Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
The Brits who fought for Spain
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 30th March 2009
Did anyone catch this new Series on the History Channel over the weekend?
Any thoughts on it?
As for myself - I was utterly disappointed. It seems to me that it was immensely dumbed down,
It seemed to promote that the Brits and Irish who fought with the International Brigades for the left were somehow more righteous than the otherwise ignored Brits and Irish who fought for the Nationalists.
Fascist seemed to be mentioned every other word ignoring the fact that Franco wasn't a fascist, only the Falange, who formed a tiny part of the Nationalists were fascist.
It mentioned time and time again the support provided by 'Fascist' Hitler (Why do people confuse fascism and national socialism?) yet ignoring the assistance the Republic forces received from the Soviet Union.
It mentioned the atrocities performed by the Nationalists, again, ignoring those performed by the Republican forces.
Is it still honestly acceptable not to judge left and right of the political spectrum the same?
I think it a missed opportunity to present a balanced view of the Spanish Civil war. -
Message 2
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 5th April 2009
In a hundred years time someone will be able to write a balanced view of the Spanish Civil War. The divisions are still extant in Spanish society and there is an almost tacit agreement not to open old wounds.
This war was over nine years before I was born but its shadow stretched over our lives even in Britain; our family boycotted Spanish goods but occasional Spaniards would pop by socially. I was a teenager before I could understand it all.
I have spoken to Spaniards of my own age about it and some of them know even less than I and I have only done the politics and some of the economics.
I understand that there are arguments in Spain amongst people of my generation as to whether the mass graves at execution sites should be opened up and formal tallies and identification made. I sympathise but appreciate not all are in agreement. This is a domestic Spanish matter.
The most telling story was speaking about this with an old Spanish friend who has since died. She said that in the village in which she grew up there were some houses where people kept to themselves and who were not accepted by wider society. She understood these people had done `wicked things' during the Civil War about which she knew nothing. I knew she had grown up in area which declared for Franco early on, so why the social ostracism for those who had been such strong supporters of Franco that they had committed atrocities on the behalf of the victorious regime? To me this suggests a native decency which is worthy of our respect. -
Message 3
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 6th April 2009
Hi stanilic
I accept all your points – Obviously both view points are antipodean so a neutral ground to assess the conflict may not be that easy is Spain.
My problem, was more the programme itself. They repeated time and time again that the Nationalist forces were ‘Fascists’ that the volunteers were there to fight fascism… It was repeated time and time again.
Nothing was ever mentioned of the foreign volunteers for the nationalist side.
By issue is that why is it deemed acceptable, almost romantic to volunteer for the republican (Using the same logic as the producers of this programme I should say Stalinist) forces yet those that volunteered for the other side, having the same courage of their conviction it is not.
Biased? More than, which I don’t think was a good grounding for what could have been a good documentary about the war.
Atrocities were done by all sides, again, this was ignored. Do people think that if the Republican forces were victorious the Nationalists would have faired differently in the retribution? -
Message 4
Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Monday, 6th April 2009
Hi Mani,
I'm currently reading Beevor's The Battle for Spain which - as far as I can tell - is highly sensitive to the political nuances of the myriad factions involved - and also seems very even-handed when it comes to the behaviour of the forces involved.
I think it'd be a very hard story to tell on TV wihout resorting to a cartoonish view - given the complexity of the story, and the recieved ideas of the attention span on TV audiences.
I think it's a conflict that begging to be done justice and is crucial to our understanding of the inter-war years. But it would need a series - not 60mins plus adverts!
Cheers
Andrew -
Message 5
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 6th April 2009
I do not think that nationalists were seen as fascists back then in Spain, apart the usual left-wing propaganda. In Greece, one of the most progressive writers, Kazantzakis had been in Spain and while not any fighter, he saw things from the side of nationalists, something that later left-wing gauche-caviar in Greece tried to play down (cos they did not want any progressive writer to belong to any other political field than the left-wing).
-
Message 6
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 6th April 2009
Hi Andrew, I read that book a few years back, an excellent read. As you say, detailed!
Hope you enjoy it, I certainly did! -
Message 7
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 6th April 2009
Nik,
I think that is the point, only the Falange were Fascists.
As I said, calling theNationalists 'Fascist' is like calling the republicans 'Stalinist'.
Yet this particular point rammed home time and time again the good democratic republicans were fighting fascism. I think it an appauling over simplification.
As you say, at the time I don't think many viewed it that way. -
Message 8
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Monday, 6th April 2009
Well it's easy to see why the pro-Franco volunteers are seen retrospectively in a dim light. We simply do not know what might have happened had the republicans won (probably another civil war, they were so riven with internal conflicts!) - but we do know what happened after Franco won. I recall Spanish students who stayed with my family in the 1970s telling us about machine-gun toting policemen hovering around their schools, making sure teachers didn't step out of line. Whether one calls them fascists or not, Franco's regime did not stand for liberal democracy or human rights.
