Talk:Spanish Civil War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Spanish Civil War has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
To-do list for Spanish Civil War: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • article is too long: possibly 'people' and 'Political parties and organisations' should be moved to subarticles
  • The information anti-clerical violence comes from an unreliable source. Moreover, although Loyalist atrocities are mentioned in the very first paragraph, Rebel atrocities are not. This must be fixed urgently. BillMasen 16:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree with Bill Masen's assertion that the murder of clergy comes from an unreliable source; Dr. Carroll's book as well as the Spanish sources it is based on were meticulously researched (the number definitively proven from 1961, not "the year after his book was published" as Mr. Masen states below). Just because someone has a different view on religion than you does not automatically strip him of his very sound credentials as a respected historian. It should be noted that most of these murders occurred prior to the Nationalist uprising, and indeed the uprising in large part was a response to it.
  • 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.

[EDIT] The above comment must be taken into deeper consideration. A speech is a speech, and as no other data gives a statistic, that will suffice. Also, that comment may be slightly Americanized. The man said what he said, but there was a lot of truth to some of his speeches, despite the pro-terror talk. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.37.237.151 (talk • contribs) 11 December 2006.
  • The assertion that "the spanish government's gold reserves were transferred to Britain" is at best misleading, at worst just plain wrong. Certainly it is known that most of the Republican government's gold reserves were transferred to the USSR. I have not ever heard any mention of gold being transferred to Britain (does anyone have a reference?) but certainly I know that the substantial proportion went to the USSR. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.151.229.84 (talk • contribs) May 3, 2006.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Spanish Civil War as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Esperanto language Wikipedia.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Spanish Civil War as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Hebrew language Wikipedia.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Spanish Civil War as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Spanish language Wikipedia.
Article Improvement Drive Spanish Civil War was the Article Improvement Drive for the week starting on 10 April 2005.

For more details, see the Article Improvement Drive history.
A Wikipedian removed Spanish Civil War from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.

Removal date: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{DelistedGA|insert date in any format here}}

Contents

[edit] Spanish Civil War removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

Spanish Civil War (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because Biased in places,inaccurate in places, messy, badly written, incomplete.

[edit] Archives

[edit] "inspired by" ?

This section spared from archiving 06:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC) , because it has had activity in the last month.

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)

Orwell wrote "homage to Catilonia" about his views and actions as a member of the international brigade in the spanish civil war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.96.26 (talk • contribs) 9 November 2006.

It's "Homage to Catalonia", and he fought with the POUM, not the International Brigades. But what does that demonstrate about there being references to this rather thatn to the USSR in Animal Farm. - Jmabel | Talk 06:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section

This section spared from archiving 06:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC), because it has had activity in the last month.

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

I've attempted to make the lead more approachable by cutting it to one sentence, without deleting any content. Hope it improves things. Notinasnaid 08:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I won't dispute that the previous lead needed some judicious trimming, but I think we've gone a bit too far by leaving just a single sentence. I know you didn't remove any material (just added section headings), but, still, a war of this complexity and importance being discussed in an article of this length needs a more detailed lead. Right now, the structure is out of balance. Let's see if we can find a workable middle-ground. Dasondas 08:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Good to see some debate on the subject. I do not intend to write any content, but I too feel that the remaining lead is too short. HOWEVER, I don't think that moving stuff back from below the new subhead is the answer, because this goes into huge (and important) detail about the two sides. What I would expect to see in the lead is a sentence about its historical context, a sentence about its lasting effect, and a sentence about the controversy of its conduct. A note on casualties (I don't feel that infoboxes should supplant content). If merited, a sentence about the unusual nature of the international response. All, of course, simply precis of what follows rather than any new content (yes I realise that a precis of such a subject is not a trivial task). Reference to Wikipedia:Lead section may be useful in settling disputes. Above all " The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, should be written in a clear and accessible style, [should be carefully sourced like the rest of the text,] and should encourage the reader to read more." It certainly wasn't that, and didn't do that. Notinasnaid 08:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. As of this post I haven't thoroughly scrubbed the stuff below the sub-header to say that **none** of it could me moved back up, but your points are very well taken and there is no doubt that important summary information about historical context and long-range effects (both within Spain and internationally) were sorely lacking from the lead. Dasondas 12:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "On all sides, brutality was common."

