The Fall of the Spanish Republic....

[RadioRaheem84]

OK, so what was the initial cause of the Spanish Republican defeat during the Spanish civil War.

The Anarchists I talk to say it was because of the Stalinists in the Republican camp that brought down the Spanish Republic. Apparently, the Soviet Union did more harm to the Anarchist Militias than the Franco's forces.

Many others, liberals and Communists partially blame the Anarchists and how they would attack villages they deemed to be siding with Franco and burned churches, looted monasteries and killed clergymen.

I am starting to think that the Spanish Civil War was not such a romantic point in history with the good guys and bad guys were so evident. Then again, the majority of the Spanish fighters were liberal and social democrat, not Communist or Anarchist.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

It all basically comes down to the fact that the bourgeois democracies, like France and England, signed a pact with the fascist powers not to intervene in Spain. Then Italy and Germany did, and France and England just ignored it (and actually tried to prevent arms and fighters getting to the Republican side) because they'd rather see Spain fall to the fascists than risk it going Communist. So the anti-fascist forces weren't fighting against Franco, they were fighting against Franco, Mussolini and Hitler, which they were never going to win in conventional military terms. It's impossible to know for sure, but I believe that if they'd given up trying to form a conventional army and concentrated on guerrilla warfare and trying to convince the peasants in Franco's territory to rise up, they would've stood a much better chance. But that would've meant making it a revolutionary war, which the liberals, social democrats, and Stalinists were all firmly against. Ronald Fraser's Blood of Spain is an excellent book on the subject.
Also, where do you get your information about how "the majority of the Spanish fighters were liberal and social democrat, not Communist or Anarchist" from? Are you counting the Socialist party as social democrats here? Do you know how big the CNT were?

[ComradeOm]

It's impossible to know for sure, but I believe that if they'd given up trying to form a conventional army and concentrated on guerrilla warfare and trying to convince the peasants in Franco's territory to rise up, they would've stood a much better chance. But that would've meant making it a revolutionary war, which the liberals, social democrats, and Stalinists were all firmly againstIt would also have meant surrendering Republican strongholds, such as Madrid or Barcelona, to the fascists. Leaving aside the foolishness of waging a guerilla war against an opponent more than willing to indulge in mass murder, such an action would have completely defeated the purpose of fighting in the first place. Such an insurgency is only an option when you have already been militarily defeated and have nothing left to lose

[The Feral Underclass]

It all basically comes down to the fact that the bourgeois democracies, like France and England, signed a pact with the fascist powers not to intervene in Spain. Then Italy and Germany did, and France and England just ignored it (and actually tried to prevent arms and fighters getting to the Republican side) because they'd rather see Spain fall to the fascists than risk it going Communist. So the anti-fascist forces weren't fighting against Franco, they were fighting against Franco, Mussolini and Hitler, which they were never going to win in conventional military terms. It's impossible to know for sure, but I believe that if they'd given up trying to form a conventional army and concentrated on guerrilla warfare and trying to convince the peasants in Franco's territory to rise up, they would've stood a much better chance. But that would've meant making it a revolutionary war, which the liberals, social democrats, and Stalinists were all firmly against. Ronald Fraser's Blood of Spain is an excellent book on the subject.
Also, where do you get your information about how "the majority of the Spanish fighters were liberal and social democrat, not Communist or Anarchist" from? Are you counting the Socialist party as social democrats here? Do you know how big the CNT were?

Plus the PCE betrayed the anarchist militia's and smashed the Aragon and Catalonian collectives, resulting in the weakening and ultimate collapse of the Aragon front.

It should also be noted that the CNT's participation and comprise with the state was a contributing factor to the weakening of the anarchist militias and collectives.

[Forward Union]

OK, so what was the initial cause of the Spanish Republican defeat during the Spanish civil War.

Because the fucking luftwaffe bombed everything to fuck.

[mykittyhasaboner]

The Anarchists I talk to say it was because of the Stalinists in the Republican camp that brought down the Spanish Republic.
Of course, everything is the fault of those "Stalinists.