I also think it's unfair to characterise the International Brigades as Stalinists. They certainly weren't supporting the realities of Stalinism that we know now. -
Message 9
Posted by Nielsen2 (U13686196) on Monday, 6th April 2009
Mike,
While agreeing with almost all you put prior to this, your sentences,
"... . Whether one calls them fascists or not, Franco's regime did not stand for liberal democracy or human rights.
I also think it's unfair to characterise the International Brigades as Stalinists. They certainly weren't supporting the realities of Stalinism that we know now."
IMHO, when describing their actions we ought to NOT look at them (read judge!) by todays standards, but look at the circumstances of their actions in the context of their own time.
And in that context there was, on the one side, a wide difference between the the Carlistas, and the Monarquistas as well as the ordinary Catholic people who were very scared of anything Socialist because their priests and bishops told them so, and they were those who eventually - in 1937 - made up the Falange, . - and you're right, they didn't stand for modern liberal democracy or human rights, nor did they claim to.
On the other hand, as you as well as Mani do, the International Brigades were not Stalinist per se, they were made up of many various people and one of the best descriptions I've read was a Danish translation of André Malreaux', 'L'Espoir' - briefly described here - as well as Orwell's, 'Homage to Catalonia' both describing their impressions, seen from the inner side of the Left.
BUT, as I began my points, this is for describing these times and the people, that defined them locally.
Seen among the times and in a European context and some 70 years after what happened and knowing what other dictators did simultaneously and after, it's hard - yet un-fair - not to mix them, and say "one dictator is as bad as the next". -
Message 10
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 6th April 2009
Hi Mike,
My point by calling them Stalinist (and some were!) was that the Stalinists were one faction amongst the Republicans, as well as Anarchists/Basque and Catalan separatists/Trade Unionists/ Anarcho- syndicalism/ Socialists.
In exactly the same sense, the Fascist Falange were one faction amongst the Nationalists as well as Carlists/Monarchists/Those of a religious persuation.
My suggestion is that it is wrong to refer to the nationalists as fascist and my the same logic you could call the republicans Stalinist.
"We simply do not know what might have happened had the republicans won"
But we can make a good suggestion given what they did in the areas under their control! -
Message 11
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Tuesday, 7th April 2009
But we can make a good suggestion given what they did in the areas under their control!Ìý
Well that's fair comment, there were atrocities on all sides. In his novel 'Winter in Madrid', CJ Sansom seems to imply that the direct involvement of the Soviets led to increased brutality on the part of the republicans, but I don't know to what extent the evidence supports that view. (I do know Sansom is generally fastidious in his research, but this is something more implied than expressly stated). -
Message 12
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Tuesday, 7th April 2009
Hi Mike,
Well, not all of the factions under the banner of the Republicans were under the control of Moscow, but from what I've read, the Anarchists were just as liable to perfrom 'attrocities' but if anything resented the Soviets. -
Message 13
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Friday, 10th April 2009
The lessons to be learned from the Spanish Civil War are that once a society polarises into conflict everyone has to a degree decide which side they are on. There is no middle way as neutrality itself is compromised.
The socialists and anarcho-syndicalists were obviously against the original military coup d'etat and thus prevented the success of the coup. The military drew its support from the more traditional elements of society such as the Church, the aristocracy and the usual broad tranche of conservatives. Both sides took great pleasure in executing each other in appalling massacres when towns and villages changed hands.
My understanding is that Franco only took the Falange under his wing when he needed to broaden his own coalition and provide it with an ideological basis. The leader of the Falange was Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, who was the son of a general and a former conservative minister. He was captured early on by the Republicans and executed. This made him a convenient martyr for Franco as I doubt very much that Primo de Rivera and Franco would have had much in common at all. Franco's intention no doubt was to draw financial and military support from Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.
Similarly, given the boycotts imposed by the other European powers, the Republican government turned to support from the Soviet Comintern. In my view, whilst this gave access to needed funds and military equipment, the political price paid was too much leading to purges of the socialists and anarcho-syndicalists as so well described by George Orwell in `Homage to Catalonia'.
In many ways the Spanish Civil War is seen as the dry-run to the Second World War. In a military sense this is valid. From other perspectives this is a bit simplistic.
For example, the eventual success of the Chinese Communists was due to Mao keeping the Comintern sidelined. The Comintern had a horrendous failure record of which Spain was one of the worst.
With regard to the International Brigade this was largely comprised of young socialists from all over Europe. I have been given hear-say evidence that it became an embarrasment to the Comintern as the Brigaders did not volunteer to be bossed about by political commissars. As a consequence the International Brigade was exposed to the heaviest fighting in the hope that the more independently minded volunteers were killed off. It was the stories brought back to the UK by returning volunteers that began to undermine the support for the Communist Party. They also ensured that now and again we are forced to watch the ugly spectacle of the Kinnocks singing the Bandera Rossa.
