"Eighty years on, Spain may at last be able to confront ... " Topic
96 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't call someone a Nazi unless they really are a Nazi.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Interwar (WWI to WWII) Message Board Back to the Wargaming in Spain Message Board Back to the Spanish Civil War Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral World War One World War Two on the Land
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset Rating:
Featured Workbench ArticleSomething new in the world of flock?
Featured Profile Article
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Pages: 1 2
Moderate | 01 Feb 2017 3:21 p.m. PST |
As for the 1936 election results, it is useful and interesting to note three factors: (1) the Popular Front did NOT win a majority of the national popular vote One important point to remember about the 1936 election (and previous ones); the anarchists did not take part. They believe representative/parliamentary government is a sham of democracy and instead believe in direct democracy although they did end up working with the Popular Front. This can't be ignored because the Spanish CNT-FAI at the time was the largest working-class anarchist movement the world has ever seen. The CNT union is estimated to have had 1.58 million members in 1934 (Beevor) and continued to grow when war broke out. All Spanish parties such as the Communist Party, POUM etc. were dwarfed by comparison. |
Chouan | 02 Feb 2017 4:30 a.m. PST |
Indeed, so even if the Popular Front didn't win a majority of the popular vote, the Popular Front was still the most popular political block in Spain. |
KTravlos | 02 Feb 2017 3:41 p.m. PST |
Discussing civil wars, especially recent ones is hard. In Greece it is the same. I think that it takes at least 100 years if not 200 years for a country to be able to discuss dispassionately a civil war it had. And that only if quality peace conditions (giving dignity, security, and stability to all sides) have at some point taken root. Otherwise it is quite likely the issues caught up in the civil war are still active and discussing it is discussing current affairs. Actually what are the current issues that motivate the animus of Chouan and Basileus666? That would be interested to know. That said, I find it very very problematic that people forget that the Catholic Church in Spain was a political and economic organisation. Not an innocent bystander. That does not legitimize murder, but it does legitimize the moves to divest it of its worldly power. It could had supported land reform, which is the surest way to avoid a country having the kind of convulsions Spain had. But the powers that be opposed land reform (again I believe remember reading that the Church was opposed to radical land reform, and even to more gradual liberal land reform) .And thus you get civil war. (I am leaving out the question of whether land-reform was necessary or not. Also I am quite aware it was not the only issue at stake) |
Coconuts | 25 Feb 2017 5:18 a.m. PST |
<<Whilst the atrocities of the Nazis, and even those of Mussolini, have been acknowledged, and accepted, by Germany and Italy, those of Franco's supporters have not. Franco's regime lasted too long and was supported by too many in Spain for the legacy to be accepted. The right in Spain has long rejected and denied the truth of the repression. For so long has Spain been in denial that even now the realities are still denied, or down played.>> I think this happened because Germany and Italy were decisively defeated in WW2 though. With other European countries the situation is not as clear, especially following the end of the Eastern Bloc. I am unsure that a lot of the Republican sides more committed supporters on the Left were really fighting for freedom and democracy in the way those ideas would be understood in early 21st century Europe. It is understandable why people supported it but I'm also not sure that the far left ideology of that era could really have been implemented to produce the social change they wanted in Spain in any sort of peaceful way. |
Chouan | 27 Feb 2017 6:41 a.m. PST |
I'm not sure that the changes that the Popular front wanted to be implemented could really be called "far left". Granted, the changes that followed the military uprising could be called revolutionary, and were certainly from a far left ideology, the collectivisation of industry in Catalonia, for example. The policies of the Popular front government though, like legislation to protect workers' rights, sick pay, holiday pay etc. were hardly those of the far left! |
Coconuts | 28 Feb 2017 3:45 a.m. PST |
<<The policies of the Popular front government though, like legislation to protect workers' rights, sick pay, holiday pay etc. were hardly those of the far left!>> It's a while since I have read about the period but from what I remember there was strong support among sections (maybe quite large) of the Spanish left for far left revolutionary ideologies. I don't think it was a minor thing or something they kept very quiet about either, like they were committed to just the program of the Popular Front coalition and nothing more. If that had been the case I think it's doubtful a military rising in July '36 would have led to the kind of civil war that actually took place. |
flooglestreet | 28 Feb 2017 11:53 a.m. PST |
There were some far left proposals, especially in Barcelona, Coconuts. But the rebels were opposed to any progressive change. Spain was that reactionary under the Nationalists. Even the conservative Basque separatists were unacceptable to the Nationalists. |
Coconuts | 28 Feb 2017 12:54 p.m. PST |
<<There were some far left proposals, especially in Barcelona, Coconuts.>> I thought it was broader than that before the Rising happened and more of a theme with some left wing groups; Anarchists had their ideas for radical social change, revolutionary Marxists/Marxist-Leninist influenced socialists theirs, and so on. Then once the war started some compromises had to be made among left-wing groups to maintain the war effort and try to limit the damage to the Republican cause internationally that having openly revolutionary parties in control would cause. As I said in my other post if the Spanish Left had just been made up of 1970s style Euro-Communists and Social Democrats with a clear commitment to maintaining capitalism and 'bourgeois' democracy (as opposed to proletarian/people's democracy variants or dismantling the state entirely) I tend to doubt the Civil War would have developed the way it did. |
Chouan | 01 Mar 2017 3:50 a.m. PST |
Indeed, the far left wanted to carry out revolutionary policies, but, the Popular front government didn't do so, limiting itself to fairly moderate reforms. As flooglestreet has suggested, the wealthy landowners and industrialists were opposed to ANY reforms, and, having lost the election, turned to extra-parliamentary methods to stop the reforms. A military rising. "As I said in my other post if the Spanish Left had just been made up of 1970s style Euro-Communists and Social Democrats with a clear commitment to maintaining capitalism and 'bourgeois' democracy (as opposed to proletarian/people's democracy variants or dismantling the state entirely) I tend to doubt the Civil War would have developed the way it did." The Popular Front policies were exactly that kind of political group, there was no attempt, or even suggestion of an attempt, to dismantle the state, or carry out anything that could even be loosely described as revolutionary. Once the rising against the legitimately elected government took place, however, with the immediate bloody repression that was a pre-planned part of the rising, the far left groups took that as a justification to carry out social revolution. Collectivisation of industry in Catalonia, for example, and seizure of uncultivated land and collectivisation of agriculture where there were large numbers of landless labourers and large estates, referred to as latifundias. It was the complete intransigence of the right, the complete refusal to countenance ANY reforms and any improvements to the lives of the poor that led to the rising. |
