Talk:Spanish Civil War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 ... also "Spanish Civil War in popular culture" could be a new page with books & films
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 Creation and Improvement Drive Spanish Civil War was the Article Creation and Improvement Drive for the week spanning from Sunday, 08 April 2007.

For more details, see the Article Creation and Improvement Drive history.
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.
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] march/may 2006 discussion

  • 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.


[edit] anti-clerical violence (2006 May)

  • 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.


[edit] The combatants list and the places where the war was fought is wrong...

This article mentions the Republicans like if all the republicans that fought in the war had to belong to one of these political parties that are mentioned: CNT-FAI, UGT, POUM, the Soviet Union or the International Brigades.

This is totally wrong. It's like saying that there wasn't Republican Army, and that all the people who fought in the republican side belonged to one of these groups. Well, there was an official Republican Army: actually, the army of the republic was the army of Spain itself, which included, among others, the Regular force (the Ground forces, the Navy and Air forces), and police corps like the Guardia Civil (Civil Guard) and the Guardia de Asalto (Assault Guard, which was created by the Republic).

So the Republican side was the State of Spain itself (and not what you call the Spanish State), the Country, the Republic, it was Spain as a country, the official institutions of Spain. You can't depict all this as a conjunction of Guilds, the evil Soviet Union and a bunch of foreign volunteers.

So you should mention, first of all, the Republican Army. And then, and only then, if you want, you can mention other forces that helped the Republic: hundreds of political parties, the Soviet Union, the International Brigades (by the way, talking about them as a sepparate force is also inaccurate, because for example, you don't talk about the Irish volunteers as a sepparate force: they were integrated in regiments in the National Army. So the same with the International Brigades: they were a part of the Republican Army), etc.

But anyway, there were hundreds of other small powers that helped the Republic, and you can't mention them all. Because if you mention CNT-FAI, UGT, POUM, etc, you will also have to mention the tens of pro-republican Catalan parties, the pro-republican Basque parties, etc. And this would be eternal. So it's pointless to mention all these smaller forces. The article should focus on The Spanish Republic as the major force that fought on the Republican Side. Yes: there were lots of smaller forces and political parties that fought there, but the Spanish Republic was the bigger one, which grouped all the rest: all the guilds, local and regional corps of volunteers, the international brigades, etc, were inside the Republican Army.

The case of the Soviet Union

The Soviet Union didn't send their army to Spain to help the Republicans, like the Nazi Germany or the Fascist Italy did: they just sent very few troops and sold goods to the Republic (as exchange to the Spanish Gold and it was clearly abusive). Their help was much more lesser than, for example, the help brought by Franco to the Nazi Germany to fight against the communism (the Blue Division). And we don't mention this on the Second World War's combatants list. So why should we mention the Soviet Union here?

So all in all, the Republican side should only mention one thing: The Spanish Republic. Then, if you want, you can create another page like in the case of the Second World War with an infinite list of guilds, national and international volunteer corps that were integrated in the official army, and explain the help of the Soviet Union.

So I think there should be removed the small forces from the combatants list because it mentions just a few of them and they are arbitrarily taken.

.

.

.

On the cast of the fascists:

First of all, they shouldn't be called Spanish State. That was the name given to the paralel state they created when they destroyed the legitimate government of Spain (the Republic). Absolutely no one calls them the Spanish State in Spain. Not now, nor by those times. They were called el Bando Nacional, Rebelde or Sublevado (the National faction, the Rebel faction or the Revolted faction).

After this:

This combatants list has the same problem than the other: it mentions the National side as a conjunction of Carlists + Falangists + the fascist powers of Germany + Italy.

Again, that is wrong: there was an unofficial state (the Spanish State), that sadly then became official, which grouped a part of the Spanish military and civilian society: army deserters (from all or almost all the factions of the army), deserters from the police, ex-republican civilan employees, civilian volunteers, members from fascist political parties, etc.

And this state had its own army: the National Army. And yes, this army included the Falangists and the Carlists, but you can't depict these two forces as ALL the Spanish contribution on the Nationalist side: there was an organised unofficial Spanish state, which had its own organised army, and the Falangists and the Carlists were included in it. But you can't say they were the whole of this army, and mentioning them is just anecdotal. They were just two of the corps that formed that army.

