Talk:Spanish Civil War

peer review comment copied

Looks quite developed. I think that the problem here is not the lack of content, but too much of it. Assuming 'detailed chronologies', 'people' and 'Political parties and organisations' are moved to subarticles, do you think this would make a good featured? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:03, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

An event in this article is a March 28 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

---

From Wikipedia:Village pump:

How many images are too many? I've only ever seen one image. I wanted to add the famous picture of the soldier shot in the head to the Spanish Civil War page, as well as a typical propaganda poster of the times. wji 0000 EDT 23 May 2002

IMO, a couple more legal images would be fine. The article only has 1 image after all. MB 04:17 23 May 2003 (UTC)

I've recently brought over a lot of new content from the Spanish-language wikipedia. I've done my best to integrate it, but someone may want to take an editorial pass. Also, it seems to me that we ought to have several "sidebar" articles dealing with things like the internal situations in Madrid and Barcelona during the war and there should probably be a lot on Spanish anarchism and the various plitical parties of the time that either exists and should be linked to, or doesn't and should be written. -- Jmabel 09:02, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Could someone please explain the communism vs civilization comment in the intro? Thanks. - Jeandré, 2004-03-14t09:29z

An atttribution would certainly be nice, and I didn't put it there, but it's certainly on the mark as to how some viewed it. I've seen Hearst Movietone newsreels from the period, and that is pretty much the picture they present. It's also the rhetoric to be found in Franco's speeches during the war. It had very little basis in reality, in my opinion, but leaned heavily on communist atheism and anitclericalism, and the destruction of churches (and -- in some cases -- torture, murder, etc. of clergy and members of monastic orders) that occurred in the opening weeks of the war. I think the article is accurate in saying that the atrocities in those opening weeks were roughly equal, but the fact that many on the Republican side targeted the Church was endlessly exploited in the Nationalists' rhetoric, and struck a note with conservatives elsewhere who otherwise might have kept more distance from fascism. -- Jmabel 17:55, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pro-Nationalist link

I for one am inclined to keep, for the moment, the recently added Professor Marek Jan Chodakiewicz on The Spanish Civil War. There ought to be at least one external link to a site more sympathetic to the Nationalists than to the Republic. However, I don't think it is a particularly good site: there must be a far more comprehensive presentation of this case (maybe even with some decent footnotes and/or external references itself?) elsewhere on the web. If someone could find a better one and substitute it, I think that would be an improvement. -- Jmabel 17:04, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Not Neutral

I added the note "The neutrality of this article is disputed." because of the insistence in that General Franco or his forces were fascist. This is just communist propaganda. We know better now. Communists wanted to overthrow the legal system of liberties in Spain to create a system similar to that of the Soviet Union. General Franco and his coup prevented that. Of course, the Republican legality was not restored, but that was because it had not proven safe from revolutionary risks. And Monarchy was not restored probably because King Alfonso XIII fled the country only because his partisans lost a municipal ballot, so it appeared to the victors in the war that that king was not reliable to grant individual rights. Of course, Franco's Dictatorship is more than objectionable, but it does not prove that it was a fascist regime.

(this was unsigned, but it's User:Makjavelo

Frankly, I think this one characterization does not make a non-neutral article. I disagree with much of what Makjavelo has just written, but I do agree with him that the article (or maybe an associated article) might gain from a more extensive explanation of the somewhat complicated relationship of Franco's politics (and Falangism in general) to fascism as such. -- Jmabel 17:44, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

This seems like petty apology for Franco, in my opinion. Not only the communists, but the anarchists, socialists and most Republicans refered to the Francoist forces as "fascist;" as well as many historians and authors, e.g. Hemingway. I forget the exact quote, but a Christian clergyman (who were notoriously right-wing at the time, in popular belief) stated that Franco's regime was totalitarian, because he "controls all aspects of one's life," which can be argued because of the high degree of censorship and repression under his rule. Okay, so: he brutally repressed opposition (through violence, censorship, etc.), he was a dictator, was highly militaristic and nationalistic. Not to mention the heavy influence from Nazi Germany and Italy. So you can call him whatever you like, but that which we call a fascist by any other word would smell as rotten. --Tothebarricades.tk 01:28, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In my private life, I'd have no problem calling Franco and his forces fascist. However, an encyclopedia article should probably be more meticulous. I see no problem calling his opponents "anti-fascist", I see no problem characterizing his aid from Italy and Germany as aid from "fascist" countries, I don't even see a problem with our characterizing Franco as "pro-fascist". I also think it is appropriate to refer to refer to the Falange under the leadership of José Antonio Primo de Rivera as a fascist party. However, referring to "the rebels, also known as the Nationalists or the fascists" is probably a bit too POV. Again, we would do well to add a discussion of how, after the death of Primo de Rivera, Franco co-opted the term "falange" and turned it into something that was not quite what it had meant before. I would suggest that we take up the uses of the word "fascist", "fascism", etc. in the article one by one and see exactly which User:Makjavelo objects to, then discuss those one by one and see if we reach consensus. I wouldn't be surprised if there are only two or three of them at issue, or if we can find mutually agreeable language. -- Jmabel 17:17, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

