Talk:Spanish Civil War/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Robert Capa photo

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

I read somewhere that there are suspicions about its genuinity. So it could be as staged as the Iwo Jima and Reichstag ones. It is also as iconic as those though. --Error 00:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
It has been questioned. The usual doubts expressed have been about how he managed to snap at so perfect a moment. I don't think there is anything definitive about it being faked, though. - Jmabel | Talk 05:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

anti-clerical violence

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

There are hundreds of references only in spanish dealing with it. I'd say, nowadays is one of the least disputed aspects; but as is usual, there are sharp variations of tone and overt bias. but a quick overview says that the most cited, and probably the most respected, secondary source is A. Montero's "Historia de la Persecucion Religiosa en España" , a doctoral thesis from 1961. It established the consesus number of over 6000 victims of religious persecution, once the war started. The author, alas, is a priest, now a bishop, so you might not consider him neutral.
A less studied aspect is the destruction of material and cultural wealth, just for hate to the church. It was considerable both before and during the war
--Wllacer 00:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I didn't notice, you`ve put the NPOV tag. "Lasciati ogni speranza ...". As long as the war is still a political mith (and in the political agenda in Spain), there is no way to be objective. Almost 90% of the literature is openly biased. Curiously works written in the 60's and 70's, or by researchers who started then, are probably still the least biased sources (I mean Thomas, Carr, Bolloten, Payne,... up and including the Salas-Larrazabal brothers (nationalist officers, later Generals) or Tuñon de Lara -a high ranking communist)--Wllacer 00:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The anti-clerical violence needs to be put in context. Firstly, there were killings of non-combatants on both sides, both during the fighting and in the repression thereafter. The article shouldn't single out clerics for special attention - trade unionists, liberal intellectuals and school teachers, or indeed anyone with some perceived 'red' connection was liable for a bullet in nationalist areas. Secondly, the catholic church was by no means a neutral party. At the top, the church actively opposed the republic and incited a 'crusade' going back to Segura's pastoral in 1931, through statements from the hierarchy throughout the war, and including the pope's congratulatory message to Franco in 1939 “Lifting up our hearts to God, we sincerely thank Your Excellency for the desired Catholic victory in Spain." Apart from official pronouncements, you have to look at the repressive role of the church in spanish society under the monarchy/dictatorship pre-31, and indeed again under Franco. Hatred of the church's material wealth may have been considerable - so was its material wealth. As for its cultural grip - Segura's pastoral was a direct response to the republic's moves to laicise a church-dominated education system that left more than 80% of Spaniards illiterate. You only have to talk to anyone educated under francoism to see that things hardly got more progressive in the 36 years after the desired catholic victory. And this is without even getting into the active role some priests played in the war and repression as informers etc.Bengalski 13:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Where do you get this 80% figure ? If that is your main source of spanish history, check other books. According to the census of 1930 [1], the ratio of illiteracy was a little bit over 42%. --Wllacer 12:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