Apart of this, I agree about the Nazi Germany and the Fascist Italy, because they gave full support to the Nationalists. But they must be added to the Nationalist side as sepparate forces, not as a part of it, like they are now.

So I think it should the Falangists and the Carlists should be removed from the list, and put the National Side as the major Spanish force, and then, at the same level, the Fascist Italy and the Nazi Germany.

.

.

.

The Canary Islands

If we talk about Spain and the Spanish Morocco as sepparate things at the same time, we are comitting a mistake, because the Spanish Morocco is in Spain. So first of all, we must refer to Spain as Continental Spain, and then add the regions of Spain that are not there, as sepparate places. And this includes the Canary Islands.

The forgotten Spanish overseas territory: Equatorial Guinea (or Spanish Guinea)

In a much lesser grade, but the war also reached Ecuatorial Guinea [1]. As far as I know, there was just an accidental death of a priest, but there were fightings and movement of troops.

.

.

.

So all in all, it would be like this:


Spanish Civil War
Date July 17, 1936 - April 1, 1939
Location Continental Spain, Spanish Morocco, Spanish Sahara, Canary Islands, Spanish Guinea, Mediterranean Sea.
Result Nationalist victory
Combatants
Spanish Republic
 Spanish Nationalists

Fascist Italy
Nazi Germany
Commanders
Manuel Azaña
Francisco Largo Caballero
Juan Negrín		 Francisco Franco
Casualties
Civilians killed/wounded = hundreds of thousands

.

.

.

By the way I resized the picture

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. .

.

.


Onofre Bouvila 05:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[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] "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. [2] or [3]) 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 [4] —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.


Hi,

Nationalists is the word that is most commonly used in English to define the fascists of Spain during the Spanish Civil War. But that's a wrong translation. They called themselves Los Nacionales, which means The Nationals. The Nationalists (in Spanish Los Nacionalistas) refers to the Separatist movements (Basque, Catalan and Galician, mainly). The guys who were fighting for the unity of Spain couldn't call themselves Nationalists, so they called themselves Nationals: they weren't nationalists of any region of Spain. They were nationalists of Spain itself, so they were the Nationals, the people of the Nation, of Spain.

Anyway as in English it has always been used Nationalist... I guess it's fine to leave it so. But it's a wrong translation of the term and it may lead to confusion with the separatists.

Onofre Bouvila 01:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I think Francoist is actually a little misleading as Franco became the leader of the nationalist movement after the civil war began [5]. The term Francoist suggest that those in the movement were following him - i.e. that it was a personality cult - whereas in fact he became leader after Jose Sanjurjo died. --Kick the cat 00:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[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. [6]. 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)

About the portuguese forces: Viriatos (spanish)--194.65.151.249 17:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Volunteer aviators, observers: pretty much what came from a lot of other countries on one or both sides. No mention of 20,000 soldiers sent by Salazar; indeed, a statement that pretty much rules that out: "El gobierno del profesor Oliveira Salazar, aunque no ocultaba su simpatía por el bando sublevado, se encontraba con las manos atadas por la Sociedad de Naciones y la Comisión de No Intervención en la Guerra de España (C.N.I.G.E.) a la que se había adherido el 13 de Agosto." TRANSLATION: "The government of professor Oliveira Salazar, although they did not hide their sympathy for the insurgent band, found themselves with their hands tied by the Leage of Nations and the Commission of Non-Intervention in the Spanish Civil War, to which it had adhered 13 August." Possibly something deserves mention, but clearly I was correct to remove what was there. - Jmabel | Talk 23:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Destruction of art

This article has the following statement: "In the Spanish Civil War, communists destroyed most of their country's Catholic splendor." Is this correct? Badagnani 11:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's only half true. Both prior and during the war revolutionary mobs destroyed or sacked wilfuly a great number of Church properties; which, btw, had suffered already as serious blows to its cultural treasures during the XIX century. But its impact varied a great lenght locally, and many movable treasures could be hidden away. F.i. in Seville from April to July 36 about 20-30% of the treasures of the Penitential Brotherhoods was destroyed, and much of the rest was saved at the eleventh hour. But only a handful of churches were burnt down. In Catalonia and parts of Levant, destruction was more widespread.
Although post-war propaganda blamed mainly the communists, probably they were the least involved. Prior to the war they were only a handful, and during the war they were kind of a "party of order". Anarchists and left anticlerical republicans (as much as they could influence mob) were most linked to this acts. Socialists also were heavily involved Wllacer 18:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Concur w/ Wllacer. - Jmabel | Talk 21:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image in Infobox