Coconuts | 01 Mar 2017 6:30 a.m. PST |
<<The Popular Front policies were exactly that kind of political group, there was no attempt, or even suggestion of an attempt, to dismantle the state, or carry out anything that could even be loosely described as revolutionary.>> As far as I understand it the Popular Front was not a single party or political group but a coalition of different left wing groups, which had different views and understandings of the purpose of the Popular Front program. <<Once the rising against the legitimately elected government took place, however, with the immediate bloody repression that was a pre-planned part of the rising, the far left groups took that as a justification to carry out social revolution. >> How did that happen if the Spanish Left before the rising was just a big block of moderate social democrats committed to maintaining capitalism? Where did the more militant leftists (who actually proved to be the regime's main defenders against the coup) come from? <<It was the complete intransigence of the right, the complete refusal to countenance ANY reforms and any improvements to the lives of the poor that led to the rising.>> Well, I agree that there were parts of the Spanish right that were completely intransigent (or wanted to establish their own brand of right wing extremism), I find it unusual to ignore the existence on the left of active militant groups who wanted TOTAL revolutionary change of society, as if that was no factor in the rising or the support it could mobilise. |
Blutarski | 01 Mar 2017 7:07 a.m. PST |
Very well put and spot on, Coconuts. B |
Chouan | 02 Mar 2017 3:25 a.m. PST |
"As far as I understand it the Popular Front was not a single party or political group but a coalition of different left wing groups, which had different views and understandings of the purpose of the Popular Front program." Indeed, it was a coalition which, although some individual parties were more radical than others, agreed a consensus of policy. "How did that happen if the Spanish Left before the rising was just a big block of moderate social democrats committed to maintaining capitalism? Where did the more militant leftists (who actually proved to be the regime's main defenders against the coup) come from?" Some of the more radical members of the left were involved in the Popular Front, others, like the Anarchists, had not taken part in the elections and weren't part of that moderate block. However, as they had no serious political power they could not carry out any of their policies. Similarly, the POUM was a far left party which had a political agenda which wasn't part of that of the Popular Front. Once the rising occurred, and had been crushed by popular forces in some areas, there was a consequent loss of authority of the central government in areas like Catalonia, which enabled the Anarchists and POUM to pursue their own ideology. The military rising removed the constraints on the far left. "Well, I agree that there were parts of the Spanish right that were completely intransigent (or wanted to establish their own brand of right wing extremism)" Indeed, the right was vehemently opposed to any reform that might weaken their economic and political hold on Spain. Hence the immediate preparation for a military rising when they lost the democratic elections. "I find it unusual to ignore the existence on the left of active militant groups who wanted TOTAL revolutionary change of society, as if that was no factor in the rising or the support it could mobilise." Who is ignoring them? The Anarchists, of course, wanted to reconstruct Spain. The point is that they didn't have the power the ability or the mandate to do so. The very existence of the Anarchists and the Communists was a justification, a pretext, that, in the viewpoint of the right, allowed them to launch their coup. That the communists and Anarchists hadn't carried out anything in their programme, and didn't have the ability to do so, was irrelevant to the right. The fear of the far left of the wealthy was the weapon of the right. The left didn't have to do anything for the right to hate and fear them. The mere existence of the left was sufficient for the wealthy to hate and fear them, and their potential influence. The right have, ever since 1936 (and even earlier) used the fear of the left to justify the violence of the military uprising against the legitimate, democratically elected government of Spain. Even if the popular front HAD carried out revolutionary policies, they had a democratically achieved mandate to have done so. The fact was that it was irrelevant what the Popular front did or didn't do, the right started to plan their violent uprising as soon as they lost the election. It wasn't in response to any far left programme, but in response to defeat at the polls. |
Chouan | 02 Mar 2017 3:28 a.m. PST |
"Very well put and spot on, Coconuts." Indeed? In what sense? |
Chouan | 02 Mar 2017 4:15 a.m. PST |
It is curious that although people, in general, rightly condemn the far right in Germany and Italy for their violence and vile ideology, there is a tendency for people to seek to justify the violence and the vile ideology of the far right in Spain. Indeed, not merely to seek to justify it, but to seek reasons to condone their bloody repression. |
Coconuts | 02 Mar 2017 4:35 a.m. PST |
<<Once the rising occurred, and had been crushed by popular forces in some areas, there was a consequent loss of authority of the central government in areas like Catalonia, which enabled the Anarchists and POUM to pursue their own ideology. The military rising removed the constraints on the far left.>> Again, as I understand it the authority of the central government more or less crumbled in the Republican zone and power transferred directly to the Popular Front parties and the Anarchists and POUM, particularly the groups who could actually mobilise militants to fight the military; the far left ones. So the (vast?) majority of volunteers who took up arms to defend the Republic turned out to come from far left groups, but there were plenty of them, because there had been plenty of militant far left factions before the Rising anyway. <<Who is ignoring them? The Anarchists, of course, wanted to reconstruct Spain. The point is that they didn't have the power the ability or the mandate to do so.>> I don't think the Anarchists were the only group who wanted to reconstruct Spain; all of the other Left groups that adopted variants of revolutionary Marxism had ideas about how Spain could/needed to be transformed. <<The very existence of the Anarchists and the Communists was a justification, a pretext, that, in the viewpoint of the right, allowed them to launch their coup.>> I'm sure the very existence of Anarchists and Communists would have been enough for some on the right to try to launch a coup, but in 1936 it wasn't a question of the existence of small or marginal groups of Anarchists, revolutionary socialists and Comintern affiliated groups. There were very significant numbers of them and they shared with much of the right either an outright rejection of 'bourgeois' democracy on the Republican model or a purely tactical acceptance of it as long as it served their longer term ideological aims. <<The fear of the far left of the wealthy was the weapon of the right.>> Given the prominence and scope of the support for far left at that point, not a difficult weapon to deploy. |
Chouan | 02 Mar 2017 8:48 a.m. PST |