I've placed a note on User talk:Makjavelo asking Makjavelo to clarify exactly which uses of the term "fascist" he finds objectionable. Assuming he responds within a few days, we should see if we can get consesnsus. If he does not respond (he is not a long-time wikipedian, so he may not), I think we should just unilaterally remove his dispute notice, since it's now been 5 days and he hasn't engaged in the conversation he started. -- Jmabel 23:45, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

Given that the person who added the NPOV note will not even engage in discussion, I am removing it. If someone wants to re-add it and actually engage the topic, I have no problem with that. -- Jmabel 18:50, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

Franco assigning dangerous missions to political rivals

After the phrase "Franco was effective commander of all the Nationalists," the following was recently removed, "... and he unassumingly arranged events (including assigning missions to political rivals that would likely get them killed) so that at the end of the war there would be no opposition to his rule." I happen to believe this is true, but I have no citation for it, so I am not restoring it. If someone has a decent citation, I would love to see it restored to the article. -- Jmabel 15:28, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

It was I who erased this portion of the sentence, mainly because it is historically inaccurate and there is no sound basis for the affirmation. Perhaps it could be restored if it were affirmed: "Historian X affirms that Franco assigned missions to political rivals that would likely get them killed". User: McCorrection. 15:32, Aug 9, 2004 (EDT)

"official sources"

The same anonymous contributor (whose contributions look generally good), also added a passage beginning, "according to official sources, 330 people were assassinated..." I have no reason to doubt this, but can anyone give a citation? "Official sources" is a rather vague attribution. -- Jmabel 17:18, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

I thank you for the comments regarding what I added to the article. I thought it lacked some information, since it described the coup of July right after the February elections, not showing the considerable rise in tensions, from all sides, which led to the military confrontation. As for the "official numbers", they are mentioned by Warren Carroll, in "The Last Crusade: Spain: 1936", published by Christendom Press (1998). He collected the numbers from what is probably the most famous book on the religious persecution in Spain, "Historia de la Persecución Religiosa en España (1936-1939)", by Antonio Montero Moreno, published by the renowned Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos (3rd edition, 1999). I did not know exactly how to mention the authors in the text without lengthening it unnecessarily. User: McCorrection. 15:34, Aug 9, 2004 (EDT)

Great! I've placed it in the article as a "note" (with a footnote-style link). If someone sees a way to do it better, go for it, but I've seen a few other pages do it this way. -- Jmabel 01:46, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Posters

I added two posters, one for each side of the conflict. I tried to be concise and neutral in the captions and I hope the images are appreciated.--McCorrection 16:14, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cela

Recent anon addition to "Further Reading" section:

Camilo José Cela, The Hive. Dalkey Archive, 1953 Novel about post-Civil War Spain

I know Cela is a very major writer, so no question about notability. I haven't read the book, but was under the impression that it was set in the 1940s. Is there really enough in the book that relates to the war itself to make it relevant for this article? I could name a lot of fine novels about Franco-era Spain that I would not consider appropriate to mention in this article. -- Jmabel 04:12, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

I have read and studied La colmena (The hive) and, while a great book from a Nobel-prize winner, it really is more related to the Spanish post-war years than to the conflict itself --80.58.3.239 15:29, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removed from article, per remark above: -- Jmabel | Talk 18:03, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

• Camilo José Cela, The Hive. Dalkey Archive, 1953 Novel about post-Civil War Spain, Dalkey Archive Pr., 2001, ISBN 1564782689

Cela's book about the war is not The Hive but San Camilo 1936 (both great books BTW).radek 01:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured?

