StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Okay, I mean really significant implications, but the system wouldn't let me post that long a title. When I once mentioned that I found the current Spanish "obsession" with their Civil War history (as you see it included in plots for movies, novels, TV series, etc) a tad excessive, someone replied in kind of a "are you kidding?" tone. When asked about the historical trascendence of the Spanish Civil War, all I got was something in the style of "You must be stupid, the Civil War had tons of very important implications in world history", but nothing more specific than that. As I perceived this to be a rather sensitive topic for the person (who had spent a semester studying in Spain and thus might have acquired a certain sympathy for the Spanish and their history), I decided to drop it, but I was left still curious.

So far I've only been able to come up with these candidates:

- Nazi Germany gets a splendid opportunity to test their newly reconstructed Luftwaffe, specifically infamous Condor Legion), which are considered main contributors to the development of terror bombing, a method that would be used again during the Second World War, though some authors say it proved ineffective and was abandoned by the Luftwaffe.

- International involvement: Mostly idealistic, poorly-trained volunteers from many countries, who would form the International Brigade. The Soviet Union reportedly provided only organisational assistance in the form of advisers and technicians. On the Nationalists' side, the Germans, of course, provided a well trained corps of airmen and "volunteers", the Condor Legion, we know that; and "the Italian Corpo Truppe Volontarie reached a high of about 50,000 men and, by rotation, more than 75,000 Italians were to fight for the Nationalists in Spain. In total fascist Italy provided Nationalists with 660 planes, 150 tanks and 1,000 artillery pieces" (Wiki).

- Casualties: it was thought to have been around 500,000, but official figures now put it around one million (historylearningsite.co.uk)

- Lots of Republican Spanish intellectuals migrate or are relocated to other countries, especially but not exclusively Mexico. In exile, many of these artists, philosophers, writers, physicians and others enrich the cultural life of the countries they were relocated to. Many Nationalist personages were also relocated to other countries, I must say I know not whether they did anything really important.

- Orphaned children from both Nationalist and Republican families are also relocated to other countries (see the Children of Morelia).

- Probably the most important implication, IMHO: The bombing of Guernica. I think the following excerpt sums it up quite nicely:

"The war also witnessed the first ever deliberate aerial bombing of a city. On April 27th 1937, the ancient city of the Basques – Guernica – was bombed and destroyed by the Condor Legion of Germany. For Hitler it was a useful experiment into the value of bombing civilian targets. For the Nationalists, it took out a city of spiritual importance for the Basques. For Europe, the warning posed by this bombing was obvious. Hence the attempts by Chamberlain and Daladier to create a formula for Europe to avoid any chance of a repetition of Guernica. Aerial bombing and its consequences were to terrify western Europe." (emphasis mine, source).

Of course, from the sources, one is Wiki and the other is an amateurish kind of history site, but nonetheless, I think the points stand, though.

And the question still is: was the Spanish Civil War all that relevant to world history, compared to things like, say, the invasion of Poland, the battle of the Thermopylae, Waterloo, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the battle of Hastings, etc? Those are the things I consider to have "tons of very important implications in world history".

Akkleptos wrote:And the question still is: was the Spanish Civil War all that relevant to world history, compared to things like, say, the invasion of Poland, the battle of the Thermopylae, Waterloo, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the battle of Hastings, etc? Those are the things I consider to have "tons of very important implications in world history".

Short answer? Nope. Overall, Spain was simply too unimportant for internal strife to seriously impact the wider world.

Of course, that's not to say that the civil war wasn't a humongously important event for Spain: country devastated, hundreds of thousands killed, three decades of Franco, etc. It really should come as no surprise that Spaniards would preoccupy themselves with the war.

The Spanish War was certainly more important than Hastings, where one faction descended from Vikings defeated another faction descended from Vikings. It was also more important than Thermopylae, no matter how loudly aficionados of violent gay porn squeal about Gerard Butler's six-pack. Waterloo is also overrated since Bonaparte's goose had long since been cooked.

