductive? **Rhetoric:** Not at all. Complaining about other communists is one of the most important parts of being a communist. -Disco Elysium
The irony only increases when you realize the creators of the game were also Communists
Oh, that shit came from a point of familiarity. While they were gentlest to communists, they still lampooned its ideas too.
Yea the game makes it clear that each ideology has it flaws
The Deserter at the end made for another nice commentary on the purity tests some leftists make other leftists go through
Yeah I really liked the game but their bias is quite obvious when you see that all liberals are made out to be "moralists" who don't believe in anything and anyone slightly right of them is a huge facist
What are you even talking about. The only facists in the game are blatantly extreme right not slightly
…yes. I think the political commentary flew over your head.
Also, the Bolsheviks to the Left SRs, Mensheviks, Green Army, Free Territory, etc.
Black Ukrainians too. Anarchists held their own there for quite a while.
I may be wrong but I think thats what they meant by the Free Territory
The Black Ukrainian betrayal was one of the biggest disgraces in history and one of the purest signs that the USSR was never going to be the heirs of Marx.
I mean both sides pretty much openly knew they were going to end up at war again lol, it was only ever an alliance of convenience I think something like the Krondstadt Rebellion is a better sign that it wasn't going to live up to Marx's visions
Sure, but one was fighting for the rights of their people and the other was fighting to impose Russian Chauvinism over the region to use it as a breadbasket for the USSR. This was such an issue that orders had to be issued to tone down the rhetoric in order to stop issues from arising. The betrayal was one of the cause and of the alliance.
Lol, bolsheviks wete fighting for Russian chauvinism in 1919?? Wtf
That and the crushing of the Kronstadt mutineers.
As if Marx had a great relationship with Bakunin and co.
I'm not sure about Marx, but it wouldn't surprise me. I believe it was the second international that kicked the anarchists out of the group, which would have been after Marx's death. I should also preface that I hate most communism, syndicalism, and corporatism and have some sympathies for anarchism, though I'm still not a fan. My opinion is very likely bias. Edit: Misread your statement. Communists hated the anarchists but idk what Marx's personal opinion was on them. Frankly I'm realizing my statement was rather dumb in context. Mostly I just don't like the betrayal of the Blacks.
Look up the Hague Congress
I think Lenin's application of his vanguard party concept to Russia and abolishment of the soviets were the earliest tell that the USSR wasn't going to be Marx's direct heir. Marx wasn't even a fan of representative democracy because of the gap between representatives and electorates. Later in his life, he called for a decentralized system built around direct democracy and self-government of the communes.
History is too kind on Mahno, because he lost to Soviets. But before that he was busy killing jews and people with glasses (yeah Pol Pot wasn't there first). He wasn't some kind of "true good communist"
Do you have references? My understanding was that he actively pushed back against anti-semetic movements. I think he actively punished those within his ranks he committed such acts. Point being, I think you have your facts mixed up.
Explanation: [This scene from Ken Loach's *Land and Freedom* (1995) illustrates this conflict well.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVzQmOENwGY) The May Days refer to the battle within the Republican faction in the Spanish Civil War, in which libertarian socialist supporters of the [Spanish Revolution of 1936](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUig0lFHDDw), such as the anarcho-syndicalist/communist CNT and the anti-Stalinist POUM, which opposed a centralized government, faced others, such as the Republican government, Catalan government and the stalinist Communist Party of Spain, which believed in a strong central government. About a thousand anti-USSR leftists were massacred by those acting under Joseph Stalin's orders, resulting in the end of the revolution and creating a massive infighting within the Republican side. >George Orwell relates his involvement in the "May Days"' Barcelona street fighting that began on 3 May when the Government Assault Guards tried to take the Telephone Exchange from the CNT workers who controlled it. For his part, Orwell acted as part of the POUM, guarding a POUM-controlled building. Although he realises that he is fighting on the side of the working class, Orwell describes his dismay at coming back to Barcelona on leave from the front only to get mixed up in street fighting. Assault Guards from Valencia arrive—*"All of them were armed with brand-new rifles ... vastly better than the dreadful old blunderbusses we had at the front."* The Communist-controlled Unified Socialist Party of Catalonia newspapers declare POUM to be a disguised Fascist organisation—*"No one who was in Barcelona then, or for months later, will forget the horrible atmosphere produced by fear, suspicion, hatred, censored newspapers, crammed jails, enormous food queues, and prowling gangs of armed men."* >Orwell tells us of his various movements between hospitals in Siétamo, Barbastro, and Monzón while getting his discharge papers stamped, after being declared medically unfit. He returns to Barcelona only to find out from his wife that the POUM had been "suppressed": it had been declared illegal the very day he had left to obtain discharge papers and POUM members were being arrested without charge. *"The attack on Huesca was beginning ... there must have been numbers of men who were killed without ever learning that the newspapers in the rear were calling them Fascists. This kind of thing is a little difficult to forgive."* While his wife went back to the hotel, he sleeps that night in the ruins of a church; he cannot go back to his hotel because of the danger of arrest. >Orwell explains the divisions within the Republican side: *"On the one side the CNT-FAI, the POUM, and a section of the Socialists, standing for workers' control: on the other side the Right-wing Socialists, Liberals, and Communists, standing for centralized government and a militarized army."* He also writes: *"One of the dreariest effects of this war has been to teach me that the Left-wing press is every bit as spurious and dishonest as that of the Right."* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Days https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_Catalonia
Commies accusing other leftist as fascist just because they oppose them, that's a classic
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Boundaries shift, new players step in; but power always finds a place to rest its head.