I'm not sure if this has already benen mentioned, but I think that this article should have the iconic image of the republican soldier falling in battle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.69.40.37 (talk • contribs) 20 December 2006.

I feel that that image has an American POV. The image humanizes a heroic 'Loyalist' soldier whereas the 'Rebel' soldier who shot him is just some unknown, unseen, vague and barbaric figure. That about sums up how the New York Times covered the war. I think that it would be better if the image was a montage like used in the American Civil War article and the World War II article. Gamecock 03:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Combatants section unnecessary

The "Combatants" section reads like a second, unnecessarily detailed introduction or even a second copy of the article, awkwardly placed at the top of the original. I recommende a better editor than myself come around and remove it, moving any necessary information to the body of the article. I would almost guess that this is an addition made by one person who didn't like the orientation of the rest of the article... -Dwinetsk 23:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Size

This article is very long and is well over the recommended article size. One way to reduce size would be to transfer info to articles about each year of the war and then link these articles back to the main article. This article should only be a general history of the war. The yearly articles can go into more detail. Djln --Djln 23:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article does good job in detailing communist support

Unlike in a lot of bias reports. The loyalists got hugh amounts of arms and supplies for the Soviet Union. Many claims that this was a unfair fight cause the other guys have more help are bogus (which is usual when communist or socialist regimes or fighters lose engagements). I give the article credit in showing the specific amount of support these guys got. YankeeRoman(24.75.194.50 18:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] article long? popular culture works

Hi -- the article is fairly long. We could split off the "Spanish Civil War in popular culture" section to its own article; I suspect it could grow significantly given the chance. Thoughts? --lquilter 00:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine in principle, but if I gather correctly, this was done and the new article isn't even linked. What is its title? - Jmabel | Talk 21:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bias (religious atrocities)

Much bias exists on the Spanish Civil War. Hugh Thomas, The Spanish Civil War is the neutral, definitive history of the subject written by a left wing historian who remained remarkably even handed on the subject. The anti-clerical violence quotes comes from Hugh Thomas, The Spanish Civil War, the most reliable, neutral authority on the subject. Please cite a more reliable or neutral source than Hugh Thomas.

Hugh Thomas is not left wing he was a Supporter of THatcher

As to the comment about no mention of religious atrocities on the Nationalist side, there was none.

If you want to start a comment about Nationalist atrocities, feel free.

````GenghisTheHun (03:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

  • One, I moved this comment by GenghisTheHun from the "to do" list, which is not the forum for discussion of issues; discussion goes here.
    Two, the substance: GenghisTheHun added in several paragraphs about anti-clerical atrocities by the Republican side; another editor removed the material; GenghisTheHun put it back again, and I reverted it. We need to discuss.
    The problem is not so much that the information is inaccurate or that the source is biased -- nobody has alleged that -- but that it is bias by undue weight. The material is a fairly large section dedicated to a particular fairly specific topic. There are two issues with this: One, the article is already quite large, and needs to be reduced -- it's basically twice as long as wikipedia's recommended maximum size of 32K. Two, by including the material in such a large section, it assumes equivalent importance with other topics covered at similar or lesser size. The uprising, 1937, 1938, 1939, social revolution, and so on. There's scarcely enough there for other topics. The material added in thus assumes, by its volume, undue weight. Clearly GenghisTheHun thinks this is important material, and nobody is denying that it is an important topic or should be part of the historical record or available to wikipedian readers. However, please look at the overall article and I think it is apparent that the material is too much given the scale and shape of other topics in the article. One could fix this by scaling everything up, but see point #1 -- the article is too long.
    This material is included here, briefly, in the short description of anti-clerical violence in the article. But only so much can (and should) go into an of necessity brief article reviewing an entire civil war. I would suggest to GenghisTheHun that if you think this topic merits more attention, you either start a separate article or work on the relevant section of anti-clericalism, which needs more work. Please review WP:NPOV#Undue weight and strive to keep all articles balanced in tone. On any article that you work you should be considering not just adding material, but contextualizing it, making sure the article works as the article for that topic, and does not misrepresent to a reader of the article, the relative size, scale, significance, etc., of specific sub-topics of the article. We are working on writing encyclopedia articles, and so it's not just about including more information, but about making readable, encyclopedia-style articles. --lquilter 04:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Weight of Anti-Religous Activities of Republican Spain

The weight is that the anti-religious activities of the Republicans at the beginning of the war, doomed their chances of eventual victory. Why do you ask? The United States could never support them because of Catholic support of FDR. The Catholic Church weighed heavily in other parts of the world as well, and probably the most damaging blows to Republican respectibility in this respect were the pictures in Life Magazine of militiamen sitting on altars, wearing vestments and committing other acts of sacrilege to the Catholic Religion. Joseph P. Kennedy was very instrumental in persuading FDR to keep the USA out of the conflict. France was too vacillating, Mexico too poor and too far away, and Stalin too feckless to save the Republic.

I might add that I am rather perplexed by the bias shown on this site about this subject which indeed was crucial in the conflict. Why is that, a neutral observor might ask?