You have a nice article here. If there is any user/group working on this, I think you should consider putting in on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:43, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Foreign assistance

Ireland

Is it reasonable to mention those Irish who fought on one side In addition, there were a few volunteer troops from other nations who fought with the Nationalists, such as Eoin O'Duffy of Ireland. without mentioning those on the other side book: Connolly Column-the Story of the Irishmen Who Fought for the Spanish Republic 1936-1939. by O'Riordan, Michael. ISBN: 0905140753 --ClemMcGann 01:10, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Certainly feel free to add mention of Irish IBers. O'Duffy is probably worth a mention, precisely because there were so few idealistic foreign volunteers on the Nationalist side. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:50, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Communist support

I agree with TDC that it is appropriate to that the first mention of the International Brigades indicate Comintern support in recruitment. However, I'm uncomfortable with his change from a mention of "limited support from the Soviet Union" to:

The Republicans received extensive support from the Soviet Union. This included 1,000 aircraft, 900 tanks, 1,500 artillery pieces, 300 armored cars, hundreds of thousands of small arms and 30,000 tons of ammunition. To pay for these armaments the Republicans used $500 million dollars in gold reserves captured from the Nationalist stronghold.

While I can't say anything for or against the numbers (and, as seems to be a pattern, TDC has added a contentious statement without citing a single source: TDC, you must get this stuff somewhere, and you know it will be disputed, why don't you ever just cite your sources?), everything I've ever read on the subject says (1) Soviet aid to the Republic was dwarfed by German and Italian aid to the Nationalists. (2) During most of the war the Italian Navy prevented Soviet materiel from reaching the Republic. Hence, even if these numbers are accurate, I suspect that without comparable numbers for the Nationalists they may be misleading.

1. Is there a source for these numbers?

   Why certainly. [1] [[2] TDC 19:21, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

   • Good citations. I'll add them to the article. -- Jmabel 20:26, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

2. Do we have comparable numbers describing German and Italian support for the Nationalists?

   Comparable numbers for German/Italian contributions are available, I saw some when researching Soviet numbers. I dont know where exactly, but it was easy enough to find from google. TDC 19:21, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

3. "captured from the Nationalist stronghold" is vague and confusing. Captured from what stronghold? Given especially that they were the legitimate government, this phrase is particularly suspicious.

   TDC, looking at the references you've provided, I see nothing to support this: quite the contrary and I will edit accordingly. -- Jmabel 20:38, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not going to remove this right now, because I've seen that TDC's stuff usually (though not always) has some basis, but given both the specificity of the numbers and, conversely, the vagueness of "stronghold", I'd really like to see a citation.

Also, reference to a $500 million dollar payment raises interesting questions. Were the Nationalists paying Germany and Italy for their armaments? There is an important distinction between selling arms to a belligerent and giving them without payment.

Well, it was more than just paying for arms. No one gives armaments to anyone without some from of compensations. Even the lend lease had financial strigns attached. I am sure some form of payment was required for Italian/German arms, but I dont have a source on it. I am sure one could be dug up easily enough if it exists. Some info on the gold payments can be found here: [3], although I cannot verify the accuracy of the source. (TDC)

• Interesting: if accurate, this suggests that as sole suppliers the Soviets were charging extortionate rates for equipment. -- Jmabel 20:36, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

• Here is the book on which the article was written if you want to check it out from your local library [4] TDC 20:43, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

I sould also point out that the Soviet contribution was not only in armamnets but also in Soviet military personelle to train and operate this equipment. Normally, this would not be out of the norm; advisors to train on new equipment, but "advisors" (real advisors at any rate) dont participate in hostilities. TDC 19:21, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

If we answer all of this, we will have made a useful addition to the article, but I think that this change as it stands is not yet very useful. -- Jmabel 19:04, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Granted, this section could use more work, but it should most definately be incorporated into the article one way or another. TDC 19:21, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

The gold reserves were those of the Bank of Spain, legitimately held by the Republican government. There is no evidence I can recall that the Soviets charged more than market rates for war materiel, but there was nationalist propaganda that the Republicans had transfered the entire gold reserves of the country to Moscow in exchange for Soviet help Benvenuto 02:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

...and fascist support

Following this up further (but on just a quick read, because this article is not a major focus of mine), the same sources show at least comparable assistance by Germany and Italy to the Nationalist side. Actual participation by troops appears to be (considerably) more extensive than from the Soviets:

• From Germany - 19,000 troops, including the 12,000-strong Condor Legion, which dropped 16,953,700 kilos of bombs during the war and air units expended 4,327,949 rounds of machine-gun ammunition. 130 aircraft, 2,500 tons of bombs, 500 cannons, 700 mortars, 12,000 machine-guns, 50 whippet tanks and 3,800 motor vehicles [5]

Don't you think the estimates of ordinace expended is a bit too precise? I mean, lets get real here...