Indeed, but my argument is that the Popular front did nothing that could be construed by anybody as being a policy of the far left, nothing revolutionary, nothing that could be argued as a challenge to the existing state. The right, not just the far right, but the right in general, saw any change, any reform, as a threat to their dominance of society, so immediately planned the rising that followed. It wasn't because of any far left actions or because of any far left ideologies, but because they saw their position of absolute social, cultural and economic dominance under threat. Any reform, any improvement to the lot of the poor was seen as such a threat to be opposed by violence, now that opposition through the ballot box had failed. "Again, as I understand it the authority of the central government more or less crumbled in the Republican zone and power transferred directly to the Popular Front parties and the Anarchists and POUM, particularly the groups who could actually mobilise militants to fight the military; the far left ones." Not really. The far left groups seized power in some areas, but the central government still existed and still controlled the state, in as much as it could be controlled given the conditions. POUM and the Anarchists were only dominant in Catalonia, although the far left existed elsewhere in Spain, and had some measure of power everywhere. Be aware that not all of the army, the Guardia Civil and the Assaltos joined the rebels, not even all of the officers, so the resistance to the rebels wasn't merely that of militias, although that is the popular view. Most of the troops facing the rebels weren't communist (of various complexions) or anarchists. "So the (vast?) majority of volunteers who took up arms to defend the Republic turned out to come from far left groups, but there were plenty of them, because there had been plenty of militant far left factions before the Rising anyway." No. The vast majority of the volunteers were not of the far left, but were those who had voted for the Popular front. The parties of the far left, obviously, organised militias, but they weren't the majority of the forces facing the rebels. They weren't even the best organised, although they may well have been the most motivated. George Orwell describes the kind of people who were in his POUM militia column in the Lenin Barracks in Barcelona. Most weren't communists or anarchists, but saw the POUM as mobilising against the rebels immediately and saw them as an opportunity to fight for their republic with some level of immediacy, and without having to join the Spanish army which wasn't popular with the working classes. "I'm sure the very existence of Anarchists and Communists would have been enough for some on the right to try to launch a coup, but in 1936 it wasn't a question of the existence of small or marginal groups of Anarchists, revolutionary socialists and Comintern affiliated groups. There were very significant numbers of them and they shared with much of the right either an outright rejection of 'bourgeois' democracy on the Republican model or a purely tactical acceptance of it as long as it served their longer term ideological aims." Only there weren't significant numbers of them, and there were far more communists in Spain who weren't affiliated to the comintern than were. The cominterm sponsored communist groups became far more important as the war developed as they had control of the distribution of Russian arms and equipment. There was NO threat of revolution and NO attempt at anything that could be described as revolution. It didn't matter though, a victory by the Popular Front was enough to justify a coup, in the eyes of the right. "Given the prominence and scope of the support for far left at that point, not a difficult weapon to deploy." Only because the very existence of the left was an abomination to the right. They even loathed freemasonry the rather petit bourgeoisie expression of solidarity, hardly a revolutionary organisation, and murdered every member that they could identify. The fear and loathing didn't need to be based on anything real. Rather like the fear and loathing of immigrants, and some religious groups, engendered by the right at the moment, the danger doesn't have to be real for the right to use it to gain support and power. |
Blutarski | 02 Mar 2017 2:48 p.m. PST |
Don't bother, Coconuts. Chouan will just continue to inundate the thread with endlessly repetitive one-sided ideological cant and blather. You're dealing with a "true believer" here. No matter how cogent and logical and well supported your arguments, only his own interpretation of events is tolerable. Anything that runs counter is discarded as "fascist propaganda". I used to get a lot of this kind of stuff from the New Left travelling mouthpieces of "Students for a Democratic Society" in the 60s and 70s – no deviation whatsoever from the official party point of view was permitted. I just popped by to let you know that your measured and gentlemanly presentation has support. B |
Chouan | 03 Mar 2017 3:45 a.m. PST |
Given that you've not been able to make any substantive argument that the right were in any way justified in their programme of murder, you seem to have followed a conventional "attack the poster if one can't attack the argument" line, which doesn't surprise me. Indeed, all you've done here is confirm the suggestion that I made in a previous post. Nice, in a way, to be proven right, even if inadvertently! I would be grateful if you could please substantiate, if you can, your assertion that my posts are "ideological cant and blather", as it would be an interesting read. Seeing how a person seeks to explain away unpleasant facts that they don't like is always interesting. On the other hand, I won't hold my breath, as you have, until now, failed to offer any substantive evidence to support your views (what are they by the way, beyond murder of opponents by the right is fully justified?), limiting yourself to unsubstantiated opinion, and have essentially limited yourself to making remarks about the sources of evidence rather than the evidence itself, vide your unsubstantiated remarks in the thread "The Spanish Civil War: An Overview", where you dismiss the article because of the perceived political viewpoint of the author, but are apparently unable to explain how and why the article is so inaccurate. Could you please also point out where coconuts' views are cogent and logical and well supported? He has expressed opinions, to which he is entitled, but nothing more than opinions. No evidence, in fact nothing that could be described as being "well supported". Nothing wrong with coconuts expressing their opinion, of course, but it is nothing more than opinion. That you think that his opinion coincides with yours hardly counts as supportive evidence! |
Coconuts | 03 Mar 2017 12:01 p.m. PST |
Blutarski, <<Don't bother, Coconuts. Chouan will just continue to inundate the thread with endlessly repetitive one-sided ideological cant and blather. You're dealing with a "true believer" here. No matter how cogent and logical and well supported your arguments, only his own interpretation of events is tolerable. Anything that runs counter is discarded as "fascist propaganda.>> Given this: <<Only because the very existence of the left was an abomination to the right. They even loathed freemasonry the rather petit bourgeoisie expression of solidarity, hardly a revolutionary organisation, and murdered every member that they could identify. The fear and loathing didn't need to be based on anything real. Rather like the fear and loathing of immigrants, and some religious groups, engendered by the right at the moment, the danger doesn't have to be real for the right to use it to gain support and power.>> …you may be right. |
Chouan | 04 Mar 2017 2:21 p.m. PST |
Care to point out the factual errors in what you've quoted? Clearly you think the paragraph significant, otherwise you wouldn't have quoted it, so, what is there in the quote that is inaccurate? Or do you merely share Blutarski's visceral reaction to a political viewpoint? |
Coconuts | 05 Mar 2017 5:38 a.m. PST |