Oh yeah, i remember the good old days where wars were carried on with pepper sprays. are coments like "On all sides, brutality was common." really necessary? do they really improve objectivity?

Well, considering that each side accuses the other of commiting atrocities, seems a needed starting point towards NPOV. Richy 11:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Athough brutality is common at any war in this case this sentence is particularly justified, because the Spanish Civil War was the unique in this sense that more people died during executions (performed by both sides) that at the frontlines. Jasra 22:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep the comment. As long as some people want to keep portraying this as 'bad guys' vs. 'good guys', 'evil soldiers' vs. 'innocents', the fact that this was a civil war, with armies, guns, tanks, airplanes, bombings and deaths on both sides, the point needs to be made over and over, unfortunately... Jope 19:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because Biased in places,inaccurate in places, messy, badly written, incomplete.I've started improving it but much more work is needed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Salvador Allende (talk • contribs).

[edit] Little flags

I miss among the little flags of the infobox, the ikurriña and the senyera. I remember having seen the ikurriña at least along the leftist flags in some republican poster about unity. Any reason not to include them? --Error 18:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There's apparently been a trend against including flags in these boxes. I'm neutral on this. - Jmabel | Talk 05:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, the whole combatant box is chaotic, mixing foreing involvment -incomplete (where are Portugal and the Irish Volunteers ?)-, and some political parties and unions (why are PSOE and PCE not present, and the POUM is?...). Error's proposal would only aggravate the problem. Before adding eye-candy, why not better agree in what should really come into the box ?
Anyhow, i would not recommend to include the regional governments flags, as it could obscure --Wllacer 23:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)the fact that it was an ideological and not a territorial civil war Wllacer 07:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Didn't at least the Euzko Gudarostea (including Socialists and PNVers) operate fairly independently of other Republican troops? Not that I have an opinion on combatant boxes, but if we have it, we should have it right. --Error 23:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't throw that red herring in front of me ;-). For now just say that Indalecio Prieto(Defense minister) and "Napoleonchu Aguirre" had very different views, and in no other front the word treason is so often heard. Are you sure that socialist and PNV militias in Biscay operated under an efective unified command ? They didn't surrender together ...Wllacer 08:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I found one of those posters Todas las milicias unidas en el Ejército Popular (CNT, ikurriña, hammer and sickle, Republic, Castile/Madrid?, senyera+Valencia, Andalusia, white star) and another for the Republican ABC (CNT, Galicia, Valencia, Castile?, ikurriña, senyera, Republic, hammer and sickle, star?, Andalusia). There is no flag for the internationalists and I am not sure about the Socialists. --Error 00:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I get a 403 on your first link. IIRC The PSOE/UGT used a red flag too. Usually surmounted with the old party symbol (book,anvil,...), the party/union name or even the "UHP" sign. The IB used as symbol a tree pointed star. I've seen it a couple of times surmounting the republican flag.Wllacer 08:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Probably the site is checking the referer header. Either change it (such us using Privoxy) or go through the posters by Melendreras. --Error 03:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia has dereferrers.--Error 03:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I got it. The poster is an old friend. I remember it reused during the late 70's ... The violet flag is undubitabily Madrid's. Concerning the white star it ought to be the flag of the socialist milita (is the only one meaningful organization missing in the poster). I just enjoied the poster collection at that site, but i can't positively identify this flag. Another curious vexilological find in this collection is that it seems that the the original IB flag was red with the three-pointed star (also red) on a white circle (f.i. [1] or [2]) but i can imagine why it has been sanitized (too similar to the nazi flag) --Wllacer 23:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem I see with this is that we're discussing adding flags where there's no combatant yet specified. The concern should be whether these factions can be justified as political combatants. I also share Wllacer's concerns that adding the Basque and Catalan flags would tend to portray the conflict as a territorial one. Of course, I'm neither Spanish nor an expert, so I'll let others thrash out the fine points. If there's a good case for adding, say, Euzko Gudarostea, I won't really object. Albrecht 14:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The trouble is that what a combatant was varied during the war. For the first months we had a regular army supported by party militias (the nationalist side) against a rather caothic joint of party militias, police force units, and remains of military units (the republicans). From October 1936 onward the republican side started to created a real army: the Ejercito Popular Republicano (republican popular army), and in both parties the militias were more and more integrated (but never fully on the republican side). It was also when foreing forces started to appear on the ground. The case in [[Biscay] became more complex due to the "peculiarites" of the basque nationalists. A good first approach (in spanish) to this particular area can be found at [3] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wllacer (talk • contribs) 18 September 2006.

