Buenaventura Durruti ?

[CHE with an AK]

"It is we the workers who built these palaces and cities here in Spain and in America and everywhere. We, the workers, can build others to take their place. And better ones! We are not in the least afraid of ruins. We are going to inherit the earth; there is not the slightest doubt about that. The bourgeoisie might blast and ruin its own world before it leaves the stage of history. We carry a new world here, in our hearts."

— Buenaventura Durruti, (1896-1936)


(1) What is your opinion on Buenaventura Durruti?

(2) Is there a good biography out there that you would recommend on him? What about websites?

(3) What examples or wisdom can we take away from him?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Durruti: The People Armed by Abel Paz is perhaps the best book about him.

As far as what I think of him: he was a fairly inspirational anarchist militant who unfortunately died far too young, but then again so did many during that war.

[shaderabbit85]

In an answer to #3....don't pick clumsy bodyguards!

Sorry, had to say it, I couldn't resist.

On a serious note, I have to say, I don't agree with him ideologically, but I do have some respect for him. If I remember correctly, he was a good disciplinarian; he shooed prostitutes away from the troops and shot those prostitutes that adopted militia uniforms simply for the purpose of staying with the columns for, shall we say, non-revolutionary purposes.

[WeAreReborn]

He has a lot of epic quotes that is for sure. He also seemed like a great general and to be down to earth and wasn't egotistical. There is a documentary called Living Utopia, I haven't gotten around to watching it but it is about the CNT so I'm sure there will be something on there about him.

[syndicat]

Durruti was a leading figure in the revolutionary wing within the Spanish anarchosyndicalist union, CNT. "Durruti: The People Armed" is outdated and is long out of print. There is a much better and longer biography, also by Abel Paz, entitled "Durruti in the Spanish Revolution".

I don't believe that bullshit about him having prostitutes shot. After all, there was a union of prostitutes in the CNT, formed by the women on their own initiative. they'd not be pleased if their union shot them, now would they?

Durruti was part of the faction in the CNT in 1936 that tried to push for the replacement of the Republican state by a federation of regional and national worker congresses and defense councils, and a unified militia, to replace the uncoordinated party and union militias.

This program was taken up by the Friends of Durruti Group formed in March 1937.

[shaderabbit85]

"In time, Durruti, the Anarchist leader, realized some sort of military discipline was needed. For example, when several of his men had to go to Barcelona to be treated for venereal disease, he executed some of the prostitutes who were following his Column and claiming to be militia women."

Page 18
Revolutionary Warfare: Spain 1936-37
Christopher Hall
ISBN 1 874351 12 0

I also remember reading this somewhere else, I'll see if I can find it. I'm not saying it's a god-given fact just cause it's in this little book (if you believe everything you read....), but I'm not pulling it out of my ass either.

Regardless, many times the right choice isn't the easy choice...

[WeAreReborn]

Regardless, many times the right choice isn't the easy choice...
I'm not saying it is true or it isn't I don't know enough about it. But you think shooting prostitutes was the right thing? It is one thing to ban them, possibly threaten as it can be hazardous to the army but murder is murder...

[shaderabbit85]

No, I'm not sure. However, I don't know the exact circumstances, but given his political affiliation, I'm sure he gave warnings beforehand. I used that example from the book more to illustrate the point of establishing discipline in revolutionary movements. That was the only example that I remembered offhand when I read this thread last night, after I posted I looked it up in that book to make sure I was remembering what I read correctly, as I realized that example might cause a shitstorm here. When I was looking it up, I found other examples of him being a disciplinarian.

The left likes to cry and scream about German and Italian aid to the "nationalists" during the war, but two big factors that were far more important were sectarianism, and disorganization and lack of discipline in the republican forces. There were far few German troops sent to Spain to have a decisive effect on the conflict, and the Italian troops were sent in large numbers but weren't worth a fuck. The Republicans, despite the blockade, received far more foreign aid material, mostly from the Soviet Union :). The republicans were really hurt by ammunition shortages later in the war, but by that point, the fascists had practically won.

Anyway, my point, with this and my original post was that although I don't agree with his politics, at least Durruti understood the need for discipline and organization in a revolutionary force. Perhaps if the republicans had had more leaders of his caliber, whatever their sect, they might not have lost.