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

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

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

Somewhere in Talk:Francisco Franco, I gave some references and links regarding to political violence around the Spanish Civil War. Once again i must recall we've gone in the last years a few steps backward re. neutrality. I correct myself, the only posible stance is that both parties were extremely bloodthirsty in the rearguard. And I firmly reject the idea of that there was a "less evil" party. And btw, liberals and non-commited intelectuals lived under almost equal threats at both rearguards. <personal>And i don't need any historian to tell otherwise to my family</personal>
The religious persecution is (you're right) only a subset of this very complex and vexing question. It's importance derives from two facts. First; that, with 1920`s Mexico, they are the only instances of open repression on Christians with victims in the Western World in the XX century. How and why it came to that is an interesting study field in itself. I'm still have to find a good explanation which goes beyond the "infantile" mean "Church", mean "Masons".
Second. The relations between Church and Republic, before and during the war, was one of the most important issues on contemporaneous eyes. And the news of the religious persecution, were heavy blows to republican propaganda abroad. The religious policy is seen by many as one of the cornerstones of the failure of the Republic, and much of the blame is to be put on the republican side.
Just for closing, A. Montero Romero work is pure historigraphical work, so you don't have to worry. I've found a reading sample in the web of "Amnesty International" [2]. I'm afraid it's not on sale by the editor (BAC) now.
--Wllacer 15:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
One more link of the same web. Excerpts from Hugh Thomas' work. It resumes the behind the lines violence [3]. It's short, but I think clear enough --Wllacer 15:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, we're missing a very important point here: the nature of the crimes and who held ultimate responsibility. We can disagree on exact number of victims caused by each side, but most modern and unbiased historians (Thomas, Payne, Beevor, etc.) coincide in stating that killings on the republican side were mainly caused by uncontrolled mobs and diminished with time, as the government slowly regained control of the situation; while on the nationalist side, killings were consequence of direct political orders by the Junta de Defensa and the Nationalist government, and remained at the same level during all the war, with small temporal decreases caused by international protests, as after the Badajoz massacre. In fact, death penalties increased as the war was finishing, and remained an all high until 1941-1942. Anti-clerical violence was visceral and came from individuals or small groups, who kept their crimes until controlled by the government. Anti-republican violence was equally visceral, but came also from the nationalist government and high officers, and kept on until many years after the war.

It's also noteworthy to comment that in Basque country, where most clergyman were openly supporting the basque nationalist movement, the nationalist troops killed many of those "curas vascos" in the same way they executed gudaris (nationalist basque fighters). This even raised a formal protest by the basque bishops before the Pope, to no avail.

Anyway, the anti-clerical crimes existed for sure, but it's difficult to separate them from crimes against supposed "right-wing" supporters, as both fields were greatly related at the time. Richy 16:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


Let me point you to [4], and linked pages. You'll find there (in spanish) an aproximative study about the evolution on the numbers of deaths vs. an auxiliary timeline (the year a province changed hands). The data are hard to interpret, but, on a quick look, do not quite support the thesis of disminishing violence on the republican side, and absolutely not that of constants level on the nationalist side.
Beyond some suspicions I have about the data I worked with (I could elaborate if interested); i realized that I found more questions than answers; but i can't pursue them now.
I you read carefully the Thomas fragment i cited before, the situation on the nationalist side, was not as simple as you put it.
The basque priests court-martialled by Franco (less that 20, IIRC) were cleary political victims, as were also a number on the other side. But the astonishing number of priest, (and specially) monks and nuns, without a political profile, still needs a different explanation.
I forgot to mention in my previous post that with the data used above, the number of religious persons killed represented a full 15% of the number of nationalist victims, a disproportionate number by any account.
In the first pages of "Homage to Catalonia" [5] Orwell reports, in a matter-of-fact manner about Barcelona in late 1936:
"...almost every church had been gutted and its images burnt. Churches here and there were being systematically demolished by gangs of workmen..." And I could recolect thousands of similar citations. No contemporany republican would deny was an intent to erase the Church from Spain in its side. It happened, and for sure it was a great mistake (as the Communist Party realized). I don't care if it was organized or not. It has to be assumed and studied, not hid under the carpet, trivialized, or put on the "collateral damages" list of the Revolution, nor hiper emphasized
--Wllacer 23:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