• From Italy: 80,000 men, of whom almost 6,000 belonged to the Italian Air Force, 45,000 to the army and 29,000 to the fascist militia. 1,800 cannon, 1,400 mortars, 3,400 machine-guns, 6,800 motor vehicles, 157 tanks, 213 bombers, 44 assault planes and 414 fighters [6]

Also, no indication that Franco's side had to pay for their arms. It seems pretty clear that most of this aid consisted of simply sending entire, self-supporting military units.

Anyway, I'm not personally going to try to get this all into that article and smooth this out, but someone should. I suspect that we should get back to a briefer dicussion here in the intro and add an entire section comparing the foreign support received by each side. -- Jmabel 21:12, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

I think this would really make the article stronger -A

... and the article

Actually, I think these issues are so troublesome and of difficult independent verification that it would be better not to include them in the article at all. If they are included, they should be mentioned in the very end of the main text, under a new heading called "Foreign participation", never in the introduction.--McCorrection 19:12, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That seems wrong to me. The Germans and Italians unquestionably participated significantly in the war, the same way militaries normally participate in wars. The Soviet (and international communist) role is more complicated, but also major. This foreign involvement was significant to the course of the war and is a large portion of why people around the world still talk so much about this war today. Not to make it a significant piece of the article would be actively misleading. -- Jmabel 21:18, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Jmabel. Perhaps the most familiar thing in the war to most people, due to Picasso's painting, is the bombing of Guernica by Germany. The role of the Soviet Union was paramount. The non-intervention policies had a great impact on the direction of the war. Not to mention the International Brigades, the specific issue of French aid, etc...Definitely not footnotes but rather a key element that should receive a great deal of attention on this page. --Tothebarricades.tk 21:40, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I understand you both; but this is an encyclopedical article, not an academic paper. General details of foreign intervention are already mentioned in the article. Further information would demand a separate article. The edit page already mentions this "WARNING: This page is 30 kilobytes long. Please consider condensing the page and moving the detail to another article so it is not approaching or in excess of 32KB." That means that an extensive explanation of Foreign Intervention in the War would be better explained in a specific article. I think the article is now so good, neutral, and full of indispensable information, that it would be a shame to lengthen just one of its many complex aspects.--McCorrection 11:08, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If we need to cut the article, what should move is the detailed timeline of events (which I added) not the overview information about who the combattants were. -- Jmabel 01:38, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, nothing should be cut. If however the information on foreign involvement in the war should become disproportionately large, it should be moved. As of now, all component parts of the article are proportionately balanced.--McCorrection 14:10, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"inspired by" ?

Recent addition: "Orwell's last two novels, Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four, were largely inspired by what he observed in the war." According to whom? If this doesn't get a citation within 24 hours, I am going to feel free to delete it. -- Jmabel 19:37, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

This has now been expanded on, but still not sourced. I'll give it a little longer, but as it stands it seems to me like speculation presented as fact. -- Jmabel 18:46, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

I changed it to "..Animal Farm was loosely inspired by...". I apologize for putting in "Nineteen Eighty-Four". Although I'm not really sure about the latter, based on several Orwell biographies ("Inside George Orwell" by George Bowker and "Orwell: The Authorized Biography" by Michael Shelden to name a couple), plus from reading various letters in "The Collected Essays, Journalism, and Letters of George Orwell" I'm fairly certain that Animal Farm was loosely inspired by his experiences in the civil war. He first conceived of the novel in 1937, while still fighting. -- Bean 13:58, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

Clearly his experiences in Spain increased his antipathy towards the Soviet Union, but for the most part Animal Farm parallels events in Soviet history. In many cases there are clear references to particular individuals. If there are any specific references to events of the Spanish Civil War, I'm unaware of them. I'm glad to see this toned down. With a specific citation it would certainly be relevant to say he first conceived of the novel in 1937, while still fighting. Again, clearly his sentiments were inspired by events during the war, but that is a long way from saying that the book was so inspired. But I've said my piece, and at least this is now toned down somewhere within the range of the reasonable. I'd still prefer to see a specific citation, but I won't delete the new, less ambitious claim (although I won't complain is someone else does. -- Jmabel 19:42, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