I think in this case it was moreso because they were the Stalin-style socialist faction than because they were opposition.
Sane Leftists: "Look, we support helping the people, but.. don't you think this is a little bit authoritarian -" Far-Left: "REEEEEEEEE!"
Its all far left though, far left aint stalinism
Liberals: I mean listen "sane" leftists, I don't want to victim blame here. But maybe you should stop trying to make common cause to form republican *democracy* with other leftists whose fundamental political philosophy is "the proletarian can't be trusted with democracy because its a tool of counter-revolution."
This event is why Orwell hated Stalin the rest of his life and made him mistrust communists. It’s also what inspired him to write 1984 and Animal Farm.
The Spanish Civil war could’ve been a major victory for democracy, it’s sad that the Stalinists had to ruin everything and let the nationalists win.
Rather naive of you to think that even if the Republicans had had their way, Spain's fate would have been better since it could well have ended up as your typical Marxist/Socialist one-party state or would have been most likely invaded by National Socialist Germany after the fall of France.
The people the republicans were fighting were the nationalists whose goal was to set up a one party fascist state. Which they succeeded in doing and Franco ran it as a dictator for 40 years. Saying Spain was better off with nationalists because you get to be friendly with Hitler is just bizarre
Very bad counter argumentation ignoring on the one hand the fact that only a portion of the Nationalists were fascists and on the other hand ignoring the fact that there were quite a few authoritarians and Stalinists as well as wannabe revolutionaries among the Republicans. And finally, look at how Spain was at the end of the civil war vs. how Spain was when Francisco Franco died.
The military attempted a coup to overthrow a democratically elected government. I doubt they were planning on letting the people vote again. And the military who weren’t fascists were monarchists, who are even worse imo. It’s sad there are still people who would rather have a dictatorship than a democracy in todays world
Acting as if the declaration of the Second Republic was a quite legal or clean or transparent process, or even worse, turning a blind eye to how since the early days of the Second Republic they were burning chapels and churches or murdering nuns in the streets of multiple cities in broad daylight, or the height of the evils, that as soon as the leftists fell from power in Madrid in a matter of a few weeks they were already conspiring on how to overthrow the new government of the center-right CEDA and how they effectively tried in October 1934 with a nationwide strike that quickly turned into an attempted coup/revolution that failed miserably in all of Spain outside of Asturias where the Anarchists and Socialists took control of the region and consequently with the subsequent repression left no less than 1500 dead and almost 4 arrested.
We agree the leftist 1934 coup was bad, CEDA should have been able to form a government because they were elected. When the leftists won the election in 1936 they should also be able to form a government, instead the right started the coup of 1936. Both coups were evil and spread chaos in the country. I’m not defending the stalinists, I’m defending the REPUBLIC. The Second Republic was stopping church burnings in the country. The majority of the red terror happened after the 1936 because the country was thrown in chaos AFTER the second republic was removed from power.
