[Abood]

I know almost nothing about the Spanish civil war. Please help!

[dannymu]

Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, Fascist Portugal, Spanish Catholic Church (which supported Franco because of his anti-commie views), Francisco Franco vs Soviet Union, some Spanish republicans and communists.

It started in the 1930s and lasted some years. It was used by the Germans as a training ground for their new weapons. The Lutfwaffe committed a massacre in some town in the Basque country called Grenica or something like that. Such massacre was the topic of one Picasso's most famous paintings. Not surprisingly the war was won by Franco.

[stannis]

Why do you think that Franco's victory was unsurprising? The Republicans put up stiff resistance for 3 whole years of brutal warfare.

The Basque town was called Guernica (Spanish) / Gernika (Basque).

[dannymu]

Why do you think that Franco's victory was unsurprising?

The Soviets weren't that great in terms of weapons while Germany had a modern army.

[Red Star]

The Soviets weren't that great in terms of weapons while Germany had a modern army.

If you read some accounts from Spanish republicans, they actually really liked the T-26 tanks and the I-15/16 planes. You have to remember that before the Soviet shipments they were literally fighting the German tanks with rifles and grenades. A simple comparison also points that the Germans sent T-I and T-II tanks, the first armed with machine guns and the second with 20mm cannons against the T-26 which had a 45mm cannon. Basically, the Soviet equipment at least in terms of armour was quite adequate. This is all from memory from Igor Shmelov's "Tanks In Battle" book, so I am not precisely sure of the specifications, but that was the general drift.

The anarchist communes are extremelly interesting and I suggest you read into the FAI and CNT, Abood. Bookchin's "The Spanish Anarchists" is extremelly valuable in this respect. A good library should have it.

I think why the war was lost was simply the divisions within the Republicans - you had the POUM, the anarchists, the more Soviet-backed communists, etc. Simply, there was no real united Republican front, and the Civil War is a classic example of how sectarianism on the left can destroy a common cause.

[Alfonso Guerra]

Francisco Franco vs Soviet Union, some Spanish republicans and communists.

That's quite a distorted view, It wasn't Franco vs Soviet union, it was Franco against a democratically elected government.

I think why the war was lost was simply the divisions within the Republicans - you had the POUM, the anarchists, the more Soviet-backed communists, etc. Simply, there was no real united Republican front, and the Civil War is a classic example of how sectarianism on the left can destroy a common cause

I really like this analysis. Also recommend you to take a look at Vicente Rojo, which played a very important role on the republican side, funny enough my dear dannymu, he was catholic.

[dannymu]

Also recommend you to take a look at Vicente Rojo, which played a very important role on the republican side, funny enough my dear dannymu, he was catholic

I'm well aware there were Catholics on the republican side. However the Spanish Catholic Church as an institution supported Franco.

[The Immortal Goon]

A google search will give you better information than anyone here is going to post.

It was a big cluster-fuck.

I'm teaching a class this year and one of the things we went over was Ireland's position in the Spanish Civil War, which kind of boiled down to what kind of country Ireland was going to become - a traditional Catholic nation with a rather conservitive republic; or a populist republic with some form of universal sufferage.

---

The Republic was the legitimate government at the time. They started to seculorize things and move Spain forward. Franco, some monarchists, much of the Church, and the rest of the assholes in Spain were against that.

So they organized a coup, which was followed by a full on Civil War.

So you have the legitimatly elected republican reps fighting the military and a skew of other people. The rest of the world agrees to stay out, save the Soviet Union (rather newly under Stalin) who alone supports the legitimate republican government.

Meanwhile you have something of a Spanish Revolution break out. The Basques, Anarchists, Socialists, and many Communists take over a large part of Spain - Barcelona is one of their big strongholds. This "Spanish Revolution" allies itself with the Republic after the Republic reorganizes its government to add places for them.

While the assholes are consolidating in to a fascist movement under Franco, the republicans are facing greater and greater friction within their ranks.

A small example I'm most framilior with - the POUM was led by Andres Nin, Trotsky's former secretary. Trotsky and Nin broke over the issue of taking the help from Anarchists, rather conservitive Basque nationalists, and some really rather conservative support in to the POUM.

The biggest divide, easily, however, was the Stalinists versus the non-Stalinists in the Republican movement. Increasingly dependent upon the USSR for funds and equipment, the Republican government had been giving the USSR more control. The USSR was going under the theory, right or wrong, connected with the "Third Period" that the commies and the capitalists needed to join forces against the fascists.

The grab-bag of other assorted Marxists opposed this view and were attempting to hold gains from the revolution against the bourgouis republic leaders. Things came to a heaad, infighting took place, and the Fascists were able to take power.

Someone else will probably refute me - fair enough - as I said, google's going to probably give you a variety of sources to allow you to choose for yourself.

-TIG

[Truthseeker]

It began as an army revolt supported by the Falange (fascist) and the Carlist(Catholic monarchist) militias.

Britain, France and the U.S. prevented arms sales to the republic and the French closed their frontier to them.

Many in those countries were sympathetic to the nationalists.

They Republic was wholly dependant on the Soviet Union for planes and tanks. This dependance allowed the communists, at the beginning a tiny and uninfluential group to grow in influence, by the end they almost completely controlled things (until a socialist/Anarchosyndicalist coup that ended the war).

