Talk:Spanish Civil War/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

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)