Apparently, the Soviet Union did more harm to the Anarchist Militias than the Franco's forces.
That's simply untrue. Without the Soviet Union and the Comintern, the Republic would have never stood a chance against the rebels and their assistance from Germany, Italy, Portugal and the US. Nobody else was giving them (the Republic) planes, guns, bombs, fuel, etc.

[Nwoye]

That's simply untrue. Without the Soviet Union and the Comintern, the Republic would have never stood a chance against the rebels and their assistance from Germany, Italy, Portugal and the US. Nobody else was giving them (the Republic) planes, guns, bombs, fuel, etc.
First off, it's a simple fact that the Soviets and the Republican government withheld arms and other supplies from the anarchists and workplace militias. And it's quite obvious that the Soviets were totally comfortable with sacrificing success over the fascists for the defeat of their political opponents (anarchists/"trotskyists").

As to the question, if you want a comprehensive answer you're going to have to do some research and study on your own. I've read numerous works on the civil war and I don't think I could completely outline the forces guiding the defeat of the Spanish Republic.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

It would also have meant surrendering Republican strongholds, such as Madrid or Barcelona, to the fascists. Leaving aside the foolishness of waging a guerilla war against an opponent more than willing to indulge in mass murder.
Good thing the USA's armed forces weren't willing to engage in mass murder against the Viet Cong, eh?

Such an insurgency is only an option when you have already been militarily defeated and have nothing left to lose
But they were militarily defeated. They were militarily defeated from the day that the Axis powers pitched in on Franco's side and the bourgeois democracies stayed neutral. Given that that was the case, do you not think they might have benefited from using the tactics that militarily weak forces used to defeat stronger armies throughout the 20th century?

[chegitz guevara]

There were a lot of reasons why the Spanish Republic fell. Mainly, a lot of boneheaded mistakes on the part of the Republican side, in which I'm also including the anarchists. Part of the problem with Soviet military aid is that it was incompetent. The Soviet military leadership was incompetent in Spain. Having learned nothing, they went on to almost lose to the invading Nazis in 1941. The Republic fucked up by not offering independence to its African colonies, thus pulling the rug out from under Franco. The anarchists fucked up by not overthrowing the Spanish Republic on day two of the military uprising. It was very likely possible to have defeated Franco, but the Republican side just didn't want to do what it took to win.

[Coggeh]

Because the fucking luftwaffe bombed everything to fuck.
Well , if ya wanna be blunt about it :laugh:

[ComradeOm]

Good thing the USA's armed forces weren't willing to engage in mass murder against the Viet Cong, eh?The US massacres in Vietnam can hardly be compared to the systematic and brutal white terror employed by the Nationalists in Spain. In 1940, that is two years after the Republic's capitulation, the Francoist government was still executing over 150 civilians in Barcelona alone. That's two My Lais a week. Now extrapolate this for all of Spain (FYI the daily figure for Madrid in 1940 was 250) for several years. Now imagine how high these figures would reach if the Nationalists had occupied Barcelona while the Civil War was still raging furiously and in the context of a major guerilla war. It would be the Paris Commune all over again


But they were militarily defeated. They were militarily defeated from the day that the Axis powers pitched in on Franco's side and the bourgeois democracies stayed neutral. Given that that was the case, do you not think they might have benefited from using the tactics that militarily weak forces used to defeat stronger armies throughout the 20th century?One, I have never subscribed to the idea that the Republican defeat was inevitable. Nor do I believe that it was foreign intervention, or the lack of it, that tipped the balance. For much of the war the balance of materials and manpower lay with the Republic and it was the military incompetence of its military (in fairness, they were pitched against a very efficient foe) that squandered these benefits. Things could have been different and to accept defeat as inevitable in 1936/1937 would have both required incredible foresight and provided a self-fulfilling prophesy