[edit] 'Nationalist' to 'Francoist'

I'd like to change the nomenclature for Franco supporters from Nationalist/Fascist to Francoist. Nationalist is a word with too many different meanings. In each country, it refers to a different group. Were the Loyalists less nationalistic than the Nationalists? In print, the capital 'N' narrows the meaning, but even then there's also the Chinese Nationalists. (And what if small 'n' "nationalist" is the first word in the sentance?) It strikes me as a confusing situation for those unfamilar with the topic. As for Fascist, it creates a negative emotional response and is obviously POV. Francoist is the term used by Paul Preston, a leading historian in this field.Kauffner 16:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Nationalist is fine. It's by far the most common descriptor in English (and I'd argue that Hugh Thomas is the field's leading historian); moreover, it's what Franco's forces called themselves. And I think you're exaggerating the potential for confusion. No one's going to stumble into this article and freak out because they can't find Chiang Kai-shek. Albrecht 16:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that "Nationalist" is a term well-accepted and used by historians in this case. "Nationalist/Fascist" suggests to me that all nationalists were fascists which is not the case. "Francoist" personifies the movement and gives the impression that the rebellion was primarily catalyzed by the personality and/or politics of Franco -- again this is at best misleading, and, in my opinion, is actually false. I don't think that the distinction is between "Nationalist" and "Loyalist", as you put it, but between "nationalists" and "republicans"; these are the terms commonly used by historians and I think they should be used in this article. Discussion of "Loyalists", again in my opinion, is better contrasted with "Rebels" and should be used when discussing the early days/weeks of the war before, 1) the rebels had secured a contiguous territory and were recognized by Germany and Italy, and 2) the loyalists had been driven out of Madrid and the levers of political and military power had been effectively assumed by anarchists and Stalinist communists, hence raising questions as to what exactly was left to be loyal to. Anyhow, my two cents... Dasondas 16:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Your two cents pay the bill! The competing sides were known at the time-and ever after-as the Nationalists and Republicans; and so it should remain. I have read Paul Preston's biography of Franco-some time ago admittedly-but I cannot recollect the use of the word 'Francoist' to describe the anti-Republican forces. In any case, this would be a highly inaccurate usage because, amongst other reasons, it would not incorporate the Carlists. White Guard 22:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The Nationalist/nationalist issue might not be confusing in print, but IMO we should use a word that can be used in speech without unnecessary confusion. I don't think "Nationalist" really is established usage. Hemingway's For Whom the Bell Tolls is by far the most widely read book on the war -- and he calls them capital "F" "Fascist." (For many years, I assumed this was a proper name.) Capital "R" "Rebel" is also common. Both of those are obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia, but I think they show the issue isn't settled.Kauffner 02:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I can't say anything about the way Wikipedia works on your computer, Kauffner, but on mine it is a print medium not a speech medium -- although to be fair I don't think my opinion on proper nomenclature would be different if we were speaking to each other rather than writing. As for Hemingway´s For Whom the Bell Tolls, it is a novel not a history. Hemingway was a partisan participant in the war and as far as I know never pretended to be objective about his tendencies. All this is to say that while his views may well be important and might even deserve recognition within the article, it would most definitely be a violation of WP:NPOV to resort to his characterizations of the participants as the normative descriptions for this article. As for my take on "Fascist" and "Rebel", please re-read my first comment above. There is no doubt that issues like this will never be "settled" in the minds of 100% of the observers, but so far you've got three people with well-considered views on this subject different than your own. There is strong historical precedent for using "nationalist" and "republican" as the normative descriptions, and so far you haven't come close to convincing me that your suggestion would do anything other than make the issue more confusing rather than more clarifying. Dasondas 03:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Hemingway was writing a political novel. Of course the republicans called the nationalists "fascists" and the nationalist called the republicans "reds" and worse. And in both cases there was some justification. But these are not the terms historians use in writing about the period.
"Francoist"/"franquista" is anachronistic. The insurgency did not begin on Franco's behalf. "Francoist"/"franquista" are perfectly appropriate for talking about 1956, but they are really not right for 1936. Franco eventually, during and after the war, forged the falangists, royalists, etc. into some semblance of a party, with himself as its leader, but they certainly did not start out that way. - Jmabel | Talk 07:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
And what might be the height of irony in the labelling of partisans occurred during the spring of 1937 after Franco succeeded in getting political control of the falangists by putting down the Nazi-leaning falangist leader Manuel Hedilla. Those falangists who rallied in support of Hedilla were arrested as "Reds". So when the Francoists imprisoned the anti-Francoist rebel fascists as "Reds", with the Carlists upset with everybody at the time, I think that process of elimination leaves "Nationalist" as the only thing left to call the collective group :) Dasondas 23:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"The Nationalists on the contrary opposed these separatist movements"? The nationalists were not drawn to war so much by the separatist antics of the Basques and Catalonians, but the fear that the unique ruleing class present in Spain at the time was going to loose power to the peasents. Note the frequency that the reconquistora appears in Nationalist propaganda, the were hopeing to take the nation back from the popular front that won elections in 1935. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.96.26 (talk • contribs) 9 November 2006.

