The importance of the Spanish civil war

Last week i heard something i completely ignored about the Spanish civil war my university proffesor told me. what most people think about the civil war is that it was the testing ground for ww2 weaponry but there are many thigs at least i ignored:

- capitalist countries officialy left the republic of Spain to fight alone against the fascists, while many people inside the countries offered themselves to help that is not the same.
- the only country to offer official aid was the ussr ( already degenerated by stalins regime) but yet helped the republic. pd: i do not ignore the atrocities caused by the ussr soldiers in Spain
-the civil war is a moment of historic condensation ( term used by Pierre Vilar) when the world had to chose an alternative to a rotten and still present social regime (capitalism- questioned by a crisis extremely similar to the current one ) and instead of chosing socialism- proposed by lenin and trosky, destroyed by stalins burocrat regime in russia chose fascism and death.

what do you guys think

 

The Spanish Civil War had large numbers of non-Spanish citizens participating in combat and advisory positions. Foreign governments contributed large amounts of financial assistance and military aid to forces led by Generalísimo Francisco Franco. Forces fighting on behalf of the Second Spanish Republic also received limited aid but support was seriously hampered by the arms embargo declared by France and the UK. Those countries contributing financial, material and moral support to the Republicans were the USSR and Mexico.

 

i really dont know how to reply this is what my teacher told me but it depends on what you consider assistance. beacuse of what regards financial assistance is only orientated to win money and valuate capitals

 

What do I think?

I think the capitalists countries were wise to stay out of a fight between Fascists on one side and radical socialists/communists on the other. It was a war by proxy between German Nazis and the Russian Communists, why should capitalists intervene? One side was just as harmful as the other.

As for the crisis of capitalism (the Great Depression), that was largely over and done with (except in the US because of Roosevelt) by July, 1936 when the Spanish Civil war started. The only legacy of the Depression was the authoritarian parties which still held power in some countries.

 

On your first point, Countries did not just leave Spain to her own demise, but there was an official arms embargo implemented by the League of Nations and enforced by France and the UK which is why they did not provide support.

Your second point, is not in question. The USSR did provide support but as did Mexico.

Your final point in choosing between Capitalism or facism, depends on who you ask.

 

You make an interesting point one cannot argue against. On one side you have The Nationalists on the contrary opposed the separatist movements, but were chiefly defined by their anti-communism and their fear of Spain breaking up, which served as the galvanizing agent of diverse or even opposed movements like falangists or monarchists.

On the other side, The Republicans ranged from centrists who supported a moderately capitalist liberal democracy to revolutionary anarchists and communists; their power base was primarily secular and urban, but also included landless peasants, and it was particularly strong in the industrial regions.

So who would the capitalist supporters throw in their lot with? Not much too choose from.

 

capitalism is imperialism, fascism is such a more rude expression of imperialism

 

the us supported fascist francos regime... everything to avoid the spread of the revolution in the world.
the us supported a genocidal regime in greece

 

fascism represents the interests of an agressive capitalist class. the republic represented the people peasants, workers.

 

So what then is communism?

 

In theory: "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Again in theory the people, that is the state, own everything except possibly the clothes on your back and you shoes (if you can find a pair). Private property is not a part of comunism as in "my car" "my land" "my farm" since the people (the state) own everything so the gov't can come in at any time and take anything you have, including you, for whatever use they deem fit.
A good description of communism in theory and in practice, post war, is described in the book "Mig Pilot" by Victor Belenko (with John Barron). Workers were supposed to be motivated to increase production etc. by the goal of becoming a "new communist man". No extra pay, overtime or other rewards were offered so Belenko, who briefly worked at a tank factory, described how

"once the quota was met, (the workers) made sure it was not exceeded. Out of curiosity rather than censure, Belenko asked the foundry man why he did not exceed the quota as they were constantly urged by the party to do. 'Young man, you know nothing of life', the foundry man said. 'If i chose, i could produce ten times as many parts. But what would be my reward? Only a quota ten times as high!'".

 

Accusations are easy to make, it's the proof you're lacking. Capitalism actually flourishes in a non-imperialistic environment. In case you and your lame professor haven't noticed, the rise of capitalism has been paralleled by the decline of imperialism; that's not a coincidence.

The US government maintained a strict policy of neutrality towards both sides in the Spanish Civil war. In the US, the Isolationists were in firm control of Congress during the entire period (1936-1939) and frankly, there were other more important issues in foreign policy for the US to consider. The US instituted an arms embargo against both sides and refused to intervene in any way.

Of course, that ignores the Abraham Lincoln Brigade; a group of 2,800 Left-leaning Americans who secretly (and illegally under US law) formed a voluntary military unit which went to Spain and fought against the Fascist Nationalists during the war.

As for the gratuitous charge of supporting a genocidal regime in Greece, you'll have to be more specific as to the details before you can be proven wrong again.