The war in Spain was very much like the killing of Archduke Ferdinand in that it kicked off a world war in Europe. World War Two in Europe began in Spain, not Poland. Which is ironic since France and Britain could have easily defeated Mussolini and Hitler in Spain in 1936, but there was very little they did (or could do) to help Poland in 1939.

The real problem was that the British government (and to a lesser extent the French and Americans and everyone else) preferred a fascist takeover by force to legitimate rule by the duly elected government. They were also quite pleased to throw another left-of-center government under the bus in Czechoslovakia. This trend continued for decades after the war, especially with the US where it's standard operating procedure to this day.

Akkleptos wrote:I found the current Spanish "obsession" with their Civil War history (as you see it included in plots for movies, novels, TV series, etc) a tad excessive

Would you consider the American obsession with their civil war to be excessive? It's an integral part of Spanish culture, and more importantly, it is pretty darn recent. People that lived through it are still alive, and in parts of the country there are still grudges being held about it, not to mention the sociopolitical fallout we're still experiencig. So, not so different from North/South rivalries in the US, but originated in an event that happened less than a century ago.

If such obsession was shown by non-spanish media, though, then I would understand your puzzlement, but if you're wondering why the Spanish people care about their own history, then you just sound like an idiot.

Here is a pretty good overview of the war and its implications.

The USSR disbanded its all its mechanized corps in response to poor experienced with massed tanks in Spain. The damage was already done when the Nazis rolled over Poland, so Barbarossa found the Soviets rushing to put large armored units back together. None were ready at the time. If not for Spain they would have had dozens of them.

Sea Skimmer wrote:The USSR disbanded its all its mechanized corps in response to poor experienced with massed tanks in Spain. The damage was already done when the Nazis rolled over Poland, so Barbarossa found the Soviets rushing to put large armored units back together. None were ready at the time. If not for Spain they would have had dozens of them.

As I understand it, after the failure of a massed tank attack by the Italians during the war, the French and the Germans took away completely different lessons. The French thought that massed tank attacks were ineffective and the Germans simply assumed that the Italians were incompetent.

Presuming Italian incompetence sounds like it was the better judgement.

Sea Skimmer wrote:The USSR disbanded its all its mechanized corps in response to poor experienced with massed tanks in Spain. The damage was already done when the Nazis rolled over Poland, so Barbarossa found the Soviets rushing to put large armored units back together. None were ready at the time. If not for Spain they would have had dozens of them.

The Mechanized Corps of 1941 weren't all not ready, though most were under-complect (but it was a common illness of the Soviet Army back in the day). That aside, 1941' Mech Corps were still remarkably crappy organized.

Despite being Spanish I'm not too much into that part of history, and besides, there's quite a bit of misinformation going on about that time, but I'd guess that being in a post-war situation would have been a factor (among others) in Franco's decision to stay out of WW2 (save for some token support, I think).

How does modern Spain view each of the sides that fought in the civil war ?

It is quite complicated.

The politically correct version is that Franco's side were the bad guys, him being an evil dictatortm and all.

But then, they won, so the indoctrination from his regime has resulted in a sizeable portion of the population yearning for the safe good old days of his rule, even younger generations that never experienced it and don't understand anything about it. Anti-communist indoctrination and religion plays a big part here.

You also have those who were (or felt) victimized by the Republicans, and as such still hold a grudge and align themselves mentally with their natural opposite.

Then of course you have the people who were on his side even from before the war, who remaing largerly unchanged today: The political right (Like the Partido Popular, wich is one of the two main political forces) and the higher classes. Heck, some of Franco's ministers are still active.

So, in general, it is similar to the situation in the US with their own civil war, people keep grudges, and education has been used to indoctrinate those who didn't.


Then again, I'm no expert on this, and it is true that Spanish people are a bit obsessed with the subject, I'm a bit atypical in that my upbringing was partly done abroad, so I haven't soaked up so much of that culture.