````GenghisTheHun

The weight is that the anti-religious activities of the Republicans at the beginning of the war, doomed their chances of eventual victory. No, actually, that's not the weight; that's the significance, and you didn't put it in the article. The "weight", as we use it on wikipedia, means how much and what kind of verbiage is spent on one issue relative to others. You actually didn't include any of the analysis you've added here in the section; you simply listed atrocities, statistics, some colorful detail (named after sports teams), and some unreferenced opinion & POV language ("aimed at manners and morals" ... "fury"); all of it was unnecessary detail, elaborating on anti-clerical violence acknowledged in several other places in the article. Creating an entire section for this material encourages similarly detailed discussions of non-clerical-related atrocities, and atrocities on both sides, and justifications for the atrocities, and so on. And then that encourages more discussion about other events of equivalent historical importance in the article: military strategy, battles, economics, and so on, to keep things balanced so that the article is not disproportionately about atrocities. That's weight, and that's why the section you added is WP:NPOV#Undue weight.
Now, the analysis you give here is actually more useful than any of the detail that you had previously added. If you wanted to distill your above paragraph into something briefer that would go into foreign involvement, that could be a useful addition to the article, properly cited.
Please quit assuming bias when people have laid out for you here & on your talk page detailed explanations about why the material is too much for this article, and given you suggestions about starting new articles, how to edit it, and so on. You might read or re-read "assume good faith" as well as "no personal attacks". --lquilter 17:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SECTION REMOVED, WITHOUT NOTICE, AND WITHOUT DISCUSSION

I responded because the section was removed, without notice, without discussion and ostensibly becasue of BIAS. Bias is as bias does, don't you see?

````GenghisTheHun

[edit] sections: foreign involvement / number of foreigners fighting

Both these sections are quite long, and could probably be cut to about 50% or less of current size; I suggest a spin-off into a separate article for more detailed discussion. --lquilter 17:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

... whoa; where did these sections go? They've just been deleted ...? They really should have been summarized, with a link to the new article, or were they just deleted? --lquilter 03:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved them to a new page but then the page disappeared.

I am going to try to move them again to a page called "Foreign Involvement in the Spanish Civil War."