I must start with an apology, as I've managed to shoot myself in the foot, twice. First, for digressing from the original question. And second, for not making crystal clear that I essentally agree with you, Wllacer: anti-clerical crimes existed on the territories controlled by the republic, ran rampant for quite a while, and most neutral historians coincide on it, while possibly diverging on the exact numbers. Not only non-spanish historians, like Payne, Preston, Thomas, Beevor, etc, but also spanish ones, both old and recent (De La Cierva, Reverte, etc...). I'll provide accurate references as soon as I can, so we'll be able to get rid of that POV tag warning (sadly, I don't have my books with me at this time).
That being said, now for the details where we don't agree.
As for the type and "rythm" of repression, thank you for the link you posted. In fact I had put it on my bookmark nearly two years ago and never looked at it again, so I was missing quite a lot of changes. My bad. Anyway, I read for the first time this version precisely on "The Spanish Civil War" by Hugh Thomas. Found it again on other authors, the more recent being both local works: one derived from a TV program, "Les fosses del silenci", by Montse Armengou and Ricard Belis (more or less "The graves of silence"), though I concede that this one is exteremely biased against the Nationalist side. The other being "La repressió a la rereguarda de Catalunya", a two volume work by Josep Mª Solé i Sabaté. I'll give more exact references as soon as I can. And I'll put a closer look at the work you've reminded me and come back later to it.
About my explanation being too much simplistic, I totally agree with you. Trouble with generalizations is that they are, precisely, too general. Of course at the nationalist side there was a great deal of "visceral" repression done outside the normal chain of command, mainly the first weeks after occupation of a new territory. But almost all works on the subject coincide in that it was followed by a precise and methodical purging of any element not adhering to the "Movimiento", as you pointed out when refering to liberals, intellectuals and non-commited people. Thomas, being an author that seems both of us has read, was (IIRC) very clear about it. I must recheck it ASAP.
This is relevant to the discussion in the sense that there wasn't an organized movement from the Republic (meaning the legal government) to promote erradication of the Roman Church; in fact the government deplored such actions, and put an end to it whenever he could, aside from the many individual documented actions of republicans standing against angry mobs to defend catholics. Sadly, that was too late for many innocent people. This of course doesn't mean it didn't happened or that it could be considered less of a crime. It just means that we should take care in stating that the crimes were commited on the Republican controlled territory, not by the republicans as a whole nor by the Republic as such. On the contrary, repression on the Nationalist side was mainly done following the normal Chain of Command and as a matter of official policy. I understand that one could not care if it was "organized" or not from a personal point of view, but if we're to be enciclopedic, distinction must be made where it's due.
Anti-clericalism didn't started on the Civil War of 36-39; in fact, in Spain there's a well established tradition of sacking churches and burning church estate every time people take arms, as the Carlist wars show. But jokes aside, a lot of liberal and otherwise quite sensible people have shown strong, and even hateful, views against the Catholic Church in Spain, as a promoter and supporter of the "España Negra" (i.e., Larra). It's pretty clear now (and it certainly was at the time) that catholic church and right-wing movements were closely interlaced, except precisely in Basque country, and probably most of Catalonia. There was a revolutionary anti-catolicism, of course, and seems it was responsible of most of the crimes, but that was only the latest expression of an idea present also on the first liberals of XIX century, and not at all followed by all revolutionaries. This will need proper expansion, and probably an independent article.
About the basque priests (and I realize this was a digression from the original question), what's relevant of their deaths was not the number (16, according to Anasagasti), but two facts: formal protests were presented to the Pope, and their political profile finally wheighted more than their condition as catholic priests. Which brings up another concept, also expressed in Thomas, as in other authors, iirc: that neither Franco nor most of the rebel military were specially religious, and talk about the "Crusade" to defend the Church started nearly a month after the Alzamiento. Before, even on his very first communique, Franco was talking about saving the Republic from civil conflict.
That would mean (and seems to me it's a shared view from Tussell, Beevor, Reverte, Sabaté, Thomas and others) that the "Crusade against the Red hordes" was in fact a "casus belli" stablished well after the revolt started, well after it failed to seize control from the Republican Government, and well after the rebels started to receive help from fascist european countries.
As a side note, when you say "the number of religious persons killed represented a full 15% of the number of nationalist victims, a disproportionate number by any account.", I'm sorry but don't quite understand what do you mean, could you please expand your point? Anyway, consider that at a time when being openly catholic was seen as a political posture by many people (and a right-wing one, for that), it would be near impossible to tell if someone was shot by political or religious reasons. So this figure would be hard to confirm.
Richy 10:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
We have a lot of common references ;-). With this percentage, I meant that from the total numbers of victims of "red terror", the number of consecrated persons amounts to a 15%, well over it's demographical share (If i've read correctly the 1930 census data, a bit under 1%).Religious understood as "professional" term, not as believers.
And you are right about the term "Crusade" beeing an ex-post-facto term (except in the carlist imaginary). Speaking from memory, it was invented late 36 or early 37, by one of the catalan cardinals (Pla or Vidal)
I got interested in anticlericalism during my studies about Carlism, and a recent rereading of the "Episodios Nacionales" (The "Un faccioso mas y unos frailes menos" [6] is mandatory reading in this sense). What haunts me more is its pervivence in time and its violence (1835, 1907 and 1936 are just high points).
I'll explain why I'm so skeptical about the "espontaneous violence" idea. Nowadays many people forgets that after the 18 July the republican state collapsed and was only slowly reinvented by the Largo Caballero government. Real, revolutionary, power was in the hands, above all, of the trade unions (CNT or UGT) and the party militas. They were "incontrolados" from a governamental point of view, but how much they were from their organizations, is a question i see still open. And what's more, that thesis was "water into the mills" of the PCE (which was the party of "order"). The extreme influence of the works of Tuñon de Lara and Fontana in modern historiography have made it a paradigm, but, i haven't seen a critical examination of it.
(not exactly related) I've seen you have Sole i Sabate. I'd be very interested in your comments.