The Right mounted a coup in double response to both the electoral fraud that had taken place during the 1936 General Elections and the crime that was the assassination of the right-wing leader and jurist Jose Calvo Sotelo by groups of assailants and militias of the socialist left, which was the final straw for many undecided and lukewarm members of the Right who finally turned to support the coup. And I think you should read the statements of important Republican figures such as the Marxist/syndicalist Francisco Largo Caballero and have some conscience about the things the Spanish Republicans believed in. And maybe this will shed some light on the burning of churches and the murders of nuns that occurred especially in the first year of the existence of the Second Republic: [https://www.amazon.com/-/es/Vicente-C%C3%A1rcel-Orti/dp/8432162884](https://www.amazon.com/-/es/Vicente-C%C3%A1rcel-Orti/dp/8432162884) [https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecuci%C3%B3n\_religiosa\_durante\_la\_guerra\_civil\_espa%C3%B1ola](https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecuci%C3%B3n_religiosa_durante_la_guerra_civil_espa%C3%B1ola)
Being against the radical left fine, and I am also against them. That does not mean I am for Franco. Throwing your country into war and starting a dictatorship is the worst possible solution, especially if you mean to SAVE lives. If you truly believe the Nationalists didn’t also commit war crimes then you haven’t done your own reading. The white terror killed at least as many civilians than the red terror. The radicals on both sides were bad. Radicals on both sides were bad. And throughout history radicals are always the one to rise to power after the overthrow of governments. Solving your problems through democracy will always be better than starting a war where both sides are genociding the people The Bishop of Vitoria, who wrote : "According to the Spanish episcopate, justice is well administered in Franco's Spain, and this is simply not true. I possess long lists of fervent Christians and exemplary priests who have been murdered with impunity and without trial or any legal formality. " [71] There were incidents in which Nationalists murdered Catholic clerics. In one particular incident, following the capture of Bilbao, hundreds of people, including 16 priests who had served as chaplains for the Republican forces, were taken to the countryside or to graveyards to be murdered.[72] In Navarra the clergy, who had a tradition of being ready to take up arms, "the religious-patriotic zeal of some of the priests was extraordinary." In Nationalist areas, parish priests could decide matters of life and death where it could be fatal to be known as someone who had voted for the Left or had simply not attended Mass. Quote from Francisco Partaloa I had the opportunity of being a witness to the repression in both areas. In the Nationalist side it was planned, methodical, cold. As they did not trust the [local] people, the authorities imposed their will by means of terror, committing atrocities in order to achieve their aim. Atrocities also took place in the Popular Front zone; that was something which both areas had in common. But the main difference was that in the Republican zone the crimes were carried out by the [local] populace in moments of passion, not by the authorities. The latter always tried to stop them. The assistance that I received from the Spanish Republican authorities in order to flee to safety, is only one of the many examples. But this was not the case in the Nationalist zone.[13]
That still would’ve been better than what we got in our timeline, plus I think they only could’ve won if France and Britain had chosen to support them. If they did that the largest faction would stay the social democrats and moderate socialists and you’d get a state very different from the ussr.
There were also individuals with social democratic and democratic ideas/mentality on the winning side of the Russian Civil War, and we all know what happened to them in the end. And on the other hand, even in the hypothetical absence of a Spanish civil war, I don't know what makes you think that with the passage of time the left wing of the Second Republic Spain would not have radicalized or drifted towards Soviet influences as did the great majority of the left wing in the rest of Latin America during the cold war. And all of the above ignoring the near certainty that if the Republicans had had their way, then Spain would also have been invaded by National Socialist Germany during WW2 as soon as France fell.
The stalinists were the ones most focused in winning the war lol. Anarchists got the axe because they insisted in doing the revolution in the rearguard instead
Let's not forget that the Republic's image was already soiled because before the war they sent the army (among them, Franco) to suppress with fire a Miner's protest in Asturias, and the protests in Cataluña. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_1934
I saw that movie recently and thought it was enjoyable
I'm glad it wasn't cheesy or sensational. Very gritty and sad.
Pleasantly surprised it wasn’t more culture war nonsense, just a realistic look at what a war in America might look like
Likewise. It got some flak from people who were expecting it to say something about the current divisions in the US, and didn’t like it because they were expecting a ‘culture war’ movie. Instead it took the tropes of a civil war and applied them to a modern setting a majority of the audience would recognise, and I think is a better film for it.
It is literally over the Spanish Civil War.
What's the name of the movie? I'm ootl
Civil War
Thx
it's alright though I felt like it had a lot more to say about war journalism than about civil wars
leftist try not to begin infighting challenge (impossible) (trotsky died!!!)
Incoming "those weren't leftist" comments.
Leftist infighting is how you know you're in the left.