````GenghisTheHun

[edit] Linked in Spanish Civil War and Foreign Involvement

I linked in Spanish Civil War and Foreign Involvement that was removed to a new page.

````GenghisTheHun

This article contains a lot of bloat on the subject and much of it could be moved to the child page you created.Fluffy999 10:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing wording about Basque nationalists

The section "Prelude" says "The Basque nationalists were not officially part of the Front, but were sympathetic to it." It is completely unclear whether this "Front" is the Popular Front or the National Front. Kevin Nelson 08:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Popular Front. - Jmabel | Talk 21:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] suggestion

Substitute Herbert Mathews, New York Times, for Ernest Hemingway under "Journalists." Hemingway is already listed in the column under the Republican side.

GenghisTheHun 19:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by GenghisTheHun (talk • contribs) 19:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Casualties are inflated

The figure of 500,000 to 1,000,000 is vastly inflated. Hugh Thomas, The Spanish Civil War (2001) points out on page xviii of the preface that 500,000 is the maximum. Thomas states there that since his first edition in 1961, the estimates of casualties have dropped and dropped. Thomas stated that for the first time in a historical work, and that was his 1961 edition, the estimate of one million dead was challenged as inflated. Thomas states on the same page that now it would be perfectly admissible to argue that Spain actually lost fewer people dead in acts of violence than any other major European nation in the 20th Century.

Thomas fleshes out his estimates on pp. 899-901 of his book. I would suggest that the casualties in the war box be changed to 500,000. Thomas does point out that 300,000 permanently emigrated because of the war, but they are not casualties.

Many Thanks,

GenghisTheHun 19:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun


[edit] Langston Hughes

Where is the authority for the inclusion of Langston Hughes under the jounalists and spies section?

GenghisTheHun 22:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)GenghistheHun

Are you questioning whether he was a war correspondent? He was, in 1937-38: "Hughes also decided to go to Spain. From the Baltimore Afro-American and the Cleveland Call and Post and Globe he worked out an agreement to act as a foreign correspondent" (Arnold Rampersad, The Life of Langston Hughes Vol 1, page 339). He wrote several poems from Spain, as well as essays published in the above periodicals, as well as The Crisis, The Volunteer for Liberty, etc. His autobiography I Wonder as I Wander (1956) also talks extensively about his time in Spain. faithx5 19:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Langston Hughes

Thanks, I am satisfied.

GenghisTheHun 22:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun


[edit] casualties at 500.000

I posted this change sometime ago and I heard nothing. I made the change and footnoted it for verification.

GenghisTheHun 17:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun

[edit] Navy battles

Everyone forget to put this stuff in? Surely the convoys and loss of life on 2 major battle cruisers counts for a sentence or 2? I left some detail over in Legion Kondor, only a couple of sentences though. Fluffy999 13:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Kriegsmarine#Spanish Civil War now covers the attack on the Deutschland (31 dead and 110 wounded, 71 seriously) which lead to shelling of Almeria. Not covered are Italian and Falange naval actions.
Error: "On 7 March German Condor Legion equipped with Heinkel He 51 biplanes arrived in Spain" appearing in this article and repeated in Spanish Civil War, 1937 Fluffy999 10:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Proposal to move large foreign involvement section to the daughter page

I propose to move the vast bulk of the foreign involvement section of this article to the daughter page, "Spanish Civil War and Foreign Involvement." This would shorten the main article considerably and allow better editing, coordination and discussion of the foreign involvement.

I shall leave this posting up for five days and if I have no objection, I shall move it to the page "Spanish Civil War and Foreign Involvement," and leave behind a small general descripton with a reference.

GenghisTheHun 15:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun

GenghisTheHun 15:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun

Great idea, it could conceivably be split into two articles. Involvement of governments and forces acting with their approval, and actions taken by individuals against the wishes of their government. This would allow the military aid given and denied by various governments to be detailed in a clear way. Fluffy999 17:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Pacifism in Spain

This part of the article is drawing attention of vandals, and it leads us to the question. Why is this in the Spanish Civil War section? I have never seen much, if any, authority for it in the Civil War. I propose moving it to its own separate article, and I shall do so after five days. Please comment.

GenghisTheHun 15:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun


Moving it to a separate article is just senseless. In addition, the article should be called "Pacifism in Spain in the context of the Spanish Civil War", or something like that, because this especific section talks about the Pacifism in Spain in the interwar period, and not about the Pacifism in Spain in a wide meaning. Therefore:
  1. If you want to move it to a separate article, get an apropiate name for this new article, and do not call it "Pacifism in Spain" when it talks about something much more especific.