--Wllacer 16:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC) (i forgot to sign

The main point still seems to be missing in the discussion above: why do we single out clerical deaths in the intro, as if these somehow count for more than other human beings? The only argument I can see is that priests and nuns are being presented as 'innocents', therefore somehow more genuine victims than trade unionists, sisters and cousins of rojos etc. Again, the 'innocence' of catholic clergy in this context is on the one hand worthy of some debate (at the very least), on the other it seems to downplay the many (other) innocents who died. So I would propose: we rewrite the disputed intro so as not to privilege any one group of victims. We then add a new section or page on the role of the church and of anti-clericalism to go into necessary detail on this important topic.Bengalski 00:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Bengalski: I agree that the intro is too long, and why not starting moving the whole paragraph about violence (at times very difficult reading, indeed). It should be placed/merged elsewhere in the body, and leave in the intro just one catch phrase like "the war was fougth with inusual violence, both in the front and the rearguard of both parties, and a harsh repression of the vanquished after the war. Estimated death toll ranges btw 300.000-1.000.000)", which is more than needed in an introduction.

Anyhow, (I might err) you seem obssesed on why too much interest is put on the religious persecution. I think I explained it before, but i will answer you again. In a civil war, brutality against followers of the other party is to be expected. I might cynicaly add, it's no news. Look at the numbers at the Finnish_Civil_War. For a less prolonged war (6 months against 33), point up point down the same percentage of victims. But every war has its peculiar (newsworthy) aspect. On the "red zone", probably -at the very least, in the eyes of the contemporaneous- it was the religious persecution, and (IMHO) in the "national zone" the usage of the "rebelion felony".

You might me allow a last, and personnal, comment. The more I study spanish contemporaneous history, the more i get convinced that one of the greates failures of the spanish left has been its rabid anticlericalism, and -but for the last 40 years but two- it's inability to get rid of it--Wllacer 11:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I find this debate unnecessary. Of course the Commies killed innocent civilians. In every Commie state, or proposed one, there has been massive blood letting on the clergy. Whether it be during the paris commune of 1871, the Soviet Union, or the spanish civil war. So, it shouldn't take a genius to know it happened. yankeeroman(24.75.194.50 18:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC))