<<Or do you merely share Blutarski's visceral reaction to a political viewpoint?>> I find that a strongly politicised approach to discussing history is not that credible and may end up not having that much to do with the history that is supposed to be the subject of the discussion. <<Only because the very existence of the left was an abomination to the right. They even loathed freemasonry the rather petit bourgeoisie expression of solidarity, hardly a revolutionary organisation, and murdered every member that they could identify.>> So, if I understand the argument presented here: The Spanish right, which you seem to have been claiming was a single monolithic bloc, was violently opposed to the existence of any left wing political organisation or activity. This is proved by the fact that the monolithic rightist movement murdered every freemason they could find because freemasonry was an expression of petit bourgeois solidarity and therefore had some left wing content. Hence the case is proved that the Spanish right was violently intolerant of anything that could be considered as left wing belief or activity. And as far as I understand it, you have been arguing that the violent intolerance of this monolithic block of rightists to any left wing belief or activity was pretty much the only cause of the Spanish Civil War, and that this is the only reasonable or factual grounded interpretation possible? <<Rather like the fear and loathing of immigrants, and some religious groups, engendered by the right at the moment, the danger doesn't have to be real for the right to use it to gain support and power.>> This seems to be an emotive political opinion, possibly relating to contemporary politics in Western Europe and the US? On the one hand it's true that right wing groups can act to engender fear to gain support and power, on the other hand it would be false to contend that all right wing claims are nothing more than falsely engendered, groundless fear based on unreal dangers or problems. That kind of claim would be an example of the way left leaning groups might try to discredit anyone who disagrees with them and establish/maintain a monopoly on power. |
Chouan | 06 Mar 2017 2:58 a.m. PST |
"I find that a strongly politicised approach to discussing history is not that credible and may end up not having that much to do with the history that is supposed to be the subject of the discussion." Indeed, which is why I consider the facts objectively rather than focus on the political viewpoint of the writer. Facts are important and immutable whereas opinion is subjective. Knowing the political viewpoint of the writer is important, of course, but if one considers the evidence and the facts, then the writer's politics becomes less important. On the other hand, where the writer merely presents their opinion, without evidence or facts to support that view, then their political viewpoint becomes dominant, of course. You'll note that Blutarski, for example, in his posts never presented any actual evidence to support his views, merely offering opinion as if it were fact, and has consistently failed to offer any actual evidence based arguments. "So, if I understand the argument presented here: The Spanish right, which you seem to have been claiming was a single monolithic bloc, was violently opposed to the existence of any left wing political organisation or activity." You seem to be rather simplifying my argument here, perhaps deliberately? I haven't anywhere claimed that the right was monolithic, there were after all, fascists, monarchists, right wing republicans, extreme right wing nationalists, and right wing clericalists. All that they had in common was a loathing of the left. That hardly makes them a monolithic block, neither does the fact that they coalesced into the Nationalists mean that they were a monololith. Nevertheless, you will see if you read any of the major texts on the Civil War that what you have written is broadly true. "This is proved by the fact that the monolithic rightist movement murdered every freemason they could find because freemasonry was an expression of petit bourgeois solidarity and therefore had some left wing content." I'm interested as to why you have again simplified and rather taken out of context this argument. The fact is (note, this isn't opinion, but fact based) that freemasonry was condemned by the far right and free masons were purged mercilessly in the occupied zone by the Nationalists. Were freemasons revolutionary? Were they seeking to create a revolutionary change in society? Were they doing any of the kind of things that you appear to believe justified the rising? I would suggest that they weren't, so I'd be interested to see your view as to why the Francoists sought to kill them all? "Hence the case is proved that the Spanish right was violently intolerant of anything that could be considered as left wing belief or activity." An example indeed of how the Spanish right was violently intolerant of anything that could be considered as left wing belief or activity. Again, why do you think freemasons were targeted by the Spanish Right? Why do you think that the Francoists executed any army or navy or airforce officers who opposed, or even refused to join, their rising. Were those murders also justified on the grounds that they were seeking to overthrow Spanish society? "… as far as I understand it, you have been arguing that the violent intolerance of this monolithic block of rightists to any left wing belief or activity was pretty much the only cause of the Spanish Civil War, and that this is the only reasonable or factual grounded interpretation possible?" Rather than paraphrase my view, seemingly for your own, and I assume others', amusement, why don't you offer a fact based argument? You've presented plenty in the way of opinion, lots of "I think" or "I don't think", but nothing in the way of evidence to challenge the view that I've given, or to support your own view. "On the one hand it's true that right wing groups can act to engender fear to gain support and power, on the other hand it would be false to contend that all right wing claims are nothing more than falsely engendered, groundless fear based on unreal dangers or problems. That kind of claim would be an example of the way left leaning groups might try to discredit anyone who disagrees with them and establish/maintain a monopoly on power." You seem to be keen on extending the particular into the general, taking a specific argument that I've presented and extending it to argue things that I haven't actually argued. Where have I said that "all right wing claims are nothing more than falsely engendered fear based on unreal dangers"? That would indeed be false, but I haven't argued that, so why imply, or even indirectly assert that I have? That the right in Britain and the US have sought to use some issues to engender fear in order to gain political power is true. The issue of immigration, for example, has been used by a very small minority party in the UK to try to gain power by playing on peoples' fears. Are you saying that this isn't true? Implying that I am saying that all right wing claims are as you suggest is an example of how you might be seeking to discredit me and my views when you've got no factual evidence with which to do so. |
KTravlos | 06 Mar 2017 4:42 a.m. PST |
I think there is simple question here Coconaut do you believe that the power/influence of Anarchist and Communists in Spanish politics justified the military coup and the imposition of the Franco regime? I mean you can quibble about the size and power of the Anarchist and Communists all day (I am in the middle between you and Chouan), as well how radical they were, but base question is really simple: Did it justify the militay coup and the Franco regime? I do not want to be unfair to Blutarski, but my reading of his comments to Chouan, is that yes it did for him. Chouan thinks no. I think no. But what about you? It is not a simple question. The existence of the Communists in Germany was the justification the DNVP used to justify supporting you know who. Does the existence of strong communist movement in a country justify auhtoritarian, and even totalitarian reactions? |