  2. Link it with the Spanish Civil War article through a section with a { { main | [...] } } label. Otherwise, the article remains disconnected and unreferenced from its mother article.
  3. If you want to create an article about it, create something with content. Don't just copy paste the three or four poor lines of information that are currently in the section of the Spanish Civil War article, and place them in a separate one, because it is senseless: on the contrary, leave these three or four lines of information in this article, so they can be used as reference to link with the new article, and in the new article, give more information about the issue.
  4. Moving three or four lines of information that constitute a section to an independent article pointless, because there is not enough stuff like to create a new article with three or four lines, and in addition, by doing this, you leave the Spanish Civil War article totally disconnected from the new one you created. Every article that extends a subject related to a superior article, must be referenced from this superior article. Otherwise, the two articles remain disconnected and it's just poinltess because someone reading the Spanish Civil War article will never be able to accede to the new small stub you have created.
All in all, these things constitute a major edit, and we should get a consensus here before removing entire sections. Onofre Bouvila 15:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who Started It?

The opening of this article is a fairly bland statement about how the War ended. But the first real mention of how it started is a bit further down and reads:

The war started with military uprisings throughout Spain and its colonies. Republican sympathizers, soldiers and civilians, formally acting independently of the state, massacred... [yada yada yada]

Which makes it sound a bit like it was Republicans doing the uprising, and the qualifier "formally" makes it sound like maybe they really had the state's blessing. In general, it seems to me like the article leans too far towards being "even handed" and "unbiased" and so ends up making the Republican side look worse than most of the authoritative histories - including Thomas's. And this lack of a strong statement about the opening salvo of the war seems part of that.

Hopefully, one of these days I can get around to printing this article out and doing a detailed revision of the things in it that really bug me. As it stands I would have to describe it is flawed and misleading, and down-right inaccurate in places. And the pacifism stuff doesn't deserve its own heading, which gives a misleading - and down-right inaccurate - weight, much as I might favor pacifism in general.

Zerodeconduite 13:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Bulk of Foreign Intervention moved to separate article

The bulk of the foreign intervention was moved to a separate article and given headings. It will need rewriting.

GenghisTheHun 14:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun

GenghisTheHun 22:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun

I added reds for the unit titles. Adding detail on these to the main will probably bump up its rating.
==See Also==
    • Corpo Truppe Volontarie - Italian expeditionary force
    • Regio Esercito - Italian Army
    • Regia Aeronautica & Aviazione Legionaria (Aviation Legion) - Italian Air forces
    • La Regia Marina & Sottomarini Legionari (Submariners Legion) - Italian Naval forces
    • Legion Kondor - German Air forces
    • Fuerza Aérea Nacionales (Arma de Aviación) - Nationalist Air forces
    • Aviación de El Tercio - Spanish Foreign Legion Air forces
    • Fuerza Aérea de la República Española (FARE) - Second Republic and Soviet Air forces
    • Operation Ursula
    • Operation Rügen
Fluffy999 21:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Now includes more articles pending. Fluffy999 11:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rearranged the article

I tried to rearrange the article and add headings to bring some order to the article. It needs serious re-writing and citation of sources.

GenghisTheHun 15:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun

GenghisTheHun 22:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun

[edit] Pacificsm in Spain

What is this section all about? I don't think it should be in the war, but moved to its own article. I shall do that in a few days and I solicit comment.

GenghisTheHun 22:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun

[edit] Rearranged article

I rearranged the article and hope we can clean it up over the next few weeks. I think it can be a good article, but we must get citations for some the statements.

GenghisTheHun 22:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun


[edit] Pacificism in Spain

As I stated previously, I intended to move this section to its own article. I see no comment so I moved it.

GenghisTheHun 12:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun


[edit] Evacuation of Children

This happened, but it is not important overall in a general article on the war. I think it should be removed. Any comments?

GenghisTheHun 12:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun

[edit] Major recent changes

I have not recently been active in this article. I see that there have been major recent changes, and, judging by the edit summaries and discussion above, they have basically been by one person, who gave reasonable notice, didn't get much response, and moved forward on the basis that silence is consent. Not necessarily a bad principle, but not a basis for a strong consensus. I doubt I will have much chance to look at this article closely in the near future, but I strongly urge that several people take a good look at the changes over roughly the last four weeks, and either assure that there is a general consensus that these changes are all beneficial, or discuss which may not be. - Jmabel | Talk 07:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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