Literature

Could I suggest a Liturature and the Spanish Civil War section? Or perhaps a separate article referenced in the See Also section? The Spanish Civil War has a particularly high profile in literature and resulted in some outstanding writing. Partly, I think, because the rest of Europe and the US were at peace at the time and so could pay attention, and also because the issue of outside support was so important in the conflict itself. Persuading the outside world seemed an important part of winning, I think. I'm imagining a brief intro and then a list of authors with their relevant books listed. Perhaps a brief sentence or two about each author and how or why he or she came to write about the Spanish Civil war. Hemingway, Orwell, Laurie Lee, Arturo Barea, I know there are some poets, etc. etc. If you think it's a good idea and no one else wants to do it, I'll be happy to do the work but I'm really history more than literature. Thoughts? WardHayesWilson 17:44, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Probably worth doing. Since this article is already awfully long, I'd suggest starting a new article. There are also a remarkable number of songs from both sides. Being a lefty myself, I mostly know the one from the Republican side, but the Nationalists also had a lot. If someone wants to start this, I'll gladly give you a "dump" of song titles from both sides, and some (print and maybe online) references. Ping me if you want that. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:19, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Detailed chronology

Please note that the copyright issue discussed here re: material in this article has been resolved, it's OK to use the material. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:33, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Recent additions to the detailed chronology of the first few days of the war seem interesting, but overly minute for this article. I've copy edited them and removed a bit of redundancy, but could we perhaps cut down the content here and spin out another article detailing the first week or two of the rebellion? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:39, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Similar comments about excessive detail for this article apply to the enormous amount added by User:Jugoslaven since my previous remark. Is someone else interested in copy editing? I really don't want to take on this particular massive job. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:24, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

I saw your review about my detailed chronology of Spanish civil war.Yesterday I finished 1936 and in several days I am going to write 1937, then 1938, then 1939.So it is not just about begining of war.I dont think there is need fr another article. (unsigned remark by User:Jugoslaven 26 Dec 04)

The thing is, though, the article is getting too big. We try to keep articles to no more than about 32KB. At some point, there is a danger of losing the forest for the trees.

I suspect that in this case we are going to want to spin out multiple articles and turn this into more of an article series, with the major points of broad interest being in the main article and more of a blow-by-blow in separate articles, maybe one for each year. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:26, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

U work for wikipedia?Who r wikipedia administrators?If wikipedians think that we need to seperate it from Spanish civil war then we should call it Chronology of Spanish civil war (User:Jugoslaven, unsigned)

No one "works for wikipedia". There are a few hundred administrators, I am one of them, but that has no bearing on the matter: this is an editorial decision, not an administrative decision. These decisions are made by an ongoing, loose, consensus approach which is a combination of official policy and precedent. What I'm suggesting draws on a combination of policy (desired length of articles) and precedent (we've usually approached detailed chronologies by breaking them out into shorter articles).

By the way, you are adding a lot of material, but not citing sources. From what I can tell, what you are adding is accurate, but do you have some sources to cite? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:11, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

How can someone became administrator?Is that work getting payed?Nobody citing sources. (unsigned, Jugoslaven again. Please sign with ~~~~: that's how the sigs get here.)

No one on wikipedia is paid. You nominate yourself (or someone nominates you) on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Admins are chosen from people who are generally considered experienced and trusted and to know their way around. The fact that you are asking what an administrator is, etc., means you are a long way from ready. Usually it's after at least a few months of active participation in a broad range of ways.

You are right that this article lacks good citations. That's one of the reasons it is considered a long way from Featured Article status. Nonetheless, most of what has previously been in here is a pretty general outline, relatively easy to confirm from any of a number of sources, and where many of us know from our general knowledge that it is pretty much on the mark. You are adding a level of detail that would be much more difficult to confirm, which is why I am asking for your sources. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:57, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

It looks to me like a lot of what User:Jugoslaven is adding comes from [7] or possibly some equivalent in another language. I haven't looked closely enough to see if this material raises copyright issues, I'd suggest that someone might want to look into it. In any event, if this is the source he/she is using, it should be acknowledged. And if it's not, they I would really like to know what source is being used. This is much more detail than anyone just happens to know off the top of their head. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:37, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