[edit] "logistic" vs. "logistical"

Actually, as an adjective "logistic" and "logistical" are synonymous according to my copy of Webster's. I think it's a matter of style rather than grammar. My ear prefers "logistic" in the places where the edits were made, but since I like the other work that Jmabel does on this article I'll defer to his taste on this point :) Dasondas 13:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm sure I'll have occasion to return the favor. - Jmabel | Talk 23:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with Dasondas on this one. "Logistic" just...sounds better.--Pewpewlazers 20:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to switch it back. I don't think I've ever used "logistic" in my life, just "logistics" as noun and "logistical" as adjective. - Jmabel | Talk 01:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date the war began

According to Chapter 14 of Thomas, the rising began in Melilla in Spanish Morocco in the early morning of July 17th. The uprising had been planned for the 18th, but one of the plotters in Melilla was a traitor to the rebellion and betrayed the plans to the Republicans who in turn alerted the local military commander to be on the lookout for suspicious activity. While in the midst of an early-morning meeting on the 17th at Melilla's military headquarters, the rebellious plotters were surprised by a group of troops and police, and they were forced to take immediate action -- which involved the capitulation and subsequent execution of the military commander, the government delegate and the mayor. Hence, the war began in the early morning of the 17th. According to Thomas, Colonel Juan Seguí told his confederates the exact hour of the rising -- five o´clock in the morning. Dasondas 01:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Presumably accurate. Thomas is probably an utterly reliable source on basic facts like that. - Jmabel | Talk 23:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, by some strange coincidence, the date I entered in the Battlebox about a month ago is, in fact, July 17. What exactly's the problem? Albrecht 00:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
A couple of days ago a new editor Bellywiki change the date to the 18th. I didn't want to discourage him/her with an abrupt revert since it appeared to be the first edit made by that editor. So I took the time to write the paragraph above. I only realized after the fact that the edit history would quickly fade from view, and my talk page note would look to be non-sequitir -- but now that there's been some further comment I think it should all be clear from this point forward. Dasondas 00:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
That the Melilla Garrison rose the 17th it's a well known fact, since ever -only the details why it did it varies-. But also that is customary (and almost universal) to put the starting date of the war at 18th. It was the set date, but the truth is not only Melilla was too early, but some units did it only the 19th and the 20th, and others (Valencia and Madrid) doubted till it was too late.
As we are dealing with an encyclopedia, it's hard to say which date should be prefered. Just for reasons of general coherence I'd rather choose the 18th with a note (or something equivalent) explaining the fact of this early rising.--Wllacer 07:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