It would also have condemned the very communities that the Republicans were supposedly fighting for. Leaving these at the mercy of the Nationalists would have been a defeat in itself. This was not a response to foreign aggression and there was no outside foe to be worn down - the Nationalists simply would have occupied the cities and started massacring workers by the thousands. They would have done so because civil wars are inherently wars of annihilation - one side wins and the other ceases to exist. This is not a scenario conductive to slowly chipping away at the enemy in the hopes that he has enough and withdraws across the oceans


The anarchists fucked up by not overthrowing the Spanish Republic on day two of the military uprisingSure, why not start a civil war within a civil war :rolleyes:


The Soviet military leadership was incompetent in Spain. Having learned nothing, they went on to almost lose to the invading Nazis in 1941What makes you think they two are connected? That is, that the Soviet experience in Spain had any bearing whatsoever on the disasters of 1941?

[JohannGE]

It would also have meant surrendering Republican strongholds, such as Madrid or Barcelona, to the fascists. Leaving aside the foolishness of waging a guerilla war against an opponent more than willing to indulge in mass murder, such an action would have completely defeated the purpose of fighting in the first place. Such an insurgency is only an option when you have already been militarily defeated and have nothing left to lose

I don't agree that concentrating on guerrilla tactics would necessarily lead to abandoning defensive positions around Madrid, Barcelona or any other republican held territory.

In fact, well co-ordinated guerrilla actions against weaker areas of the front would have prevented Franco from concentrating forces against those defences. It would also have made best use of the republican resources available and avoided the terrible squandering of life that resulted from such soviet inspired showpiece battles as Teruel and Ebro.

[x359594]

OK, so what was the initial cause of the Spanish Republican defeat during the Spanish civil War...

The "initial cause" was the fascist-military rising led by Sanjuro and Franco.


...The Anarchists I talk to say it was because of the Stalinists in the Republican camp that brought down the Spanish Republic. Apparently, the Soviet Union did more harm to the Anarchist Militias than the Franco's forces....

The anarchists you talk to are misinformed. There were a number of factors involved in the defeat of the Spanish Republic: failure by the Republic to forestall the military rising, failure to grant liberation to Spanish Morocco, foreign intervention by Germany, Italy and the USSR, subversion on the part of the Western "democracies," an incomplete social revolution that, had it succeeded, would have swept away the Republic; a counter-revolution behind the Republican lines among the more significant reasons.


...Many others, liberals and Communists partially blame the Anarchists and how they would attack villages they deemed to be siding with Franco and burned churches, looted monasteries and killed clergymen...

Many others have a tendency to reduce the complexities of historical events to simple explanations.


...I am starting to think that the Spanish Civil War was not such a romantic point in history with the good guys and bad guys were so evident. Then again, the majority of the Spanish fighters were liberal and social democrat, not Communist or Anarchist.

Not only was the Spanish Civil not a "romantic point in history," such simplistic categories as "good guys" and "bad guys" shed no light on historical reality.

The majority of Spanish fighters with military training fought under the colors of fascism; a minority of professional soldiers fought for the Republic, a smaller minority fought for the revolution; a majority of the liberal bourgeoisie fought for the Republic. The majority of working class civilians fought for the revolution in militias and later as units of the Popular Army.

[chegitz guevara]

Sure, why not start a civil war within a civil war :rolleyes:

Apparently, you haven't studied the civil war, or if you have, you've forgotten. The Spanish Republic, at first, refused to defend itself. It was the workers, led by the anarchists, who defended the Republic, seizing arms, blocking troops in barracks, etc. Instead of propping the Republic back up, the anarchists should simply have taken power.

And there's the rub. To have taken power would have meant setting up a state, which is antithetical to anarchism. It was a lesson learned by one of their leaders, Durruti, only too late.


What makes you think they two are connected? That is, that the Soviet experience in Spain had any bearing whatsoever on the disasters of 1941?Because the same incompetent Soviet generals were in charge in Spain and in the early stages of the Soviet defense against the same opponents in WWII.