What about those who committed war crimes/post war crimes - the so called Red and White Terror? Was there ever a tribunal set up to prosecute those? The only thing I could find was an investigation started in 2008, which I find surprisingly late. I would have imagined that something would have been initiated years ago.
*adds the Spanish Civil War to his reading list*

Again, not an expert, but whenever anything is brought up for investigation, supporters rush out at the tune of "let the past rest in peace" to stall investigations. It's really funny at times to see them try to support these stall actions without outright saying they support Franco.

As for investigations on war crimes commited by the Republicans, either they were sorted out during Franco's regime, or they don't get that much attention, but I guess they'd kick up a shitstorm too.

Twigler wrote:What about those who committed war crimes/post war crimes - the so called Red and White Terror? Was there ever a tribunal set up to prosecute those? The only thing I could find was an investigation started in 2008, which I find surprisingly late. I would have imagined that something would have been initiated years ago.
*adds the Spanish Civil War to his reading list*

The parties involved in the Red Terror events that weren't killed during the war and didn't manage to flee abroad, were prosecuted (along with most active supporters of the Republican government) during the early years of the Francoist dictatorship. There were a great many executions, sentences to forced labour and such, since general Franco decided to use a particularly intense form of repression as the state policy of choice to ensure the removal of any possibility of left-forces pulling a successful coup from the inside. One of the last living left leaders who had a position of some responsability during the war is Santiago Carrillo, who was the head of the Unified Socialist Youth and is said to have been involved in some capacity in the mass execution of civilian prisoners by communist troops during the war (Matanza de Paracuellos). Though evidence of communist involvement in the episode is rock solid, proof of his personal participation has proven considerably more elusive.

In any case, the people behind the "White Terror" (first time I hear the term) were never tried by courts of law. The Spanish transition from dictatorship to democracy was a political reform from inside the Francoist regime after the dictator's death and this was only allowed upon the tacit understanding that important figures of the right who had dark episodes in their background (and enjoyed positions of great influence and power back in 1975) would be allowed to go unpunished. One of the clearest examples would be Ramon Serrano Suñer, Franco's brother in law and the most vocal supporter of joining the Axis in WWII, who was never touched by the courts of justice despite having been involved up to his eyebrows in the creation of the whole repression machinery thing. He died quite wealthy and almost completely ignored by the public eye in 2003, at the ripe old age of 102.

Murazor wrote:The Spanish transition from dictatorship to democracy was a political reform from inside the Francoist regime after the dictator's death and this was only allowed upon the tacit understanding that important figures of the right who had dark episodes in their background (and enjoyed positions of great influence and power back in 1975) would be allowed to go unpunished.

This little number is more often than not pulled during and after democratic transitions from former dictatorships. It's why it's so difficult for law enforcement agencies in countries where this happens to objectively deal with people who in any other countries and circumstances would be simply regarded as war criminals, or just plain criminals, corrupt officials, torturers, murderers, etc. Excellent examples of this are, alongside Spain; Argentina and Chile.

The Spanish War was certainly more important than Hastings, where one faction descended from Vikings defeated another faction descended from Vikings.

This oversimplification of a war that defined the future history of Britain is idiotic.

The war in Spain was very much like the killing of Archduke Ferdinand in that it kicked off a world war in Europe. World War Two in Europe began in Spain, not Poland. Which is ironic since France and Britain could have easily defeated Mussolini and Hitler in Spain in 1936, but there was very little they did (or could do) to help Poland in 1939.

The real problem was that the British government (and to a lesser extent the French and Americans and everyone else) preferred a fascist takeover by force to legitimate rule by the duly elected government.

I can almost hear someone go: "You will of course provide evidence for these claims".

Akkleptos wrote:

The war in Spain was very much like the killing of Archduke Ferdinand in that it kicked off a world war in Europe. World War Two in Europe began in Spain, not Poland. Which is ironic since France and Britain could have easily defeated Mussolini and Hitler in Spain in 1936, but there was very little they did (or could do) to help Poland in 1939.