But by the end of the 17th the entirety of Spanish Morocco, with the exception of Larache -- including all military and civil executive and administrative institutions -- was under the control of an organized group of rebel soldiers with a desginated leadership and acting according to a national war plan . In the process of the uprising on this date there was much violence and associated arrests and executions of military and governmental officials. These are historic facts that are well-documented in the sources cited by the artilce. How can this date **not** be considered the start of the war? Dasondas 12:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't ask me. I only point to the fact that there is a 70 year long and almost undisputed tradition to fix the start of the war the 18th. War -specially civil ones- start dates are usually conventionally (rather than actually) fixed. Did the American Civil War really started with the Fort Sumter incident ? For instance, in our case, there could be equally valid arguments to fix the start of the war the 12th (the date Jose Calvo Sotelo was assasinated, as it marked -in retrospect- the point of no return, the 19th or 20th because it was when the republican militias were armed and transformed the scope of what till then was a rather conventional putch attempt, the 20th when IIRC the first batch of general were outlawed by the republican government, ...--Wllacer 09:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
An assassination is not a war, even if, in retrospect, it leads to one (besides, if one regresses far enough one finds these "points of no return" are awfully common). A levée en masse is not a war. Domestic legislation is not war. A war was started, as previously stated, the day the rebel army sprung into action and conquered a protectorate of the Spanish Republic. This would seem obvious. It shouldn't be complicated to explain in the article that the fighting started on the 17th and that historians sometimes mark the start of the conflict as the 18th (although I think Hugh Thomas would agree with the earlier date). If it matters so much, a footnote can be added to explain these distinctions. Albrecht 15:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Well I have been really tempted for the past several days to just let this sleeping dog lie, but I finally decided that I needed to set the record straight on one minor point. Nothing I'm about to write changes anything about my opinion of the start date of the war (July 17th, as discussed above), however I want to mention that the excerpt from Thomas I provided above regarding Colonel Seguí is misleading. What was quoted was what he was telling his co-plotters on the morning of the 17th. The reference to the exact hour of the rising being at 5:00 a.m. was a reference to the precise time that the uprising was **supposed** to have begun on the 18th according to the plan. Thomas was describing the conversations that were taking place in the early morning meeting on the 17th to make the point that the plot was betrayed by someone in that meeting who passed the information along, and it was when the plotters reconvened after lunch on the 17th that they were surprised by forces sent by Romerales. At that point the uprising began a day earlier than planned. Anyhow, I apologize for any confusion, but the basic point that the war started on the 17th is the same as previously discussed. I agree with everything Albrecht wrote in the post prior to this one. Dasondas 05:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Just an anecdotary evidence i can't refrain to add, but the republican government used in some instances July 15th as the threshold date . For instance the partial amnesty from January, 22th 1937. [4]. I have no idea of the rationale for that date Wllacer 08:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Bridge at Ronda