I don't blame you for not knowing that, as I only learned it a few weeks ago, as I'm not really interested in military history. Because of my hobby, however, modeling soviet tanks, I was thinking about modeling some Soviet tanks in Spain, and decided to do a little research. The Soviets didn't learn how to use their armor until 1942, despite the fact that had superior technology to the Nazis. Nazi tanks couldn't hurt the T-34 or KV-1 and KV-2 tanks unless they were practically on top of them, while the Soviets could pick off Nazi tanks at more than a kilometer. Despite that, the Nazis rolled over them. Although the tanks were different (on both sides in Spain) the situation was the same. Technologically inferior fascist forces defeating superior Soviet forces.

[Ohnoatard]

The mayor of barcelona actually offered the Anarchists his government, and the Anarchists refused to form a worker's state. Instead they left the bourgeoisie in control of the government. I think that's one of the main reason why it failed.

[bcbm]

This (http://www.geocities.com/antagonism1/whenidie/index.html) gives a pretty good overview.

[pastradamus]

OK, so what was the initial cause of the Spanish Republican defeat during the Spanish civil War.

The Anarchists I talk to say it was because of the Stalinists in the Republican camp that brought down the Spanish Republic. Apparently, the Soviet Union did more harm to the Anarchist Militias than the Franco's forces.

Many others, liberals and Communists partially blame the Anarchists and how they would attack villages they deemed to be siding with Franco and burned churches, looted monasteries and killed clergymen.

I am starting to think that the Spanish Civil War was not such a romantic point in history with the good guys and bad guys were so evident. Then again, the majority of the Spanish fighters were liberal and social democrat, not Communist or Anarchist.

There are many reasons why the Spanish Republic fell. I agree with Comrade Om in the way that I dont believe its fall was inevitable. I believe its Naive and Ignorant to simply blame the PCE or the CNT-FAI or the Popular front, but these organizations did contribute to the end product - The Fall of the Second Spanish Republic, in some ways. Im just going to go into a few reasons why I believe the Republic Fell.

1) Manuel Azana

Azana was President of the Republic from May 1936 - April 1939. The Reason I point out Azana is because on July 17 1936 Francisco Franco began an Uprising in Morocco. As a former minister for War and as the then acting President one would assume that Azana would be quickly on his feet and would assume the role of preventing the rebellion. He failed to contact his Generals for hours when the rebellion was taking place. He failed to send sufficient enough a force to attack Morocca and Franco and he Failed to stop the rebellion from spreading. Azana, in a manner which could only befit a leftist, simply spent the day in his office arguing with other people, party's and did not act fast enough.

2) Lack of Support

There was a huge lack of support in the way of military ordinance. Mexico being a prime contributor was on the other side of the World and Russia was weary of upsetting Hitler and so only sent pocket change in the way of arms and troops. Though Tanks and the Famous monoplane the I-16 were supplied. However this plane was quickly becoming obsolete and by the end of the war the Germans shot down 22 of them in a five day period. The point mainly is that despite all the Arms the Republic recieved, the Fascists recieved more than twice as much of the most up to date equipment.

3) Lack of experience

Militia's and a newly formed popular front did simply not have the experience of Italian Troops who fought in Africa, German Commanders from WWI and Franco's "regulares". The most fascinating and surprising thing about this war is just how long the militias held back these enemies despite the obvious lack of experience.

4) Milice Splits

The obvious splits in the Republican Militias were most evident. The PCE and the Popular front, under control and direction largely from Moscow created a civil war within a Civil war.

5) Activity of NKVD agents

Stalin sent in Numerous Secret police operatives to kill anyone who was regarded as being "reactionary". One of these people was Andreu Nin of the
Partido Obrero Unificación Marxista or the POUM. Nin had been watched carefully as he was a former correspondant of Trotsky. Though the POUM itself was NOT a Trotskiest organisation.

6) Supplies

Were not easy to come by for the Republicans half way through the war. With many states holding the Republic under embargo this made it extremely difficult to obtain rations and coupled with Fascist sieges in Teurel and Belchite and Barcelona and Madrid in the later days.