See; FDR and the Spanish Civil War ... - Google Books

 

D.A; it appears this fellow's instructor clearly has an agenda which is outside of history, or historical realities. "Flammpanzer" you might read this, for a slightly differnt "slant" on the situation in Spain in the thirties.

Another Spain - the military history of the Spanish Civil War

and please, notice which nations sent aid to which sides! The US government is conspicuous in its absence.

I believe this instructor is "telescoping" our post-WW2 support of Franco and the post-war Truman Doctrine into pre-war attitudes of the US toward the Communists. Just a guess on my part.

 

So true!

In college I had a Professor Szabo who taught the political history of the Soviet Union. He had been a Communist party member in Poland until he defected in the early 1960's. He loved to quote a saying the workers in Poland had; "We pretend to work, the State pretends to pay us!"

 

supported francos regime after ww2

 

Please put this in some sort of context, it makes no sense as posted in a single sentence. Which governments, or who, or why, or at least something besides that sentence.

 

By the end of 1944, Spain had entered into a period of "benevolent neutrality" toward the Allies. Spain allowed Allied aircraft to land inside its borders and permitted Allied intelligence agents to operate in Madrid. In spite of this opportunistic policy shift, Spain was ostracized at the end of the war by the victorious powers. Although the United States president, Harry S. Truman, and the British prime minister, Winston Churchill, successfully resisted Stalin's proposals at the Potsdam Conference in July 1945 for Allied intervention against Franco, Spain was denied membership in the United Nations (UN) because its government had come to power with the assistance of the Axis powers and had collaborated with them during the war.
A resolution adopted by the second meeting of the UN General Assembly in December 1946 expressed the most severe postwar censure of the Franco regime. According to this resolution, Spain would be banned from the UN and would not be allowed to participate in any of its specialized agencies, as long as Franco remained in power. Franco did not appear seriously concerned by this censure, nor by the subsequent exclusion of Spain from the Marshall Plan. In fact, he used the international ostracism to strengthen his hold over the Spanish government. During this period of isolation, the Argentine government of Juan Peron (president, 1946-55) provided Spain with crucial economic support.
Franco was convinced that attacks on his regime were the work of communist forces, and he felt certain that the Western powers would someday recognize Spain's contribution in maintaining its solitary vigil against bolshevism. As events evolved, Spain's anticommunist stance proved to be a significant factor in the United States decision to revise its policy toward Spain in view of the Cold War.
As the United States became increasingly concerned with the Soviet threat following the fall of Czechoslovakia, the Berlin blockade in 1948, and the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950, United States policy makers also began to recognize the strategic importance of the Iberian Peninsula; furthermore, they realized that ostracism had failed and that the Franco regime was stronger than ever. The United States government took steps to normalize its political and economic relations with Spain in the years 1948-50. In September 1950, President Truman signed a bill that appropriated US$62.5 million for aid to Spain. In the same year, the United States supported a UN resolution lifting the boycott on Franco's regime and resumed full diplomatic relations with Spain in 1951. As Spain became an increasingly important link in the overall defense system of the United States against the Soviet Union, the period of isolation came to an end.
Two major agreements signed in 1953 strengthened the Franco regime: the Concordat with the Vatican and the Pact of Madrid. The Concordat, signed in August 1953, was to replace the 1851 document that the republic had abrogated. The new agreement provided full church recognition of Franco's government. At the same time, it reaffirmed the confessional nature of the Spanish state; the public practice of other religions was not permitted. The agreement was more favorable to the Vatican than to Franco; it included measures that significantly increased the independence of the church within the Spanish system. The Concordat served, nevertheless, to legitimize the regime in the eyes of many Spaniards, and it was instrumental in strengthening Franco's hold over the country.
The Pact of Madrid, signed shortly after the Concordat, further symbolized the Spanish regime's rehabilitation. It also marked the end of Spanish neutrality. The Pact consisted of three separate, but interdependent, agreements between Spain and the United States. It provided for mutual defense, for military aid to Spain, and for the construction of bases there. The United States was to use these bases for a renewable ten-year period, but the bases remained under Spanish sovereignty. Although the pact did not constitute a full-fledged military alliance, it did commit the United States to support Spain's defense efforts; furthermore, it provided Spain with much-needed economic assistance. During the first ten years of the Pact of Madrid, the United States sent approximately US$1.5 billion in all kinds of aid to Spain.
Two years later, in 1955, the UN approved Spain's membership. In a visit by the United States president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, to the Spanish capital in 1959, the two generals received warm public welcomes as they toured the city together. The visit further emphasized Franco's acceptance and the end of Spain's ostracism. Franco placed a high value on Spain's relationship with the United States, for the prestige it conferred as well as for strategic reasons. This relationship continued to be a dominant factor in the development of the country's foreign policy.
Spain's European neighbors were less willing than the United States to modify their aversion to Franco's authoritarian rule. The West European members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) vetoed efforts to include Spain. Spain's applications for association with the European Community (EC) were also repeatedly rejected. Although a Trade Preference Treaty between Spain and the EC signed in 1970 seemed to herald a thaw in relations, Spain's entry into the EC, continued to be a political issue throughout Franco's lifetime. Spanish membership in the Community, considered by Spanish economists and businessmen as crucial for Spain's economic development, had to await the democratization of the regime.
A more intractable problem than Spain's entry into the EC was the fate of Gibraltar, a sore point in Anglo-Spanish relations since 1713, when Spain ceded the area to Britain under the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht. The question of sovereignty, which had been dormant during the years of the Second Republic, revived in the 1960s and jeopardized otherwise friendly relations between Britain and Spain. Spain has never relinquished its claim to Gibraltar, while the British have maintained that the inhabitants of the area should determine Gibraltar's fate. The heterogeneous population of Gibraltar enjoyed local democratic self-government and an increasingly higher standard of living than that prevailing in Spain; therefore it was not a surprise when they voted almost unanimously in a referendum held in 1967 to remain under British rule. The UN repeatedly condemned the "colonial situation" and demanded--to no avail--its termination. In 1969 Spain took steps to seal off Gibraltar from the mainland and to accelerate the economic development program for the area surrounding it, known as Campo de Gibraltar. The situation continued in stalemate throughout the remainder of the Franco regime.
Franco may have been frustrated with the problem of Gibraltar, but he was optimistic about his potential for maintaining a powerful position for Spain in North Africa. As a former commanding officer of Spanish colonial garrisons in Morocco, Franco had developed close ties to the area, and during the postwar period, he placed great emphasis on maintaining Spain's position in the Arab world. Appealing to historical, cultural, and political ties, Franco endeavored to act as self- appointed protector of Arab interests and to portray Spain as an essential bridge, or mediator, between Europe and the Arab countries.
Despite the regime's position as a colonial power in northwest Africa, relations between Spain and the Arab countries became closer in the late 1940s, in part because of Spain's nonrecognition of Israel. A visit by Spain's foreign minister to the Middle East resulted in a variety of economic and cultural agreements, and the Arab states assumed a benevolent attitude toward Spain's position in Morocco. Nevertheless, France's decision to withdraw from Morocco in early 1956, following the successful struggle waged by Moroccan nationalists against French control, left little prospect of Spain's retaining its zone. (In the spring of the same year, France relinquishied the protectorate.)
In the following decades, Spain's position in North Africa eroded further. A long series of conflicts with Morocco resulted in the abandonment of much of Spain's colonial territory in the 1960s. When Morocco's Mohammed V made it clear in 1958 that he had designs on the Spanish Sahara, Spain opposed any change of status for the area. In 1975, however, Spain reversed its policy and declared its readiness to grant full independence to the Spanish Sahara under UN supervision. Following the march of 300,000 unarmed Moroccans into the territory in November 1975, Spain agreed to cede the Spanish Sahara to Morocco and Mauritania. At the time of Franco's death, Spain's only remaining presence in North Africa consisted of the Spanish-inhabited enclave cities of Ceuta and Melilla and the small garrison spot called Penon de Velez de la Gomera, all on Morocco's Mediterranean coast.