An editor recently changed the caption on the "Bridge at Ronda" photo. Previously it read Puente Nuevo, the bridge that links together the two parts of Ronda in Spain. Behind the window near the center of the bridge is a prison cell. It is said that during the Civil War the nationalists threw people who supported the Republicans from the bridge to their deaths many meters down at the bottom of the El Tajo canyon. The editor changed the second sentence to read It is alleged by Republicans, that during the Civil War the nationalists threw people who supported the Republicans from the bridge to their deaths many meters down at the bottom of the El Tajo canyon. I took his point, but thought that it still wasn't right, so I took a couple of stabs and came up with, There have been unproven allegations that during the Civil War the nationalists threw people who supported the Republicans from the bridge to their deaths many meters down at the bottom of the El Tajo canyon. However, now I'm thinking that there really isn't any great way to state this since, after all, the allegations don't seem to be substantiated. Thomas footnotes the issue with a source that "assured him" that the killing at Ronda was by shooting. Anyhow, I hadn't really considered the issue before but now that I've looked at it there seems to be a dilemma vis-à-vis WP:NPOV. I'd be tempted to replace the photograph with something describing a citable event, but that might be seen to be a drastic edit. Alternatively, I'm thinking of deleting the phrase many meters down at the bottom of the El Tajo canyon. Frankly, none of it seems very satisfying to me. Does anybody else have any thoughts on this? Dasondas 04:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign invovlement section

This section is highly repetitive and convoluted. Almost every other paragraph has a sentence saying the Nationalists recieved help from Italy and Germany, while the Rupublicans only recieved help from the Soviets. There are a number of other things as well. I believe that this section needs to be rewritten. I don't feel a flow in the section either, it seems to have just been stuck together in a random order. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Say1988 (talk • contribs) 24 October 2006.

[edit] Essays moved from article

The following near-essay was included within the Infobox as an HTML comment. Clearly, that is not a good place for it, so I have moved it here: - Jmabel | Talk 04:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[BEGIN MOVED CONTENT]

PORTUGAL WAS NOT AN OFFICIAL PARTICIPANT, ONLY AN INOFFICIAL! Badajoz, a Spanish province on the border with Portugal, was controlled by the Republican Army during the early days of the Spanish Civil War. General Juan de Yagüe and 3,000 troops attacked Badajoz City, in August, 1936. Bitter street fighting took place when the Nationalist Army entered the city. Losses were heavy on both sides and when the Nationalists took control of Badajoz it was claimed they massacred around 1,800 people. He also encouraged his troops to rape supporters of the Popular Front government. As a result Yagüe became known as "The Butcher of Badajoz".

On the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War the President Antonio Salazar of Portugal immediately supported the Nationalists in the struggle against the Popular Front government in Spain. Salazar feared that if the Republicans won the war his own authoritarian government would be under threat.

Salazar, concerned about the effect the events in Spain would have on his country, established a new militia that could serve as an auxiliary police. This new police force arrested dissidents and removed politically unreliable people from educational and governmental institutions. Salazar's police also arrested supporters of the Popular Front government living in Portugal. He also sealed off the Portuguese frontier to Republicans.

Although he came under considerable pressure from Britain and France, Salazar refused to allow international observers being stationed on the Portugal-Spain border. Officially he claimed that it would be a violation of Portugal sovereignty while in reality he did not want the world to know about the large amounts of military aid that was crossing into Spain.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WARspain.htm

[END MOVED CONTENT]

Similarly, this: - Jmabel | Talk 04:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[BEGIN MOVED CONTENT]

No Communist propaganda allowed over here. No unsourced statements. While popular myth has it the Nationalists were more bloody, this is not an historical fact. On the contrary. The murdered civilians of Sevilla in the last days, as well as the mass executions of random Catholics in Barcelona, even of Basque clergy allied with the Republic, are facts. There is no room for ideology over here.

[END MOVED CONTENT]

[edit] Recent changes challenged

More uncited changes to this article. Recently added:

  • "20,000 soldiers (sent by Salazar) from Portugal." News to me, and if true, would be remarkable conduct for an ostensibly neutral power. Spartacus Schoolnet, who discuss Portugal's unbalanced neutrality at some length, say nothing of the sort. I plan to remove this unless a citation is provided within 48 hours.
  • "Although there were some Republicans that fled there were also some insurgents fighting on the outskirts of Republican surrender." I have no idea what this means. "Outskirts" is a geographical term. This makes no sense. I plan to remove this unless it is reworded coherently within 48 hours.

-- Jmabel | Talk 07:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's been over a week, no response, reverting. - Jmabel | Talk 07:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/p/a/Talk%7ESpanish_Civil_War_4c7a.html"