I hate to do this, but I'm reverting these massive edits, because they seem to be copyvios. I'll also leave a note at WP:CP. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:57, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree. Looking through the changes on this revert, it does look like many of the earlier additions are copyvios from the source Jmabel suggests. Some changes have been made, but I can easily find many sentences and phrases that are the same word-for-word (easily verifiable given that they contain the same grammatical errors as the source). Since the source is largely a list of facts, it would be possible to use those facts in a newly written chronology without being a copyvio, but this hasn't been done. -- Solipsist 06:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this detailed chronology is mostly a copyvio. Which is a pity, because the external site seems to have very good material. Somebody wants to try e-mailing the owner of the external site and try asking for permission to re-publish their content under the GFDL? If not, this stuff has to go. A note about rewriting: agreed, but what about the selection of facts they made on the external site? Is that copyrightable? We would need to double-check that info anyway to make sure we'd present a complete chronology. Lupo 07:34, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is a small issue about selection of facts, but it's not like we haven't already done a lot of research elsewhere. I wouldn't use 100% of what they mention (as I was saying even before I discovered it was plagiarism, some of this is over-detailed for the purpose of this article), I'd certainly keep the explicit reference to their site, and I'd try to avoid copying their wordings on what I did use. In short, I'd use them the same way we normally use a source.

I think a lot of information from http://www.lacucaracha.info/scw/diary/ belongs in separate articles, not in this main article on the Spanish Civil War (and, again, with due citation of refrence). That would also solve some of the intellectual property issue about selection, since we would not be bringing it over in one big mass.

In any case, just by linking, we've now given our readers a way to find this very good source, which beats hell out of lifting pieces of it without saying where they are from. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:37, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Jugoslaven contacted me, said he has permission from lacucaracha.info to use this material. Given the above, where he wouldn't initially tell me where the material came from, I can't take that at face value; I've contacted them myself to verify. I'll post their reply here, and if it's a "yes", we can restore the material. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:04, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I finally heard from La Cucaracha. Yes, apparently it's fine for us to pull material from their site (although the webmaster warns us to be careful about taking photos: the rights may not be clear). Here is the email giving permission:

Date: Monday, January 10, 2005 03:08 pm

Subject: lacucaracha.info, Wikipedia

Hello,

my name is Tomas Capdevila, I'm the webmaster of 'lacucaracha.info'. I was asked by 'lukjacov@globalnet.hr' if he can copy text from the web site La Cucaracha The Spanish Civil War into the wikipedia and I agree.

I explicitly allow anyone to copy the text content on La Cucaracha The Spanish Civil War web site and reuse it, unchanged or changed, with or without mentioning the source, partially or as a whole,

with the exception of text being marked as belonging to another author (like quotations) or mirrored web pages.

Please notice that some of the photography's could be copyrighted in your country.

In effect that makes the own text content of the La Cucaracha we site not only copyleft-ed, but public domain.

Said that, I would be flattered if you would use content from the web site in the Wikipedia :-)

...

Thanks for your patience, salud,

Tomas Capdevila

webmaster@lacucaracha.info

So now it's just a matter of copy editing and whether we want to factor some of this out to additional articles. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:33, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Detailed chronology - 2

Now that the legalities are covered...

1. This is massive material. It tends to overwhelm the article, which is now bloated to three times the recommended size of a Wikipedia article. I think we need to summarize here and factor out to separate articles, maybe one for each year.
2. While clearly well researched, the material is quite POV in the selection of what it covers. I'm firmly on the side of the Republic -- one of the first things I ever learned to say in Spanish was "Sueño y una ametralladero y Franco se va paseo, -- but this Wikipedia articles are not the place for partisan polemic. A chronology this detailed should also include the anti-Catholic atrocities by anarchists and other supporters of the Republic. This doesn't.
3. The material is written in indifferent English. Right now, I'm engaged in a copy edit, which is being made difficult by the size of this article and the current miserable state of the servers.
   • Done, probably could be further improved. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:31, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
4. I do not think it is appropriate in Wikipedia to repeatedly refer to the Nationalists as "the Fascists". Would I call them that in my own writing outside Wikipedia? Sure. And someone on the Right would probably use different words than "Republicans", "legitimate government", etc. in his/her own writing. Here, I'd favor "Nationalists" or "Insurgents" almost everywhere that the article currently says "Fascists". Does anyone want to present an argument to the contrary?
   • Done, at least to my own satisfaction. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:31, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm trying to clean this all up. Suggestions are welcome. So is help. I'm not sure how much time I'll have for this -- it's not my main focus within Wikipedia, and I suspect that (for entirely good reasons) I may soon have a lot less time for Wikipedia than I've lately had. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:25, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

I just came here following links and had the same thought. Breaking up by years might not be the best way, perhaps by campaigns, but any split is better than nothing. Put one short section for each page of separate material. Warsaw Uprising shows an example of the benefits of splitting. Mozzerati 23:07, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

Well, OK, but that would be about 10 times as much work. Are you willing to do it? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:12, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

well, I'm prepared to break this article up. I have extremely limited knowledge about the article, but my past experience shows that this still helps. If I do it wrong, it can later be fixed more easily. However, I'd really appreciate if someone who does know could point out some important break points.