Having myself seen a society polarise whilst under pressure, the first, and currently the only, lesson we need to draw from Spain in the Thirties is that peaceful compromise is the only practical political solution. The alternative is quite horrible. -
Message 14
Posted by Sir Gar Hywel dda (U13786187) on Friday, 10th April 2009
It seemed to promote that the Brits and Irish who fought with the International Brigades for the left were somehow more righteous than the otherwise ignored Brits and Irish who fought for the Nationalists.
Ìý
Yes!
Whilst the League of Nations was a move towards International democracy in the inter war years, (so proudly supported by the marvellous man Paderwski
Prime minister of Poland, philosopher, musician, great man)it has not been until the real work of the EP got under way with direct democractic elections to it, that we could really see the opposing forces in European democracy at work, not just in Spain, not just in Italy, not just in the British Isles, but in *all* the countries of an expanding international democratic community known as the EU(27).
The division between nationalism and socialism are similar if not the same in nearly all these modern states, and to be able to divide and unite in international coalitions in an international legislative parliament and community, is to my mind one of the finest things that has happened to
us all in the last 100 years.
Long may Talks continue, and long may the international system of government be extended to, for example, the ECO (Economic community Organization), of Central Asia, where there is so much conflict today by foreign invading powers, in default of cohesive interstate organization until now. -
Message 15
Posted by Sir Gar Hywel dda (U13786187) on Saturday, 11th April 2009
(Why do people confuse fascism and national socialism?) yet ignoring the assistance the Republic forces received from the Soviet Union.Ìý
I have given a political modern history reply, which i am glad everybody ignored, but thinking further about the politics of Spain over the last 200 years since 1800, I am fairly sure that a "wars of the Roses" style genealogical competition between different claimants to the throne, was the cause of the chronic instability in the early 20thC.
Franco knew that, especially in his actions of alliance with the Monarchists in the post WW2 era, and now the blood of a tyrant and dictator coursing through that of the royal family of Spain.
One thing we do not understand in the United Kingdom is the intense political role of the Royal family, in which a family's business is completely political in a way that no other family
life is.
And then people imagine that the Royal family are not involved in national politics. It is an utterly ridiculous and extremely convenient right wing myth, based as it is on early parliamentary
royalist domination, in which my forefather(once removed) was himself involved in the 17thC, lurching between republicanism and royalism, and eventually being forgiven by Charles 2nd to be historiographer royal.
Monarchist politics is far right politics; it is *not* no politics and non involvement in politics.
I repeat it is far right politics, just like these Bl***y pretender kings in Romania and Bulgaria today.
Franco was far right, as were, the exiled monarchists, who now form part of the constitutional monarchy of Spain, and who are far right political beings as kings and queens. -
Message 16
Posted by Sir Gar Hywel dda (U13786187) on Saturday, 11th April 2009
Here is a slightly commercial link to that effect; There may be a better Wiki link to the subject of 18th-20thC monarchy in Spain, and indeed French intrusion in to it.
How people can imagine that tracing ones genes back four or five or six generations can possibly be a good way of choosing a POLITICAL leader, i do not know.
With our new knowledge of genetics it may turn out that it is the *worst* way, and not the best.
Only 15% of the genes of each parent necessarily descends to the child. It may be 15%-85% in any given individual.
Who's for monarchy?!
PS I love 'em all!
-
Message 17
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Saturday, 18th April 2009
How people can imagine that tracing ones genes back four or five or six generations can possibly be a good way of choosing a POLITICAL leader, i do not know.Ìý
Depends on the alternative.
In days of old, before the rule of law was firmly established, hereditary succession, by (usually) providing an easily identifiable successor who (usually) everyone could accept, represented a step forward. The alternative was to have a civil war (or at least grave risk of one) every time a ruler died.
Most places in the West, it's just an historical survival now, as we've gradually become law abiding enough to make republics workable. However, today's monarchs aren't usually political leaders in the normal sense, though they may occasionally get drawn into politics. -
Message 18
Posted by Sir Gar Hywel dda (U13786187) on Saturday, 18th April 2009
today's monarchs aren't usually political leaders in the normal sense, though they may occasionally get drawn into politics.Ìý
It goes without saying that they are monarchists.
The man causing so much trouble in Bulgaria/Romania
runs parliament by causing divisions and impeachments.
You can hardly call that non-political. -
Message 19
Posted by Sir Gar Hywel dda (U13786187) on Saturday, 18th April 2009
More deeply involved in politics than anybody, I should say, but with such fine tuning that it seems as though they are not.
It is the medium with which they are concerned and not the message at all. They do not have a message except their own advantage.
The message is "Worship me!"
A member of the royal family does not sit in the stand at rugby matches/sporting occasions for fun.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.