The real problem was that the British government (and to a lesser extent the French and Americans and everyone else) preferred a fascist takeover by force to legitimate rule by the duly elected government.

I can almost hear someone go: "You will of course provide evidence for these claims".

Although I wouldn't go so far as to claim that the Spanish Civil War is equivalent to the murder of Ferdinand of Austria, the second claim (British preference for a Nationalist/Conservative victory in the civil war) is largely correct. This is pretty much the reason that made the British pressure the French to stop the initial supplies of weaponry they had negotiated with the Republic, before Franco's pals had secured German and Italian help. Among many other works, this is explored in some detail in Hugh Thomas' The Spanish Civil War.

Ah, Mr. Thomas' nice, thick book. I regarded it as somewhat Thucydidean in its scope and enjoyed it thoroughly. It avoided, to my view and memory, cheap villification of either side in favor of stating facts and occurrences, and letting the reader draw their own conclusion.

Akkleptos wrote:

The Spanish War was certainly more important than Hastings, where one faction descended from Vikings defeated another faction descended from Vikings.

This oversimplification of a war that defined the future history of Britain is idiotic.

Please take notice of the part I bolded for you. Did the Norman Conquest affect anyone outside of the British Isles? Not really. Its effect on England itself is also overrated. With the exception of Anglo-Saxon-Danish nobles being replaced by Norman ones, the country was for the most part governed as before, just as when the Danes took over. William even made it a point to keep the Anglo-Saxon machinery of state intact. This really affected other parts of the world.

The war in Spain was very much like the killing of Archduke Ferdinand in that it kicked off a world war in Europe. World War Two in Europe began in Spain, not Poland. Which is ironic since France and Britain could have easily defeated Mussolini and Hitler in Spain in 1936, but there was very little they did (or could do) to help Poland in 1939.

The real problem was that the British government (and to a lesser extent the French and Americans and everyone else) preferred a fascist takeover by force to legitimate rule by the duly elected government.

I can almost hear someone go: "You will of course provide evidence for these claims".

Number of Europeans bombed by Hitler's Luftwaffe or Mussolini's Regia Aeronautica before the war in Spain: Zero.

Number of Europeans shot or shelled by the Wehrmacht or Italian Army before the Spanish Civil War: Zero.

Number of European ships sunk by the German and Italian navies before Spain: Zero.

Number of European countries invaded by Hitler or Mussolini before Spain:



Zero... point... ZERO!

Murazor wrote:Although I wouldn't go so far as to claim that the Spanish Civil War is equivalent to the murder of Ferdinand of Austria, the second claim (British preference for a Nationalist/Conservative victory in the civil war) is largely correct. This is pretty much the reason that made the British pressure the French to stop the initial supplies of weaponry they had negotiated with the Republic, before Franco's pals had secured German and Italian help. Among many other works, this is explored in some detail in Hugh Thomas' The Spanish Civil War.

This article by George Orwell explains the backstabbing rather well.

Money quotes:

The most baffling thing in the Spanish war was the behaviour of the great
powers. The war was actually won for Franco by the Germans and Italians,
whose motives were obvious enough. The motives of France and Britain are
less easy to understand. In 1936 it was clear to everyone that if Britain
would only help the Spanish Government, even to the extent of a few
million pounds' worth of arms, Franco would collapse and German strategy
would be severely dislocated. By that time one did not need to be a
clairvoyant to foresee that war between Britain and Germany was coming;
one could even foretell within a year or two when it would come. Yet in
the most mean, cowardly, hypocritical way the British ruling class did
all they could to hand Spain over to Franco and the Nazis. Why? Because
they were pro-Fascist, was the obvious answer. Undoubtedly they were, and
yet when it came to the final showdown they chose to Stand up to Germany.
It is still very uncertain what plan they acted on in backing Franco, and
they may have had no clear plan at all. Whether the British ruling class
are wicked or merely stupid is one of the most difficult questions of our
time, and at certain moments a very important question. As to the
Russians, their motives in the Spanish war are completely inscrutable.
Did they, as the pinks believed, intervene in Spain in order to defend
Democracy and thwart the Nazis? Then why did they intervene on such a
niggardly scale and finally leave Spain in the lurch? Or did they, as the
Catholics maintained, intervene in order to foster revolution in Spain?
Then why did they do all in their power to crush the Spanish
revolutionary movements, defend private property and hand power to the
middle class as against the working class? Or did they, as the
Trotskyists suggested, intervene simply in order to PREVENT a Spanish
revolution? Then why not have backed Franco? Indeed, their actions are
most easily explained if one assumes that they were acting on several
contradictory motives. I believe that in the future we shall come to feel
that Stalin's foreign policy, instead of being so diabolically clever as
it is claimed to be, has been merely opportunistic and stupid. But at any
rate, the Spanish civil war demonstrated that the Nazis knew what they
were doing and their opponents did not. The war was fought at a low
technical level and its major strategy was very simple. That side which
had arms would win. The Nazis and the Italians gave arms to the Spanish
Fascist friends, and the western democracies and the Russians didn't give
arms to those who should have been their friends. So the Spanish Republic
perished, having' gained what no republic missed'.

When one thinks of all the people who support or have supported Fascism,
one stands amazed at their diversity. What a crew! Think of a programme
which at any rate for a while could bring Hitler, Petain, Montagu Norman,
Pavelitch, William Randolph Hearst, Streicher, Buchman, Ezra Pound, Juan
March, Cocteau, Thyssen, Father Coughlin, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Arnold
Lunn, Antonescu, Spengler, Beverley Nichols, Lady Houston, and Marinetti
all into the same boat! But the clue is really very simple. They are all
people with something to lose, or people who long for a hierarchical
society and dread the prospect of a world of free and equal human beings.
Behind all the ballyhoo that is talked about 'godless' Russia and the
'materialism' of the working class lies the simple intention of those
with money or privileges to cling to them. Ditto, though it contains a
partial truth, with all the talk about the worthlessness of social
reconstruction not accompanied by a 'change of heart'. The pious ones,
from the Pope to the yogis of California, are great on the' change of
heart', much more reassuring from their point of view than a change in
the economic system. Petain attributes the fall of France to the common
people's 'love of pleasure'. One sees this in its right perspective if
one stops to wonder how much pleasure the ordinary French peasant's or
working-man's life would contain compared with Pétain's own. The damned
impertinence of these politicians, priests, literary men, and what-not
who lecture the working-class socialist for his 'materialism'!

Elfdart wrote:Number of Europeans bombed by Hitler's Luftwaffe or Mussolini's Regia Aeronautica before the war in Spain: Zero.

Number of Europeans shot or shelled by the Wehrmacht or Italian Army before the Spanish Civil War: Zero.

Number of European ships sunk by the German and Italian navies before Spain: Zero.

Number of European countries invaded by Hitler or Mussolini before Spain:



Zero... point... ZERO!

Which proves what, exactly?

Britain and France went to war because of Germany's territorial ambitions in Central Europe; those territorial ambitions were driven by the racial ideology of Hitler and his belief in destiny in the East and the inevitability of conflict with the Soviet Union. None of those were really affected by the war in Spain - as Shirer pointed out in the '60s, this broad change of events was outlined by Hitler in Mein Kampf and he basically stuck to it, suggesting Spain didn't really embolden or radicalise his foreign policy in any way; and I would think the evidence points to Munich and the annexation of Czechoslovakia as being the impetus for Britain and France's turn toward war.

You're welcome to prove otherwise but simply saying 'lol they bombed people' isn't really an argument.

thejester wrote:Which proves what, exactly?

When the war in Europe began.