Blutarski | 06 Mar 2017 6:29 a.m. PST |
I too believe that the "simple question" is not quite so simple. LTravlos wrote – "I do not want to be unfair to Blutarski, but my reading of his comments to Chouan, is that yes it did for him." It is necessary to read my comments carefully. I took no sides; nor did I anoint any faction. The point I make is that violent provocations inevitably beget a violent response. What is the underlying truth and justice of the matter? As you put it in connection with the Greek Civil War, it will probably require 200 years to reach the necessary degree of sober dispassion to make a truly fair assessment. B |
Chouan | 06 Mar 2017 7:19 a.m. PST |
What violent provocations? If you meant the actions of the landowners and industrialists through the Guardia Civil and their armed thugs throughout the 1920's and 1930's I'd agree that these were indeed violent provocations, such appalling treatment of trade unionists, and their families, murders, rapes, tortures, certainly brought about the rising in the Asturias. But what were the violent provocations on the left, that, apparently, justify a bloody military uprising against a legitimately elected government, with premeditated mass murder? Clearly you think that there must have been something that, to you, justifies mass murder, after all, you keep arguing along those lines that "violent provocations inevitably beget a violent response". You have also repeatedly made accusations of a personal nature based on my perceived political viewpoint that do you no credit, and which have substantially undermined your claim to be impartial. You've also condemned scholarly work on the basis of the writer's perceived political viewpoint, without being able to substantiate your criticisms. Your claim of impartiality is spurious. |
Chouan | 06 Mar 2017 8:17 a.m. PST |
KTravlos, that is the point. Can one in any fairness justify the murderous repression of the Francoists? What did the Popular front government do that justified such a violent programme? |
Coconuts | 06 Mar 2017 10:30 a.m. PST |
KTravlos, I think there is simple question here Coconaut do you believe that the power/influence of Anarchist and Communists in Spanish politics justified the military coup and the imposition of the Franco regime? No, I don't think the influence of the Anarchists and other Far Left groups can justify the Nationalist repression and the Francoist state. Also, I've been talking about far left 'revolutionary' beliefs rather than specifically 'Communist' ones, if by 'Communist' only the ideology and membership of the PCE is meant. I consider the following kinds of ideas to be far-left and 'revolutionary': acceptance of revolutionary violence (considering it inevitable, justified or praiseworthy), belief in class struggle or class war, belief in a need to bring capitalism to an end via nationalisation/collectivization of the economy, belief that anything identified by their party as 'fascist' political activity had to be prohibited and repressed (this could be interpreted very broadly, besides including all right wing parties the PCE started to identify FAI anarchists as 'agents of Fascism' as well) and finally beliefs in 'dictatorship of the proletariat', 'proletarian democracy' and related Marxist ideas. I do think that the presence and activity of groups with these views did have a role to play in underming the Republic and explaining why a civil war broke out. A chunk of the membership of the PSOE and affiliated unions seems to have held views like these. This was more significant than small parties like POUM or the PCE. Then, while I don't think the Francoists can be morally justified for their activities, I also don't believe that those who held and tried to promote their far-left beliefs can be fully justified either, especially in hindsight. I live in one of the former constituent republics of the USSR so this may influence my view a bit. Does the existence of strong communist movement in a country justify auhtoritarian, and even totalitarian reactions? It depends on the case I think; a strongly authoritarian or totalitarian right wing regime may be as bad or worse than a Communist one. The question can be phrased in opposite terms too: does the existence of a strong authoritarian (even totalitarian) right wing movement justify a far-left or Communist monopoly on power? (Even when this monopoly is expressed in terms of freedom and democracy, like the 1930s Stalinist line that the USSR was 'the freest and most democratic state in the world'.) I don't know a lot about the detail of the German case but that is one in which, especially in hindsight, it seems a Communist regime would likely have turned out better, at least for Europe as a whole, than the far-right one which took power. |
Coconuts | 06 Mar 2017 11:21 a.m. PST |
An example indeed of how the Spanish right was violently intolerant of anything that could be considered as left wing belief or activity. It's a weak example that does nothing to prove that the right before the Rising was blindly and violently opposed to all kinds of left wing belief. As I believe you hint at yourself, Freemasonry is not that left wing. The Falange and Franco's own Movimiento probably had as much, or more in the case of the Falange, left wing content in their ideologies. As far as I know Francoists killed Masons because of religious prejudice and belief in conspiracy theories which presented Masons as being part of a major international 'Marxist conspiracy', so much further left and actively malevolent than they were in reality. why don't you offer a fact based argument? You've presented plenty in the way of opinion, lots of "I think" or "I don't think", but nothing in the way of evidence to challenge the view that I've given, or to support your own view. From what I can see in your posts addressed to me you have asserted a lot of things but that is different to giving evidence or references that justify what you claim or assert. As far as I can remember you have made one clear claim which was backed up with a source for it: No. The vast majority of the volunteers were not of the far left, but were those who had voted for the Popular front. The parties of the far left, obviously, organised militias, but they weren't the majority of the forces facing the rebels. They weren't even the best organised, although they may well have been the most motivated. George Orwell describes the kind of people who were in his POUM militia column in the Lenin Barracks in Barcelona. Most weren't communists or anarchists, but saw the POUM as mobilising against the rebels immediately and saw them as an opportunity to fight for their republic with some level of immediacy, and without having to join the Spanish army which wasn't popular with the working classes. That got me thinking so I'm going to post a response to it next. The issue of immigration, for example, has been used by a very small minority party in the UK to try to gain power by playing on peoples' fears. Are you saying that this isn't true? Implying I thought that discussion of contemporary politics was either discouraged or actually not permitted on these boards? Has that changed? |
Coconuts | 06 Mar 2017 11:41 a.m. PST |