• at what point did Franco stop being seriously threatened?
• at what point did Franco start to look like he was winning?
• were there any key points which started the human rights abuses?
• what other turning points where there?

Also, the issue of POV slant needs a lot of work, probably by someone on the political right (because the current dominant POV is clearly pretty far left. For example, one of the few cases in which Nationalists systematically killed nuns is mentioned while the far greater violence against nuns and priests by anarchists and Republicans is not detailed. I am opposed to sweeping inconvenient facts under the carpet, but it's not material I know enough about to make the appropriate additions. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:12, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

right now the article is too long and broad. By having more focused articles, POV and missing points will become clearer. This will allow others who know about specific topics to make fixes. Thus, if we have an article on "Massacres of civilians during the Spanish civil war", any missing massacre will be more obvious. My plan for now, merely moving the cronology out to a few separate articles, will make the topics of the main article more easy to identify... Oh, and finally the guy underneath asking for help might be able to edit and fix everything :-) Mozzerati 20:45, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

Great, if you want to take primary responsibility for breaking it up, I'm all for that. Feel free to ask for my help where I might be useful, and I'll probably keep doing some polishing on this. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:22, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

So, nobody has commented on my questions about the break, so on the principle of be bold we just read through the Cronology and make a proposal. The Cronology is about 70k, further it's still to be completed at the end. Thus I propose breaking into three separate pages. Basically, the lead up to the war, the outbreak and everything up to August 1st, the point where the non-intervention committee is formed. Next, everything from there until just before the Start of the Battle of Teruel. and finally from the Battle of Teruel, where republican spain is split in two until the end. This will leave a bit of room for expansion, especially in the last section which doesn't seem to be complete yet. Any comments??Mozzerati 10:21, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)

No real objection, but your first one is going to be pretty tiny, and your second one is going to be enormous. The third is basically still to be filled in. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:52, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but my thinking is that the middle one can be split again later, that many cronologies actually start before the war, so the first one will probably be extended back in time, and that this already should make three pages each < 32k. Mozzerati 07:26, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

Okay, I've now done it, but with a more normal year by year split; I decided that this makes reasonable sense. Still the middle page is >32k, but since it's a kind of list that's more okay than for a normal page. I also made a navigation box which can be extended as more articles get split off. Mozzerati 22:20, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)

How you can help

Help!. My browser, or my web connection, or something, seems incapable of editing this massive article. Apparently the problem is not universal, because yesterday User:Amgine successfully restored it after my attempts at editing were doing nothing but damage.

Anyway, I've written up a copy-edited version of Spanish Civil War#Detailed chronology: 1936 at Talk:Spanish Civil War/Staged. It doesn't address all of the issues I mention above. It just improves the English and moves around a little material that was not in appropriate chronological sequence. If someone will stage that to the appropriate section of the article and let me know by replying here, I will go on to do the same for "Detailed chronology: 1937", etc.

Thanks in advance for the assistance-- Jmabel | Talk 01:14, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Done. TNX! -- Jmabel | Talk 02:02, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

A further related point

While La Cucaracha's research seems generally good, this incredibly detailed account lacks any citations beyond La Cucaracha's site. It would be very difficult to verify any particular detail in this account. There is a massive research project here for someone interested in providing appropriate citations for the claims made here. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:01, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

"Attributions"

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

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

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

SIM

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

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

Narrative peters out

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

VI Brigade of Navarre

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

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

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

"communist synchronizing"

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

Nationalist and Republican articles

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

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

Margaritas

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

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

Lead section

The lead section as it stands is simply too long—I don't see anyone really addressing this, so I will here. Wikipedia:Lead section advises no more than two or three paragraphs; let's cut out some of the less important parts of the lead and come to a consensus on what it should look like here.