Calling the Republic a "commie state" is to grossly misunderstand the nature of the Spanish Civil War. The Communists were not a significant force in the beginning of the conflict, but the western powers hindered weapon sales to the republican side, while at the same time turning a blind eye to the actions of Germany and Italy. Franco invaded his own country from Spanish Africa with foreign armies, blasting Spanish cities with the devastating “condor legion” air force and executed enemy forces in uniform after promising them mercy upon surrender. The “reds” were the only ones who could deliver fighter aircraft and light tanks to counter the German-backed nationalists with their German made artillery, heavy machine-gun battalions and light Panzer tanks. The “reds” turned out to be hostile to the Republic – using artillery and air support for their own forces only, not caring for other formations. Later in the war there was a “civil war within the civil war” as the Republic fought the “reds” over control of the cause. The war was highly complicated, and statements like the one above show clearly how misinformed people really are about this “civil war”. The stories about atrocities against the Clergy were blown out of proportion to demonize the Republic as "atheist reds". --El magnifico 16:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Statements like the one above a what really distorts the truth. The anitclerical violence was true as well as the 'republic' not being under commie influence. Germany gave little support in the condor legion. It was mostly Spanish army support from Italy. Get a grip already RomanYankee(68.227.212.240 03:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC))

The Spanish Communist Party may have been small, but the Socialist Party was also Stalinist, revolutionary (at least in rhetoric), and pro-Soviet. The anarchist CNT union wasn't affiliated with Moscow, but it was extremely violent and revolutionary. So left-wing extremists were powerful even at the beginning of the civil war. In contrast, the Falange (Spanish fascists) was utterly insignificant at the time of the 1936 election. After the Popular Front gained power, the revolutionary rhetoric of people like Socialist leader Largo Caballero scared the pants off the middle class, who then flocked to extreme right groups like the Falange. Kauffner 11:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The Socialist Party was not Stalinist, the Caballero wing might be described as Marxist-Leninist, but it was certainly not Stalinist. You're also completely ignoring the fact that at least half of the Socialist leadership, Indalencio Prieto being the most notable, were remarkably moderate for the time. The anarchists, additionally, were not "extremely violent", far from it. You can call the Falange insignificant, but the minute extent of their support at that time can be dismissed by exactly the same logic with which you dismiss the size of the Communists, as many conservatives and members of the military were also simpathetic to Fascism. The middle-class certainly felt intimidated, but they mostly feared for their property and social status, actual physical threat to the lives of non-political middle-class were extremely rare. In fact, even in the social upheaval that followed the nationalist rebellion, humane landowners and industrialists were usually spared.--Nwe 16:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see. So if they didn't take any steps to resist, their property was stolen and they weren't killed. Somehow, I don't think many people found this thought reassuring. Aside from the threat of being attacked personally, revolutionary violence creates two additional issues: First, the anti-clerical violence offended many peoples' religious sensibilities. Second, a revolutionary policy is a disaster for the economy. No would wants to invest in a country if they're expecting expropriations, labor violence, and nationalizations.Kauffner 19:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Look, Kauffner ..... The Republic was the result of a democratic process. All factions had representatives. To this day – you will find even the far left in most parliaments. The Republic was able to incorporate these factions into a democratic government. Franco’s invasion of 1936 was no rebellion, and could never have happened without the assistance of the German Ju-52 airlift. After the weapons embargo of the western powers made the Republics position hopeless, the only potential supplier of modern weaponry was the Soviet Union. This in turn made the “reds” a much stronger force within the Republic then they were in 1936 - at the outbreak of war. --81.71.33.141 12:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Franco's army was a Spanish one, regardless of how it got to the Spanish mainland. I do not support the uprising; I am only trying to explain it. There is another major factor in the Communist rise to power that hasn't been mentioned yet. The Spanish state and bureaucracy were destroyed in the first couple of months of the civil war. On the Republican side, workers' groups took began performing the functions of government, including police and military. The Communist "Popular Army" was far more effective then the militia created by anarchists and other factions. Militiamen would refuse to leave their home provinces and sometimes even go home on the weekend. Committees are simply not effective when it come to issuing orders to soldiers. Of course the War Department issued the best weapons to most disciplined troops -- any other policy would been pretty stupid. The POUM, the anarchists, Azana's liberals, and the moderate Socialists all have writers to defend them, but they didn't bring much to the table from a military point of view. If the Republic had won the civil war, Spain would have become a Stalinist state, much like post-war Poland or Hungry.Kauffner 16:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