"So the (vast?) majority of volunteers who took up arms to defend the Republic turned out to come from far left groups, but there were plenty of them, because there had been plenty of militant far left factions before the Rising anyway."No. The vast majority of the volunteers were not of the far left, but were those who had voted for the Popular front. The parties of the far left, obviously, organised militias, but they weren't the majority of the forces facing the rebels. They weren't even the best organised, although they may well have been the most motivated. George Orwell describes the kind of people who were in his POUM militia column in the Lenin Barracks in Barcelona. Most weren't communists or anarchists, but saw the POUM as mobilising against the rebels immediately and saw them as an opportunity to fight for their republic with some level of immediacy, and without having to join the Spanish army which wasn't popular with the working classes In relation to this claim, based, apparently, on what George Orwell wrote in 'Hommage to Catalonia' in the 1930s, I looked at Michael Alpert's book 'El Ejercito Popular de la Republica 1936-1939' Critica, 2007. Alpert estimates that there were a maximum of 100,000 men in the militias at any one time (pp.44-45). This represents a small proportion of the total number of voters for the Popular Front in the February election (about 4.5 million voters) and also includes anarchists who didn't participate in the Popular Front. The militias were not raised on a generic 'Popular Front' basis, but by particular political parties and Trade Unions (Alpert p.37). The government tried to raise some volunteer battalions but didn't get very far (2 were formed?) and they weren't very popular so the party militias clearly carried the main burden of the fighting (Alpert p.40). James Matthews adds some more information in his book 'Reluctant Warriors: Republican Popular Army and Nationalist Army Conscripts in the Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939' Oxford, 2012: 'The armed groups loyal to the Republic immediately following the July 1936 uprising were an uncoordinated combination of party and union based volunteer militia…' p.17 'For both Republicans and Nationalists it was only political militants who volunteered, while the masses were only truly mobilized by conscription'. p.18 'Open political loyalty and a fragmented command structure were a second reason for disorganization in battle. Rival party and union militias were uncooperative and competed for resources. Militiamen disliked fighting alongside other political units and suspected them of not pulling their weight' p.21 As I understand it you are arguing that most of the relatively small number of militia volunteers were not members of parties or unions with what I identify as far-left agendas or ideologies (see my recent post to K Travlos for the criteria I use for this), nor motivated by what I think of as revolutionary beliefs, based mainly (only?) on Orwell. |
Coconuts | 06 Mar 2017 11:59 a.m. PST |
With respect to this: Be aware that not all of the army, the Guardia Civil and the Assaltos joined the rebels, not even all of the officers, so the resistance to the rebels wasn't merely that of militias, although that is the popular view. Most of the troops facing the rebels weren't communist (of various complexions) or anarchists. …what is the source? Alpert notes on the role of the pre-war army and security forces that failed to join the Rising and remained in the Republican zone:(p.29 of 'El Ejercito Popular..'): 'All the data tends to demonstrate, with small exceptions, that the units which existed in the government zone were of little usefulness, mainly because their officers, in variable proportions, had rebelled, were in doubt, failed to show themselves trustworthy enough in the first skirmishes or had done everything other than prioritise their loyalty to the Republic above their loyalty to their military comrades in arms or their political opinions. For this reason the army units in the Republican zone don't stand comparaison with those of the other'. Matthews adds p.17: '…in the Republican territory the regular pre-war conscript army had practically disintegrated.' 'While some of these former soldiers joined the conflict via the militias, the army ceased to be a tool at the state's disposal for its defence…' Matthews also notes that the (numerically quite small) para-military security units that did remain loyal to the republic played an important role in the containment of the rebel garrisons in Madrid and Barcelona and could tip the scales in other places because many of the conscript soldiers on the rebel side were poorly motivated and trained pp.18-19. Given how ambiguous the commitment of the rank and file in the rebel units could be, and also the small number of volunteers (I have references that I can dig out but overall strength for right wing volunteer units before conscription started to be implemented was lower than 40,000), the idea that the 4,500,000 right wing voters of February 1936 were strongly committed to crushing the left seems doubtful. |
Chouan | 06 Mar 2017 1:26 p.m. PST |
That's more like it, some proper fact based arguments. I'll respond when I have more time. |
KTravlos | 06 Mar 2017 1:37 p.m. PST |
Thank's for answering my question Coconuts. "belief in class struggle or class war, belief in a need to bring capitalism to an end via nationalisation/collectivization of the economy, " That pretty much makes all 19th-early 20th century social-democratic parties unacceptably radical, as well as many national-liberal ones that did do nationalization and things like land reform (de facto land redistribution), as well as many 19th-early 20th century conservative parties that de-facto did believe in class warfare even if they used other terms for classes engaged in it. You can also believe in class warfare as a fact of social life, but not believe that the resolution of it is by dictatorship of the proletariate, or that it is resolvable. I.e you can consider it a condition to be ameliorated, rather than a problem to be solved. I do not think that is radical position, just a recognition that reality does not operate just via individuals, and that different material conditions do have political consequences at the level of society. |
Coconuts | 06 Mar 2017 3:38 p.m. PST |
K Travlos, That pretty much makes all 19th-early 20th century social-democratic parties unacceptably radical, as well as many national-liberal ones that did do nationalization and things like land reform (de facto land redistribution), as well as many 19th-early 20th century conservative parties that de-facto did believe in class warfare even if they used other terms for classes engaged in it. I would think they were radical if they wanted to bring capitalism to an end i.e. aiming to nationalize and collectivize more or less all aspects of the economy in the Soviet manner. I don't think land reform that involves passing land into the ownership of peasants or nationalization of certain industries or utilities entails bringing capitalism to an end. |
KTravlos | 07 Mar 2017 2:26 a.m. PST |
The goal was transforming the economic system. They just rejected the Soviet model.Indeed in most cases Liberal-Nationalist economic policy was based on de-facto class arguements, The classes where just of different nations. This definition of radicalism also gives a carte blanche to people like the Whigs in the 17th-18th century, or the Girodinis during he French Revolution, that imposed private property and destroyed communal or public property rights by force. If it is radical to end capitalism, is it not radical to end the pre-existent communalism? Many of the anti-communist regimes were simple excuses to destroy age old communal or corporate property rights. How is that not radical? A very poor definition of radicalism I dare say. But it is off topic and I will stop here. |
Coconuts | 07 Mar 2017 3:23 a.m. PST |
If it is radical to end capitalism, is it not radical to end the pre-existent communalism? Many of the anti-communist regimes were simple excuses to destroy age old communal or corporate property rights. How is that not radical? A very poor definition of radicalism I dare say. I don't know how to assess your judgement, I dare say. I've been thinking about things in the context of Spain in the 1930s and causes of the outbreak of the Civil War so I put forward my definitions of 'radical' and far-left with that context in mind. These points seem to be a lot more generic (Whigs and Girondins in the 17th-18th centuries, countries other than Spain?), on a broader topic. |