Some of the information currently presented in the lead do not, in my view, provide "a definition or clear description of the subject at hand," as the policy page suggests. In particular, some of the discussion in the first paragraph is badly placed, since the reader (we presume) knows nothing about the subject yet. I have now replaced the lead with the following (please leave your comments on this, as I think it could be factored down even more):

The Spanish Civil War (July 1936–April 1939) was a conflict between incumbent Spanish Republicans and emergent Spanish fascists in which General Francisco Franco succeeded in overthrowing the Republican government and establishing a dictatorship, the result of the complex political and even cultural differences between what Machado famously characterized as the two Spains. "Red" Spain represented liberals and moderates, who subscribed to democratic principles, 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. These two factions had become increasingly radicalised during the Second Spanish Republic (1934–1939). The Republicans had a primarily urban, largely secular power base, while some other, more rural regions, also supported them. Particularly strong support for the Repubilcans came from Madrid, Catalonia and the somewhat conservative Roman Catholic Basque Country, partly because these regions were granted a strong autonomy during the Second Republic. The ultimately successful Nationalists, led by Franco, had a primarily rural, religious and conservative power base in favor of the centralization of power. The military tactics of the war foreshadowed many of the actions of World War II.

While the war only lasted about three years, the political situation had already been violent for several years before. The number of casualties is disputed; estimates generally suggest that between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people were killed. Many of these deaths, however, were results not of military fighting but the outcome of brutal mass executions perpetrated by both sides. In the wake of the war, Franco's regime initiated a thorough cleansing of Spanish society of anything "red" or related to the Second Republic, including trade unions and political parties. Archives were seized, house searches were carried out, and unwanted individuals were often jailed or sent into exile. Many were either killed or forced into exile; thousands of priests and religious people (including several bishops) were killed; the more military-inclined often found fame and fortune.

Following the war, the Spanish economy needed decades to recover (see Spanish miracle). The political and emotional repercussions of the war reverberated far beyond the boundaries of Spain and sparked passion among international intellectual and political communities. Republican sympathizers proclaimed it as a struggle between "tyranny and democracy", or "fascism and liberty", and many idealistic youths of the 1930s who joined the International Brigades thought saving the Spanish Republic was the idealistic cause of the era. Franco's supporters, however, viewed it as a battle between the "red hordes" (of communism and anarchism) and "civilization". But these dichotomies were inevitably oversimplifications: both sides had varied, and often conflicting, ideologies within their ranks.

(unsigned comment by User:DanielNuyu 17 Apr 2005)

The two spains bit seems awkward. -A

A Coruña

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

"League of Nations Non Intervention Committee"

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

British government's opinion

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

minor edit 'The war: 1938'

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

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

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

Recent changes in lead paragraph

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

Old version:

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

Miguelin's version;

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

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

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

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

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

Black

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

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

Please, don't delete this phrase

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Soviet "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 [8], 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 [9]."

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 [10] (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)

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 [11]
• The nationalist decree (1/IX/36) restoring him, at [12]
• The nationalist decree destituting him again, but "only" as rector (22/X/36) at [13].--Wllacer 13:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Online Legislative Database

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

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

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

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

Juan March Ordinas

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

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

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

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

Commies couldn't beat a bunch of Fascists?

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

En el frente de Jarama

No tenemos aviones,

Ni tanques, ni canones.

-- "Quince Brigada"

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

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

[14]

SReynhout 21:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Murder of Calvo Sotelo

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

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

This isn't a proof that the government ordered the killing. According to encarta[15] "on July 12 three Falangists murdered Lieutenant José Castillo, a pro-republican officer in the Assault Guards, a government paramilitary group. Later that night, in the early hours of July 13th, Assault Guards in uniform went to the home of José Calvo Sotelo, an anti-republican leader of an Alfonsine monarchist group. They murdered him in a police truck and dumped his body at a nearby cemetery." I didn't found any sources that confirms that the killing was ordered by the government, and according to some other web pages, one third of the assault guards later joined the Nationalists. GhePeU 18:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The main source for the events of that night (the "Causa General"), although hardly explicitly cited is resumed in [16] (you can leave the evident statements of intention, which includes the blame on the government, and stick to the factual). Calvo Sotelo's killing is suspicious by all means.

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

See also

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citations messed up?

copied from Talk:Spanish Civil War/to do:

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

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

Balance

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

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

Associated with...?

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

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

why do people sympatize with the communists?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a couple of assorted links I just recently read, and which might be of interest in this context [17] gives a glimse about the political spirit in Spain already in 1934, and [18] (may need registration), an online copy of Daniel Kovalsky's book "Stalin and the Spanish Civil War". The book in itself is highly interesting read, but related in this thread, look at part III, which deals extensively with soviet propaganda activity before the war.

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

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

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

Robert Capa photo

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

anti-clerical violence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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