Britain and France went to war because of Germany's territorial ambitions in Central Europe; those territorial ambitions were driven by the racial ideology of Hitler and his belief in destiny in the East and the inevitability of conflict with the Soviet Union. None of those were really affected by the war in Spain - as Shirer pointed out in the '60s, this broad change of events was outlined by Hitler in Mein Kampf and he basically stuck to it, suggesting Spain didn't really embolden or radicalise his foreign policy in any way; and I would think the evidence points to Munich and the annexation of Czechoslovakia as being the impetus for Britain and France's turn toward war.

You're welcome to prove otherwise but simply saying 'lol they bombed people' isn't really an argument.

Call me old-fashioned; call me pedantic, but I was under the impression that a war begins when the shooting starts, and doesn't end until it stops. As far as Europe is concerned, the war started in 1936 -just as the war in Asia began in 1937 when Japan invaded China (though you could make a case for it beginning in 1931). The fact that some countries joined the war later than others doesn't mean the war wasn't already under way.

thejester wrote:I would think the evidence points to Munich and the annexation of Czechoslovakia as being the impetus for Britain and France's turn toward war

Why? Munich has shown that, at least from a political perspective, France and Britain don't care for Eastern Europe; at least not to the extent they'd be willing to risk their own soldiers in such a fight.

In 1939, Britain and France once again demonstrated that they don't care about facist triumph in Spain (neither elsewhere in Eastern Europe which was turned fascist quite easily); and all this, quite certainly, also bolstered Hitler's attitudes that landgrabs and fascist takeovers will not provoke a reaction.

In fact, nothing at all before 1939 suggested that France and Britain would act against Hitler, in a turn of their previous complete ignorance of his expansion and fascist expansion in general.

Elfdart wrote:Call me old-fashioned; call me pedantic, but I was under the impression that a war begins when the shooting starts, and doesn't end until it stops. As far as Europe is concerned, the war started in 1936 -just as the war in Asia began in 1937 when Japan invaded China (though you could make a case for it beginning in 1931). The fact that some countries joined the war later than others doesn't mean the war wasn't already under way.

Yeah, nah. Italy, Germany and the Soviet Union fighting a proxy war in Spain, which then remained neutral throughout WW2, was not the start of the shooting.

Stas Bush wrote:In fact, nothing at all before 1939 suggested that France and Britain would act against Hitler, in a turn of their previous complete ignorance of his expansion and fascist expansion in general.

Isn't that the point? After 1933 Hitler spat in the face of Versailles - open rearmament, militarization of the Rhineland, the union with Austria etc. The French and British reaction was weak and in pretty sharp contrast to the occupation of the Rhineland in the '20s. In that context I fail to see how the fascists winning in Spain would have been important in the foreign policy thinking of Germany, Britain or France. You or Elfdart are welcome to prove otherwise but all the literature I've read doesn't see Spain as being terribly important.

thejester wrote:

Stas Bush wrote:In fact, nothing at all before 1939 suggested that France and Britain would act against Hitler, in a turn of their previous complete ignorance of his expansion and fascist expansion in general.

Isn't that the point? After 1933 Hitler spat in the face of Versailles - open rearmament, militarization of the Rhineland, the union with Austria etc. The French and British reaction was weak and in pretty sharp contrast to the occupation of the Rhineland in the '20s. In that context I fail to see how the fascists winning in Spain would have been important in the foreign policy thinking of Germany, Britain or France. You or Elfdart are welcome to prove otherwise but all the literature I've read doesn't see Spain as being terribly important.

Wait, wait, wait."Spitting in the face of Versailles" and fascist expansion by military means are diffrerent things. Spain and Czechoslovakia would be the main points where Hitler utilized military force, with success, and without consequences from Britain and France. Certainly, both Czechoslovakia and Spain and the behaviour of Western powers impacted Hitler's thinking.

I wouldn't just reject Spain as "unimportant" - it's one of the cases of fascist expansion with openly military means (the annexation of Austria was not a military operation).