Chouan | 07 Mar 2017 3:49 a.m. PST |
"the idea that the 4,500,000 right wing voters of February 1936 were strongly committed to crushing the left seems doubtful." However, those voters would have been from a wide age range, so many, probably most, wouldn't have been of military age. Also, you've got the difference between the ordinary Spaniard who feared for their status and supported the right, the relatively prosperous peasants of Castile, who feared that their land ownership would be under threat, who believed the propaganda of CEDA, for example, and the ultra-conservative Carlists of Navarre. The Carlists who became volunteers of the Requetes were far more likely than ordinary middle class shop owners to fight for the rebels. There were also, I'm led to understand, many in the Nationalist Zone, for want of a better word, who joined the Falange and the Falange Militia in order to avoid proscription, and the Nationalists routinely conscripted workers who'd escaped proscription. Nevertheless, the supporters of the right were numerous enough to ensure that the rebellion was a success in their areas, and it was the supporters of the right that carried out the proscriptions locally once the Nationalist army had moved on; after all, they knew who the leftists were. |
KTravlos | 07 Mar 2017 4:23 a.m. PST |
Not so broad Coconut. A lot of the peasant and working class anger that fueld things like the Popular Front was the result of a precedening period of 100 years of assaults on communal property rights, many going back to the middle ages by liberal authortirain regimes (think Pinochet. Many of the military rulers of Spain in the period between 1820 and 1930 fit the Pinochet mold nicely, through more properly Pinochet fits their mold, as they preceded him). You cannot just say all that is irrelevant, and pass judgment on waht is radical by ignoring 100 years of well frankly, private property adherent attacks on communal and corporate property rights in Spain. One form of radicalism will feed another. Private property rights in Spain did not come as a result of concesusal or consevative process (they did not in England either, but that is another issue). They came as radical impositions in many cases. That is not a question of whetehr that imposition was wrong or right. But that it was radical. And radicalism will breed radicalism. To paraphrase Blutarski's words of "violent provocations inevitably beget a violent response.", 100 years of radical policy in one direction, will beget radical policy in another. One cannot explain the Spanish Civil War by ingorning this. |
Coconuts | 07 Mar 2017 4:39 a.m. PST |
However, those voters would have been from a wide age range, so many, probably most, wouldn't have been of military age. Well, some of the voters were women I think. I'm not familiar with the demographics of Spain in the 1930s so I can't judge the proportion in the age range to join the militias. The 40,000 figure does include 'second line' and rearguard militia forces as well though, not just the ones intended for front line combat so probably could include older men. My figure comes from Jose Semprun's 'Dal Hacho al Pirineo: El Ejercito Nacional en la Guerra de Espana', Actas, 2004, p.185: 'By the first weeks of autumn, at the point at which the fronts first started to become relatively stable, according to calculations of the Francoist headquarters the strength of the paramilitary militias fighting with the insurgents was around 45,000 at the front and in the rear areas. The figure seems somewhat high, though the gap between it and the reality isn't as large as the first we considered.' p.185 Nevertheless, the supporters of the right were numerous enough to ensure that the rebellion was a success in their areas That's true, Semprun notes '(the role of the militias in the insurgent war effort was most significant in the summer of 1936)… not so much as a consequence of their numerical strength, which, as we have seen, except in exceptional cases was very small, but more because in comparison with the very limited strength of the Army forces it meant a substantial reinforcement for the latter. Also the presence of volunteer units probably helped in good measure to ensure the loyalty of the regular units who had joined the Rising'. p.184-185 Semprun also describes the way in which volunteers after the first three months were probably motivated by a desire avoid conscription into regular units and had little knowledge of the ideology of the forces they were joining p.192-193 …the Nationalists routinely conscripted workers who'd escaped proscription. The Nationalists managed to successfully conscript a lot of workers and even a lot of ex-members of the Republican Army: 'Our Red Soldiers: The Nationalist Army's Management of its Left-wing Conscripts in the Spanish Civil War 1936-39' Journal of Contemporary History Vol 45 pp. 344-363. 'Men who had left-wing pasts were able to shelter within the Nationalist Army on condition that they provided an effective minimum level of service in uniform. A similar strategic policy allowed the Nationalists to incorporate over half of Republican Popular Army prisoners of war into their own army – a process known as 'recycling'. p.344 |
Coconuts | 07 Mar 2017 4:56 a.m. PST |
Private property rights in Spain did not come as a result of concesusal or consevative process (they did not in England either, but that is another issue). They came as radical impositions in many cases. That is not a question of whetehr that imposition was wrong or right. But that it was radical. And radicalism will breed radicalism. There was radical technological change as well, so I suppose that played a role in begetting radicalism? Of both sides? 100 years of radical policy in one direction, will beget radical policy in another. One cannot explain the Spanish Civil War by ingorning this. I'm not sure what trying to maintain pre-1820 communal and corporate property rights through the 19th and early 20th century would have looked like. Also some right wing movements in Spain also seem to have been in favour of preserving aspects of these things. |
KTravlos | 07 Mar 2017 5:26 a.m. PST |
Remember that the technological change was mostly funded by surplus capital created by the enclosures. The changes in property rights, many times violent, were part of the driving force for the industrial revolution. It is why the enclosures in England for example predate the expansion fo the industrial revolution (16th and 17th century vs. 18th-19th century), rather than follow it. You are alo insinuating that technological change somehow decides laws. It does not. Whether enclosures happen, whether peasants are kicked off the common land they used to have a corporate right to till, is not decided by technology but by decision makers. Most of whom made money from the enclosures and most of whom imposed the changes in a top down and radical manner. This is especially the case in Spain.The social and political concequences of technology are mediated by the decisions of people, not determined by the technlogy directly. As for the policies in reaction. That is a question of imagination and will,as well as possiblity. The Girodins in France did do the same thing that the Whigs in England did-privatise community land. But they also largely left the decision on what to do with communal property to communes. Some privatised it, others kept it communal. It partly explained why the coutnryside was more pro-Girodin than Jacobin (the urban poor being a completely diffrent category). I.e even if the change from public or corporate property rights was inevitable, the form of the change was not. Spanish liberals chose a pretty harsh system. On the right wing movements in Spain. Yes Carlism was mostly driven by Basque attachment to their collective feudla rights. It is why the liberal authoritarian era in Spanish History was riddled by Carlist revolts. But by the 1930s the religious aspect had predomianted, and anyway Franco once in power pretty much blocked any of their economic demands. Agian my main point is that talking of left-wing radicalism in complete ignorance of the private property adherenet radicalism that preceded the conditions of 1930 is going to produce a very misleading picture of what was going on. |