[ComradeOm]

I don't agree that concentrating on guerrilla tactics would necessarily lead to abandoning defensive positions around Madrid, Barcelona or any other republican held territoryWell of course it would. That's what guerilla warfare entails - ie, not presenting a target to your foe while engaging in low level attacks against weak targets. Maintaining conventional defensive lines is not compatible with "concentrating on guerilla tactics". You can't have it both ways

What you are suggesting is not embracing guerilla warfare but rather making use of partisan detachments to complement a conventional army front. Akin to that practised by the Soviets in WWII... and to a degree in the Spanish Civil War

Unless of course you believe that the guerilla campaign would be so successful that the presence of scattered bands to his rear, and the absence of any coherent defence to his fore, would prevent Franco from attacking at all? :confused:


Apparently, you haven't studied the civil war, or if you have, you've forgotten. The Spanish Republic, at first, refused to defend itself. It was the workers, led by the anarchists, who defended the Republic, seizing arms, blocking troops in barracks, etc. Instead of propping the Republic back up, the anarchists should simply have taken power.Please, if you're going to accuse someone of ignorance then its advisable not to follow this up with such a blatant misinterpretation. The idea that the anarchists somehow possessed the strength to defeat not just the Nationalists but also the Republic (still comprising the middle classes and loyal elements of the Civil Guard), the PSOE and PCE, and the UGT (the latter almost as strong as the CNT itself) is laughable. What is not so amusing is the complete lie that it was the anarchists alone who either opposed the rebels or led the workers in doing so


And there's the rub. To have taken power would have meant setting up a state, which is antithetical to anarchism. It was a lesson learned by one of their leaders, Durruti, only too late.An issue which did not prevent anarchists from joining the Generalitat of Catalonia. Maybe Durruti just had more integrity?


Because the same incompetent Soviet generals were in charge in Spain and in the early stages of the Soviet defense against the same opponents in WWIII'm sure there were incompetents amongst the small batch of Soviet officers (although, for my own curiossity, names would be appreciated) but to label them all so is ridiculous. For example, Kuznetzov did serve in Spain and his actions during the opening days of Barbarossa were exemplary and largely responsible for saving the Soviet navy. Malinovsky was also present in Spain and did hold command during Barbarossa but he was one of the few officers to emerge with his reputation enhanced, successfully withdrawing before the Germans and skilfully avoiding encirclement


I don't blame you for not knowing that, as I only learned it a few weeks ago, as I'm not really interested in military historyI on the other hand have spent some time studying the Eastern Front. I comment on the causes of the Red Army's disasters here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/new-documents-emerge-t92643/index.html) (bottom post onwards) and briefly here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1263977&postcount=13). If you want me to elaborate I will. What is worth restating is that in 1941, and 1936, the Red Army was operating off one of the most modern doctrinal platforms in the world and was staffed by many, many fine commanders. What crippled it in 1941 was that it was in the midst of a major structural reorganisation that severely limited its effectiveness during the German invasion

[chegitz guevara]

Please, if you're going to accuse someone of ignorance then its advisable not to follow this up with such a blatant misinterpretation. The idea that the anarchists somehow possessed the strength to defeat not just the Nationalists but also the Republic (still comprising the middle classes and loyal elements of the Civil Guard), the PSOE and PCE, and the UGT (the latter almost as strong as the CNT itself) is laughable. What is not so amusing is the complete lie that it was the anarchists alone who either opposed the rebels or led the workers in doing so

Okay, what part of Day 2 did you not understand? Where was the PSOE and the PCE etc. when Franco's revolt began? Nowhere. It was the anarchists that stood up to the Army at first and kept the Republic from collapsing. It was the anarchists that seized the armories and blockaded the troops in their barracks. The Republic was a house of cards, and the anarchists propped it up, instead of knocking it over. Had they made the revolution then instead of waiting until May 1937, they might have succeeded in both making the revolution and crushing Franco. Did the PSOE and the PCE comr around? Yes, but by that point, the moment had passed.