Italy and Germany sent their proper airforces and in Italy's case entire divisions and the use of Submarines (even against British ships). The Germans also ferried the Army of Africa to Spain in the initial stages which gave the Republic less time to finish off isolated cities and garrisions still in revolt.

These backers also sent supplies on credit, whereas although they had the governments gold reserves the Republic was made to pay in advance. Also much of their supplies were sold by the Germans. Profiteers in the government split up the weapons and sold the low quality supplies to the Republic.

Also the Soviets tied the hands of the Republic which they insisted not offer Morroco independance (it would offend France ) which would have created a revolt in the prime recruiting area and original base of the Nationalists as well as depriving them of the Morrocan tribesmen who served in nationalist ranks.

Another problem was the influence of the "advisors" who insisted on outdated and just bad tactics, especially in the use of tanks becuase the proponents of better tactics had been convicted in a show trial, making his ideas "trotskyist plots".

The communist and NKVD ferreting out of "fascists" and "trotskyists" was bad for moral and killed many people. They also insisted all spectacular failures
Brunette, Teruel, and Ebro exhausted the republic and wasted its equipment) were the result of Fascists and Trotskyists treason and refused to learn from the mistakes although they were always the same:

1. The offensives would wait to capture minor positions that they could easily have bypassed until later giving time for the Nationalists to redeploy and halt the offensive, at which poing Germano-Italian air power gave them a pounding.

2. Then the Soviet habit of outlandish propaganda (they would claim victory prematurely and make to much of minor strategic objectives) would trap them into a keeping up a failed offensive. at which because of enemy air power they would be defeated at with huge material losses.

Anothe phenomena was that Soviet and Soviet trained pilots were generally extremely conservative, and tried to avoid daring action at the expense of operational effectiveness.

Anyway the British appeasement mongers kept the "non intervention" going among countries other thant the three primary interveners.

When Italian subs attacked British ships they didn't want to risk their futile attempts to draw Italy away from Germany, so they did nothing against the Italians.

At the end when the French became antsy the British actually told them that if French intervention turned into war with Germany they would NOT support them.

Actually after the pathetic concessions in Czechoslovakia Stalin actually abandoned the idea of opposing fascism entirely, and support declined, although it was to late for the Republic at any rate.

International volunteers played a role in Spain too, many later serving in WWII.

At the end there were massacres and oppression for years against former residents of the Republic and those who fled to France en masse were placed in concentration camps where many of them died.

[The Decay of Meaning]

Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, Fascist Portugal, Spanish Catholic Church (which supported Franco because of his anti-commie views), Francisco Franco vs Soviet Union, some Spanish republicans and communists.

The USSR wasn't allied with the Republicans. The USSR robbed the spanish government for gold, tried to take over the military, worked on crushing the local commitees, and never had the aim of trying to help the Republicans win. Their goal was, among others, grabbing gold from the spanish government and testing new weapons.

They Republic was wholly dependant on the Soviet Union for planes and tanks. This dependance allowed the communists, at the beginning a tiny and uninfluential group to grow in influence, by the end they almost completely controlled things

I concur.

Just to clarify, by "communists", you mean Stalinists loyal to the USSR, right?

[Truthseeker]

Just to clarify, by "communists", you mean Stalinists loyal to the USSR, right?

There weren't really other groups who identified themselves as communists, at least not for very long.

Technically it included many officers who felt party membership was the only way to get military supplies from the government and earlier on Middle Class people afraid of losing their property (the Communists tried to protect private property so they could deny a revolution had occured)

[Kon]

Everything so far has pretty much summed it up.

But there was also the infighting in Barcelona, this was during May day and a few days around it so it was called the "Barcelona May Days" in essence the Anarchists and the post Trotskyists (POUM) started to fight with the Stalinist communists when tensions boiled over.

[Truthseeker]

in essence the Anarchists and the post Trotskyists (POUM) started to fight with the Stalinist communists

I have no idea what a post-trotskyist is. But they weren't Trotskyists.

My understanding is that there was an attempt by some radical anarchists to resist any further concessions towards statism but that their leadership did not support and promptly collapsed, although communist dominated units exacted reprisals.

Anarchist or socialist dominated military units at teh from were cut off from all information as to what was going on until after it was over.

[Kon]

The POUM were not anarchists.

They were non authoritarian communists.

[kami321]

But they weren't Trotskyists.

I don't really feel like verifying this, but according to TIG:

the POUM was led by Andres Nin, Trotsky's former secretary

[Truthseeker]

They were non authoritarian communists.

If you want to mince words.

The distinction between generally describing them non-stalinist-communist socialists and what you use seems rather minor, I don't think they were or remained much different thant the other socialists.

[kami321]

Trotsky was, by the way, an authoritarian communist. He was a Bolshevik and he believed in a disciplined and organized party to lead the transitional/socialist government.

[Truthseeker]

Trotsky was, by the way, an authoritarian communist

And had no influence on the war or the parties of the popular front outside of Stalin's imagination.

[kami321]

And had no influence on the war or the parties of the popular front outside of Stalin's imagination.

Him personally - no. But his ideas did. And isn't that what matters?

[Truthseeker]

no. But his ideas did

Where? How?