Coconuts | 07 Mar 2017 7:57 a.m. PST |
Agian my main point is that talking of left-wing radicalism in complete ignorance of the private property adherenet radicalism that preceded the conditions of 1930 is going to produce a very misleading picture of what was going on. Well, I was talking about certain ideas I identified as far left and revolutionary in response to a question you asked me, apparently mainly about whether the Rising and the establishment of the Francoist state could be considered morally justified. I said no, the Rising and the imposition of the Franco state couldn't be considered morally justified. But I also thought elements on the left held views which were also, especially in hindsight, hard to justify morally; specifically this combination of belief in revolutionary violence, idea that whatever your party or faction labelled as 'Fascist' had to be suppressed and eliminated from the scene and a goal of nationalization of the whole economy. Was advocating for or seeking to establish this kind of regime morally justifiable? |
KTravlos | 07 Mar 2017 8:59 a.m. PST |
I would like to say that as a liberal any attempt to change a social and political system by violence is immoral, but even liberals (I mean classical liberals) have also used violence (Girodins). So if you are not doing it via violence and following the law, you are justified to pursue your goals like everyone else. But as I said it is not that simple since everybody has used violence at one point or another. So then we are left with two options 1) Pacifism: All attempts to impose or defend a political idea violenty are unjustified 2) Violence is acceptable under certain conditions. But then what are those conditions? Chouan I think offers a hard core democratic arguement. Democracy has the right to use violence. The Republic had the right to use violence agianst intrasigent elites who refused to accept laws. I am not arguing that, but still if I am not pacifist, we have to answer that question. We would have to agree on what constitued legitimate goverment action in Spain in 1931-1936. What did the democratically elected goverment have the right to do, what it did not have the right to do. Did the rising then happen against legitimat actions of the goverment, or illegitimate actions under our definition. We also have to asnwer waht part of the old regime was justifiable, especially considering the violence by which it was created.i.e What of the old did potential rebels have a right to protect that was violated by the Republican goverment? i.e the two central questions seem to be 1) Was the govermentacting illegally? 2) Did the rising happen against thsoe illegal goverment actions? Or did it happen in reaction to legal actions. 3) Can the goverment be held responsible for groups that wer acting outside of its purview, even if they claimed its name? Let us use an analogy. The Greek Civil War started in reaction to right wing groups conducting extra-judicial violence on members of EAM and communists, partly in reaction to the violence perpurated by EAM and the Communsits against collaborationists and non-communsit resistance groups during German Occupation. Now the Communists accused the goverment of being complicit with the extra-judicial violence and that this legitimated their rising. There are enough indicators that they were not completely wrong. But there are also indicators that the goverment might have been unable to do something about this due to lack of state capacity.Just like central EAM was largely unable to restrain local cells during the Occuaption violence. If the second is the case, did the Communists have a legitimate reason to rise? Same thing in Spain. Was the violence of left wing groups, violence perpetuated by the Democratic goverment, or violence perpetuated in spite of the Democratic goverment. I.E The Goverment did not have the capacity to control local dynamics. And if the case is the second, does that give legtimacy to a Rising against the cetnral goverment? Me and Chouan say no. So in the case are the ideas and goals of the left-wing even relevant? We can agree that the violence was not a policy of the elected goverment. That at most the elected goverment had no capacity to do something about it. But that in itself does not give justification to the rebels. On the question of the left wing goals. If the existing system was created by violence, and its adherents are not willing to compromise on restitution for those who have lost due to it, then I would say it creates a right to use violence. But I would also say that violence is a stupid political tool, very limited in utility, that will fail to gain ones goals and just create more violence.
I.e considering how the Spanish economy had been set up by successive liberal authoritarian goverments I do think people had every right to demand re-stitution for the social costs of that economy. And I do think that the inresigence of the winners of that preivious violent process to agree to any compromise did open the right for more extreme demands. But I think that choosing violence was wrong. Because violence does create a right to violence on its victims. Then again the right considers strikes as violence, so that does not leave much action for losers to take that does not trigger in the eyes of the right a right to violence. To be fair that also legitimises using violence to impose a capitalist system on a communual system that was itslef created by violence. So in the end I think the only legitmate criterion is: did the side seeking change try to compromise with the side resisting change? |
ITALWARS | 08 Mar 2017 2:01 p.m. PST |
it'll be interesting if the Vatican once will open his archives on the subject….serious researchers know that is one of the most reliable and important source of documents in the world…the files on SCW massacres perpetuated before and during the war..not really by populace but according to a carefully planned by the central Gvt, a puppet of Comintern, of which the criminal asaltos political police and the political comissar of those bands called "international brigades" where the main instruments..among preferred targets, in a typical comunist way, dissident inside their very army and political faction, nuns and priests
it should be recognised that, also if Franco staged an illegal coup (anyway against an also illegal Govt) and set up an autoritarian State it saved his country from what was already perceived by honest people as a régime of marxist terror |
flooglestreet | 08 Mar 2017 6:43 p.m. PST |
This is a case of the cure being worse then the disease ITALWARS. The Nationalists killed far more then the Republicans. |
KTravlos | 09 Mar 2017 4:56 a.m. PST |
Italwars why was the elected goverment illegal? |
Chouan | 09 Mar 2017 7:15 a.m. PST |
Indeed, and, as has been endlessly pointed out, the Republican violence occurred as a response to the pre-planned mass murder of the rebels, and in any case, as has also been established, the violence of the left was popular and spontaneous, rather than organised by the government. Put simply, there was no "marxist terror" until AFTER the rebellion, and the rebels had alreadt begun their mass murder before there was any armed resistance to the rebellion. Besides, exhuming the remains of the dead and looting churches isn't really comparable to mass murder, unsavoury though such behaviour might have been. |
Pages: 1 2
|