There are still numbers given for the Communists' civilian massacres, and none for the Rebels' civilian massacres. I will make this point yet again, which has been made by others and ignored by others: we should not pretend that the Nationalists murdered no-one. Nor should we claim that to murder a nun or monk is worse than to murder any other civilian. The article at present does neither of those things. Can someone please produce a number for the Rebels' atrocities? BillMasen 19:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Smith2006's edit of 9 August inserted the phrase, "by communist and anarchist milicians among the Republicans", after the numbers of religious killed. This is not neutral and factually inaccurate, as it basically states that only these factions committed any atrocities. As such, it will be removed. Furthermore, the specificity of numbers is not suitable for the tone of that paragraph, and as such, I intend to move it to a more appropriate section. 213.202.154.191 16:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The above is me. It appears there is nowhere else for that little snippet to be moved to. I have removed it and placed it here for reference, in case the article is changed to become suitable for its inclusion (for example, a larger section on atrocities). Supersheep 16:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Twelve bishops, 283 nuns 2,365 monks and 4,184 priests were killed. [1][2]

Maybe this could be worked in after the first paragraph of the section The war: 1936, because the initial bloodletting was when most of this occurred. - Jmabel | Talk 23:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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.
  • Whoever wrote the above point, could you, please, prove your point? Carroll is very unreliable as source, as well as lacking any sort of neutrality. See any of Dr. Preston's many essays on the historiography of the Spanish Civil War. --Asturs 02:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
unreliable because? The Jackal God 23:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The death toll regarding the anti-clerical killings are accepted and are not in dispute by historians. "Accepted figures for the numbers of priests and clerics killed in the loyalist zone during the Spanish Civil War would hardly be believable, were they not the result of painstaking research conducted by Antonio Montero in the late 1950s." [emphasis added] - Julio de la Cueva "Religious Persecution, Anticlerical Tradition and Revolution: On Atrocities against the Clergy during the Spanish Civil War" Journal of Contemporary History Vol.33(3) p. 355. The figures in the article are the same which de la Cueva notes are accepted. Mamalujo 18:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Still, some of the stuff mentioned in that section (burying priests alive) is completely ridiculous. Remember, there was massive amounts of propaganda thrown about in this war, the vast majority of it untrue. 86.0.88.94 12:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Beevor for the lurid atrocities is not enough, unless he is quoting from one of the aforementioned works. Beevor's books are 'popular' military history and are full of 'survivor's accounts, hearsay etc. Please source the well-throwing and rosary swallowing. Near the bottom of article theres a photo of the bridge than Nationalists threw republicans off of - the Puente Nuevo bridge. This is well documented but the Ronda killings, quoted from Thomas book and For Whom the Bells Toll are more suspect too as a source-able fact if not claim.. maxrspct ping me 19:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


According to the NY Times story of pardoned communists they regretted the killings in Madrid. nytimes 1970s The graveyards are full of details of the atrocities clearly delineated on the tombstones. Also the Cardinal of Spain, Vidal, refused to cooperate with the Falangists and was exiled to Rome. NYTIMES Story dec 3 1941 Frank Kluckhohn wrote in a magazine article Death in the Afternoon Oct 4 1936 nytimes, the rightists were grossly out numbered with 40,000 volunteers assisting the so called Republican Forces. It should be noted that communist party elements took over the Republican Govt aided and abetted by Moscow. In another NYTIMES story, the Abraham Lincolm brigade reunion, they discuss their casualties (over 50%), how some of the volunteers were out right murderers, how at the Battle of Ebro half the regiment drowned. Also to be noted that brrigade police killed a number of the so called lincoln volunteers for crimes such as rape and murder. Finally the denouement of a few Spanish red generals who fled to the USSR and ended up in Stalins death camps.