[syndicat]

The Republicans, despite the blockade, received far more foreign aid material, mostly from the Soviet Union

this is simply not true. I advise reading "Arms for Spain" by a British military historian, Gerald Howson. his documentation is very detailed. the aid from Italy and Germany that was important wasn't the men they sent by themselves but the equipment. Germany sent more planes than were in the entire German luftwaffe in 1935. The fascists received 330 Fiat biplanes alone, versus 125 Soviet Chatto biplanes. Germany and Italy provided vastly more arms than the Republic was able to buy from Russia or anywhere else. Aid from Germany was also provided on credit. Russia demanded and got gold.

"Discipline" wasn't the problem.

after the Communists gained control of the officer corps of the military and army, demoralization set in due to the secrtarian manner in which the Communists operated. the Communists management of the war was terrible. major infantry offensives over open land that simply resulted in massive casualties and loss of equipment. it ground up the Republican army. the Republican army was basically destroyed in the Battle of the Ebro. on this, read "The Battle for Spain" by Antony Beevor.

and just quoting some book that says Durruti had some prostitutes shot doesn't show it was true. what about the details? his sources? and what viewpoint is he writing from? books about the Spanish revolution are notorious in so often being written with an axe to grind. i especially do not trust books written by English-speaking authors (such as I gather Hall is), unless they're oral histories. books on this subject by Anglo-Saxon liberals and Communists aren't worth a piss.

[shaderabbit85]

Hahaha, we drew different conclusions from reading the same damn book, "The Battle for Spain." That's really funny.

Edit: Wait, my bad, I just pulled it off the bookshelf, I read The Spanish Civil War. Same guy though, anthony beevor. Is yours a different book?

Poor tactics were not the exclusive domain of the communists. The anarchists made their share of dumbass charges across open ground. Same with sectarianism, although you're right, the communists were more guilty of that than the other factions.

On airpower, I think you might be right. But on tanks I'm pretty sure they had a large advantage. I'm going to look it up.

Edit:

Aid to Nationalists:
Aircraft
1264

Tanks
350

Artillery
2000

Aid to Republicans:
Aircraft
1320

Tanks
900

Artillery
1550

Spanish Civil War Hugh Thomas

Numbers alone don't tell the whole story. I don't know much about airplanes, except they were pretty primitive back in the day. In terms of tanks, most of what the Soviets sent were far better than what the Germans sent. I'm not saying the republicans had a huge material advantage, but the left has always blamed the material for their loss. It played a role, but the far greater factor was the human aspect, things like discipline, organization, sectarianism, and as you pointed out, bad tactics. It's easy to blame it all on nazi germany, not so easy to blame it on ourselves.

[syndicat]

the role of the Communist party caused tremendous demoralization: pushing to suppress or nationalize worker run workplaces, seize land the farm workers had taken from landlords and give it back to right wing landlords. the party gained control of the academy to train officers, controlled officers by denying them support unless they took out a party card, denied arms to anarchist units, the party controlled the system of political commissars in the army. the communists used their control of the police to mount a coordinated assault to seize control of the teleophone system for the state, which led to the may days events and the disarming of the working class in Barcelona. again, all these things caused tremendous demoralization. by putting their heads strongly against the revolution the workers were fighting for this led to a loss of the will to fight. when the fascist army entered barcelona there was no resistance.

the responsibility here can be laid to the unwillingness of a large part of the FAI to stick militantly to the CNT program of Sept 3 1936, calling for replacing the Republican state by regional and national worker congresses, defense councils, and joint control of a unified miliitia by the UGT and CNT unions.

the problem in the early days wasn't "lack of discipline" but lack of coordination. this happened because each of the left parties demanded its own army. on the Aragon front when the anarcho-syndicalist miliitia, which was the majority, proposed a unified command, it was the Communist division that refused to go along.

and your list of arms received from Hugh Thomas -- an inaccurate liberal pro-Stalinist historian -- isn't backed up by Howson's very careful study. in that study the fascicsts received far more aircraft and other weapons than the antifascist side. for example the Republican side required 17 different types of small arms ammo due to the various kinds of arms (usually used) obtained from various countries.

[Zanthorus]

Hahaha, we drew different conclusions from reading the same damn book, "The Battle for Spain." That's really funny.

Edit: Wait, my bad, I just pulled it off the bookshelf, I read The Spanish Civil War. Same guy though, anthony beevor. Is yours a different book?

'The Spanish Civil War' was the original version of the book written in 1982. A few years later his publisher apparently encouraged him to write a new version based on the wealth of new evidence about the war which had come out since then. This latter book became 'The Battle for Spain'.