 

Just where did you "cut and paste" that from? Even if true in portions or completely it would be helpful to know the source.

Thanks

 

Just curious. Does anybody have the slightest clue what the "Spanish Civil War" was about or in fact, over?


Might be worth considering, I mean if you haven't looked into this. It's shall we say, rooooollly important.

 

About the spanish Republica: “I’m sure the reds would kill or imprisoned and deprived of our possessions me, and my relatives and my friends” (quote: Winston Churchill “The Second World War” Book I chapter X).

My grandfather heard (direct Radio ) Miss Dolores Iabrrury (Called La Pasionaria, COMUNIST) IN OUR PARLIMENT To Threat the oposition´s leader Calvo Sotelo (Right). Fewer days after he was Killed. Two policemen (guardia de asalto) did that.

That Democratic Republic, as democratic as the German Democratic Republic, killed 10.000 men only in Madrid. In fact The Democratic republic killed the same than the fascist did. The diference between the bxxxxxx that ruled this bloodbath may be this: The fascist hardly had volunteers to butchers, the other had strong problems to stop their butchers.


A real HERO of these horrible days: Christopher Lance



Called the PIMPINELLA of Spain (Risk your Live to be called Piminella) A book LUCAS PHILLIPS, CE: The Spanish Pimpernel. London, Heinemann, 1960.

He saved so many people from the "militia". Franco was near to order his execution, and the Red imprisioned him He was near to death when the british consul achieve his liberation. (An article, in spanish)

El Pimpinela Español

This is a WWII forum so I'll not disturb whith the spanish Politics any more.

The first time a 88 shooted against TANKS were in the EBRO Battle, The reds sended their tanks (Rusian BT-5) against the artillery ... And the german comander improvised this defense. It's said Phillby was near.

Battle of the Ebro - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Any one interested in familiar tales about our civil war?