I on the other hand have spent some time studying the Eastern Front. I comment on the causes of the Red Army's disasters here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/new-documents-emerge-t92643/index.html) (bottom post onwards) and briefly here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1263977&postcount=13). If you want me to elaborate I will. What is worth restating is that in 1941, and 1936, the Red Army was operating off one of the most modern doctrinal platforms in the world and was staffed by many, many fine commanders. What crippled it in 1941 was that it was in the midst of a major structural reorganisation that severely limited its effectiveness during the German invasionI think Invader Zim did a pretty good job refuting your theses. Pity no one was as knowledgeable about the Eastern Front. I'm not going to engage in a point by point rebuttal (many of your facts are correct but your interpretation is far too favorable to the USSR), but I would note that if the Soviets had superior tactics and weaponry by the end of the war, why were they taking more casualties than the Nazis? Zhukov won WWII the same way Grant won the American Civil War, sheer numbers and a willingness to throw as many people at the enemy as it took to overwhelm them.

Soviet equipment was clearly superior, both in Spain and throughout most of WWII, but they never learned how to use their armor properly, not even at Kursk. If you are poorly trained and incompetently led, having the better tank will not help (I'd take a T-26 over a PzKmpf I or II). And, by the point when the Soviets are giving tanks and aircraft to the Republic, they aren't doing so in numbers to match the Fascists.

I'll look up the names of the Soviet commanders in Spain, but don't hold your breath, as I wasn't doing research, so I don't remember which of the books I read it in.

The point of all this is, the failure was political for a variety of reasons. It was not, however, inevitable. Thus, we need to learn from their mistakes so as not to make them again.

[ComradeOm]

It was the anarchists that seized the armories and blockaded the troops in their barracksAnd this is nothing short of a dishonest attempt to write out the UGT from history and portray the loyalist sentiment are entirely anarchist in character. It ignores entirely the geographic limitations of Spanish anarchism and the multitude of other militias that sprung up to defend the Republic - most notably the socialist militias of the UGT but also regional militias such as those of the Basque Country, remnants of the Republic's police/army (in particular the Assault Guards), and other 'miscellaneous' units (the Mangada Column springs to mind). But its the exclusion of the UGT, whose response to the crisis was as well organised and prompt as the CNT, and who worked closely with the latter, which is really incredulous. In short, you characterise the militia movement of summer 1936 as entirely anarchist in character when this was most certainly not the case.

Its also these elements, along with those more uncertain and slower to mobilise, that the CNT would have faced in addition to the Nationalists had the CNT attempted to cease power


I think Invader Zim did a pretty good job refuting your theses. Pity no one was as knowledgeable about the Eastern FrontWhich tells me that you read nothing but the usernames. IZ and I have a very worthwhile discussion of British attitudes to Germany and the economic basis for rearmament. We did not (IIRC) touch on the Eastern Front at all


I'm not going to engage in a point by point rebuttal (many of your facts are correct but your interpretation is far too favorable to the USSR), but I would note that if the Soviets had superior tactics and weaponry by the end of the war, why were they taking more casualties than the Nazis? Zhukov won WWII the same way Grant won the American Civil War, sheer numbers and a willingness to throw as many people at the enemy as it took to overwhelm them.Your point would hold true only if the primary objective of Soviet doctrine was the minimisation of casualties. This was clearly not the case and not a preoccupation of Soviet commanders. For example, you acknowledge the superiority of Soviet equipment below but if we take a single irrelevant criteria (say, comfort of tanks) then the argument can be made that they were far, far inferior to German or US/UK equivalents. Which is nonsense

As for the Zhukov comparison, its a similarly ridiculous argument constructed on a single irrelevant premise. Its a crude stereotype that ignores virtually every campaign the man ever fought (the notable exception being Seelow Heights where he did indeed "throw people at the enemy"). From Khalkhyn Gol to Berlin - through Stalingrad, Kursk, Bagration, and countless other operations - he displayed a keen grasp of combined arms and mechanised warfare. His campaigns were marked by bold mobile strokes - think of shattering the flanks at Stalingrad, and the multiple thrusts that sliced through the German lines and effectively destroyed Army Group Centre in 1944. Khalkhyn Gol is a prime example, because Zhukov was himself field commander, and (despite being numerically outnumbered) this battle saw a classic pincer movement, relying heavily on a number of purely armoured formations, that encircled and annihilated the enemy formations. Perhaps this was a fluke?