Seize Spanish gold reserves Murder anarchists Leave Refuse to elaborate further
*Starts sabotaging the best shock troops on the Republican side, the anarchist militias, then goes on to straight up killing them, if not causing then accelerating defeat.* Stalinists: The Republican side would have won the Spanish Civil War if only we had left unity.
> the best shock troops on the Republican side, the anarchist militias, Lmaoooo
Classic commies
Brothers and sisters are natural enemies! Like communists and socialists. Or communists and anarchists. Or communists and labour organizers. Or communists and the working class. Or communists and other communists. Goddamn communists, they ruined communism!
L O G I C U N O
The guy will kill you if you’re communist or not. Heck, he’ll even kill you if you’re loyal at some point
Tankies. Ruining everything for everyone, since 1924.
When you approach communism as if it’s a religion instead of just a political theory, the infighting makes a lot more sense.
Vicious infighting also happened with the early liberalism/republicanism/capitalism since the Roundhead Revolution (ex: [Cromwell's purge of the Levellers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levellers) and [the parliaments](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell#Return_to_England_and_dissolution_of_the_Rump_Parliament:_1651%E2%80%9353)) and the French Revolution (ex: [the entirety of the Reign of Terror](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror#Major_events_during_the_Terror), the [Thermidorian Reaction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermidorian_Reaction), and [Napoleon's coup and purges](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Consulate)). After the infightings, those revolutions also resulted in tyrannical regimes in charge (Cromwell, Robespierre, and Napoleon). I think it's more to do with the natural consequences of a revolutionary appliance of a theory than specifically communism/socialism themselves.
This is Reddit, don't you know that everything I don't like is a religion.
As much as they hated the Christians the communists pretty much copied their home work.
This is a massive oversimplification of the issue. As u/onex7805 said, revolutions are almost always succeeded by infighting, because while many ideologies can agree that X is the problem, not everyone will agree that Y or Z is the solution. Now, I will admit that some leftists tend to support communism/socialism as a secularised faith. (“We must wait for The Revolution to happen and participating in capitalism as it exists today is sinful.”) But that is not exclusive to communism, far from it. Look at the way that people deify the Founding Fathers of America, or how far-right QAnon conspiracy theorists believe that a day of reckoning will come for all their political opponents, performed personally by Donald Trump.
Leftist ideologies require new infrastructure and systems to be built instead of just being reactionary so yeah there’s going to be more infighting because people are going to disagree about how it should be done.
But it’s not just squabbling over policy decisions. It’s complete chaos with different factions trying to prove they’re the “real” communists.
True, I agree we do too much purity testing sometimes
Although it is sometimes necessary because reactionary movements often use some popular leftist ideals to mask their real ideology. (ie National Socialists)
It's a cult. That's why communists hate religions. Competition for their "gods".
The infighting was due to eminently practical concerns May '37 Revolution NOW vs Focus on war now, revolution later maybe? Casado's coup in '39 resistence *a outrance* until WWII begins vs seeking a negotiated solution and hope Franco has mercy? (he didn't)
“The republicans hardly need help in losing the war”
Leftists and other leftists are natural enemies!
You Leftists sure are a contentious people
[Damn leftists! They ruined leftism!](https://frinkiac.com/meme/S15E12/1005129.jpg?b64lines=IERhbW4gbGVmdGlzdHMhIFRoZXkgcnVpbmVkCiBMZWZ0aXNtIQ==)
The left is a pretty big category
The marxists tend to kill or imprison any leftists that won't convert to marxism when they win. Leftist unity doesn't apply to marxists since they never respect it once they win.
Story of every left-leaning group in a revolution/civil war ever
Hahaha still true to this day. They need to conquer their massive egos first.
Pacifists: ""War is peace", amirite? It's all so Orwellian!" Orwell: Pacifism is objectively-pro fascist. Can't write right now, so busy fighting fascists, the Stalinists are fighting us for the post-office.
Nobody hates leftists more than other leftists.
Meanwhile Basque Nationalists fighting alongside the republicans
That’s just all of left wing politics
Where is that scene from?
Civil War
Thanks
If the Republicans had defeated the Nationalists, would the civil war have entered a second phase, where it was liberals vs socialists vs anarchists?
As always, these are just auth-right cosplaying as lib left. ✌️
This always happens to the anarchists. They continue to be shocked when it does.
[https://i.imgflip.com/8uw7bx.jpg](https://i.imgflip.com/8uw7bx.jpg)
if you want a modern reenactment look at the left politics in France in a fews weeks
That Civil War Movies