Incidentally its worth noting that Zhukov was amongst the best Soviet commanders at keeping his troops alive. You also overlook the fact that the Red Army only came to enjoy a decisive superiority in numbers, following the disasters of 1941, in the last year of the war. In most of the operations that I've mentioned above the Soviets enjoyed a numerical superiority of roughly 1.5:1 (at most) and this was gained by stripping other sectors of the front to achieve a concentration of force


Soviet equipment was clearly superior, both in Spain and throughout most of WWII, but they never learned how to use their armor properly, not even at KurskWhich is an insane statement. Really stunning

What would you call Vistula–Oder, Bagration, August Storm, Jassy–Kishinev, etc, if not hugely successful operations in which the Soviets amply demonstrated their mastery of both combined arms and mobile armoured warfare? By the end of the war Soviet offensives were fluent, effective, confident, and fully fulfilling the doctrinal premises of deep operations. Their accomplishments in this field easily match those of the Wehrmacht and far surpass those of the US and UK

Kursk incidentally is a red herring as it was not primarily a tank battle (despite its subsequent reputation) and serves first and foremost as a testament to the growing professional of the Soviet General Staff... and Stalin's increased restraint!

[JohannGE]

Well of course it would. That's what guerilla warfare entails - ie, not presenting a target to your foe while engaging in low level attacks against weak targets. Maintaining conventional defensive lines is not compatible with "concentrating on guerilla tactics". You can't have it both ways

I dissagree (as does Mao)!

I believe guerila tacticts could have been employed at weak points along the front whilst maintaining defensive lines around cities and other strategicly important areas. This could have prevented, or at least seriously limited the focused deployment of Franco's "Army of Mobility".

"In 1927, with Japanese imperialist forces occupying China, Mao Zedong (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/m/a.htm#mao-tse-tung) led a 22 year war of liberation, that successfully combined guerrilla tactics with conventional warfare to remove Japanese imperialists from China, and later helped in the struggle for socialism against the nationalists. In 1937, Mao wrote his work On Guerrilla Warfare (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/1937/guerrilla-warfare/index.htm), summarizing his experience."

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/g/u.htm

Mao Tse-tung - On Guerrilla Warfare
ch7. The Strategy Of Guerrilla Resistance Against Japan

"The relationship that exists between guerrilla and the orthodox forces is important and must be appreciated. Generally speaking, there are types of co-operation between guerrillas and orthodox groups. These are:


Strategical co-operation.

Tactical co-operation.

Battle co-operation.


Guerrillas who harass the enemy's rear installations and hinder his transport are weakening him and encouraging the national spirit of resistance. They are co-operating strategically. For example, the guerrillas in Manchuria had no functions of strategical co-operation with orthodox forces until the war in China started. Since that time, their faction of strategical co-operation is evident, for if they can kill one enemy, make the enemy expend one round of ammunition, or hinder one enemy group in its advance southward, our powers of resistance here are proportionately increased.


Such guerrilla action has a negative action on the enemy nation and on its troops, while, at the same time, it encourages our own countrymen.

Another example of strategical co-operation is furnished by the guerrillas who operate along the P'ing-Sui, P'ing-Han, Chin-P'u, T'ung-Pu, and Cheng-T'ai railways. This co-operation began when the invader attacked, continued during the period when he held garrisoned cities in the areas, and was intensified when our regular forces counter-attacked, in an effort to restore the lost territories."


http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/1937/guerrilla-warfare/ch07.htm