American women in the Spanish civil war

[The Douche]

I just finished watching a documentary about American women who went to Spain during the civil war. (its called Into the Fire and is available for streaming on netflix btw) Most of them served as nurses and some were writers, it included original writings and some interviews with them. One of the things it included was some correspondance between one of the writers and Elanor Roosevelt (apparently they had some sort of relationship). The woman writing often pleads with the first lady to use some influence on FDR, but its brushed off and Roosevelt's responses usually center around the notion that it can't be "that bad", it includes a remark from the woman in Spain that the world's governments have "betrayed democracy for class interests", and the first lady's response is that she hopes the woman can eventually write things which are "not so embarassing to read".

Needless to say I was pretty infuriated.

As a communist I have always been interested in the politics of the civil war, and as a soldier I have been interested in the military aspects of it. (it really is amazing to me how people with no military experience left their jobs, took up the gun, and fought so effectively against a professional and battle-hardened imperial army) But this film really struck a chord with me as to the human element of the war.

It ends with one of the women who served as a nurse going to Spain in the 90s, when citizenship was granted to all foreigners who served the republic, and she adressed the event and said that she still had faith that what was fought for in the civil war would eventually prevail. I would be a liar if I said it didn't bring tears to my eyes.

[Kléber]

Eleanor Roosevelt's comment to Martha Gellhorn, that "I hope the day will come when you can write something that will not make one feel really ashamed to read it," just meant that Mrs Roosevelt, as a liberal representative of the US government, personally felt ashamed by Gellhorn's reports on the war, which exposed the Neutrality Act as tacit support for Franco.

[Geiseric]

Homage to Catalonia is a great read, it's written by George Orwell (trotskyist propagandist to the stalinists :p) and goes into detail the politics and fighting of the war, at least when Orwell was there for a few years, fighting in the P.O.U.M. Militia. The Anarcho Syndicalism in Catalonia description will make you orgasm btw, it sounds great.

[Tablo]

I loved Into the Fire, but was annoyed that the documentary completely ignored the fact that there were anarchists in the war.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Homage to Catalonia is a great read, it's written by George Orwell (trotskyist propagandist to the stalinists :p) and goes into detail the politics and fighting of the war, at least when Orwell was there for a few years, fighting in the P.O.U.M. Militia. The Anarcho Syndicalism in Catalonia description will make you orgasm btw, it sounds great.

It doesn't have very much detail about the politics of the war. Orwell wasn't very concerned with the petty politics that killed the republic. He had the right attitude at the time, which was along the lines of "let's get on with the war", and that's why he only devotes one chapter of the whole book to political questions. Another reccommendation is in order if one wants to learn about the politics of the war and the republican sides themselves.


Arthur Landis' Spain! The Unfinished Revolution (http://www.megaupload.com/?d=3WPYAW2J) is a particularly good compilation of the political side of the first and second republic. It's obviously biased but it's better than anything Orwell could have written (aside from actual war time experiences).

[Rusty Shackleford]

Homage to Catalonia was a great book.

theres 2 parts of the book where orwell says "skip over this if you dont care about the politics" and the rest is about the fighting.

probably my favorite book by him.

[syndicat]

Arthur Landis' Spain! The Unfinished Revolution (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.megaupload.com/?d=3WPYAW2J) is a particularly good compilation of the political side of the first and second republic. It's obviously biased but it's better than anything Orwell could have written (aside from actual war time experiences).


that book is just stalinist propaganda, written by a CP hack.

[mykittyhasaboner]

that book is just stalinist propaganda, written by a CP hack.

Yet it has so much more information useful to understanding the Spanish revolutions compared to Orwell's book, which has next to no political material. i merely picked one book as a comparison. A quick google search will uncover dozens of different ones, so there's some merit in posting a book that probably won't be found unless searched for, regardless of what you think of it.

i don't see why Orwell's memoirs are so politically revered by some.




theres 2 parts of the book where orwell says "skip over this if you dont care about the politics" and the rest is about the fighting.

This basically sums up Orwell's contempt for the 'politics' between Republican combatants. it's one of Orwell's only redeeming factors imho.

[syndicat]

the only "understanding" you'll get from Landis is apologetics for the CP line, which was opposed to the actual workers revolution.

the civil war in Spain was in reality a revolutionary class war. the CP had a very naive view that if you lied about the real character of the struggle in Spain and said "Oh we're just defending democracy" you could convince the capitalist governments in USA and UK and France to provide military aid. but the capitalists were aware what was going on. the Spanish working class had expropriated virtually the entire agricultural and industrial capitalist elite of Spain.

CP manipulation and repression (after they got control of the police and army commisars) merelly sowed demoralization...as Orwell points out.

there are many far better books about the struggle in Spain. on the actual fighting, there is "The Battle for Spain" by Antony Beevor. on the issue of arms shipments to both sides, there is the exhaustive account in "Arms for Spain". on the worker takeovers, there's "Collectives in the Spanish revolution" by Gaston Leval. on the anarchist women's organization there is "Free Women of Spain" by Martha Ackelsberg. and then there is the excellent oral history, "Blood of Spain" that interviews people from all sides. on the anarcho-syndicalist movement there is "Anarchists in the Spanish revolution" by Jose Peirats.

[Geiseric]

Fun fact: Texaco oil company was allowed by Roosevelt to sell oil to franco. I think Orwell had the politics in a nutshell, but i'd like to read more in depth.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Fun fact: Texaco oil company was allowed by Roosevelt to sell oil to franco. I think Orwell had the politics in a nutshell, but i'd like to read more in depth.

That's a great fact, since it exposes the way imperialists supported the rebels under the guise of neutrality. i read that for the first time on this online document (http://www.oneparty.co.uk/compass/compass/com12301.html) a while ago.


The United States imperialist government applied the 1935 Neutrality Act to the Spanish Civil War, but US corporations exported large quantities of much-needed oil to the rebels, this being exempted from its provisions:

"United States neutrality... favoured Franco, since American companies took advantage of the Neutrality Act's failure to classify oil as a war material and began sending tankers to Lisbon on 18 July".

(David Mitchell: 'The Spanish Civil War'; London; 1982; p.70).

On the other hand, like Britain and France, the USA

"... refused to sell arms to the Republic".

(Harry Browne: 'Spain's Civil War'; Harlow; 1983; p.38).

But the arms embargo did non affect both sides in the civil war equally, since the rebels were in receipt of large supplies of arms from Germany, Italy and (to a lesser extent) Portugal:

"The Nationalists enjoyed the advantage of... military supplies from Italy and Germany. These played a crucial role in the Nationalist victory, especially at the end of July (1936 -- Ed.,) when German and Italian aircraft facilitated the ferrying of the Army of Africa to Spain, thus allowing the Nationalists to sweep through Andaluzia and Estremadura.

(Gerald N. D. Howat (Ed.): 'Dictionary of World History'. London; 1973; p.1,421).

On the other hand,
"... the fascist government of Italy and the Nazis met no obstacles in sending arms... to the assistance of the rebel generals".

(Luigi Longo: 'An Important Stage in the People's Struggle against Fascism', in: 'International Solidarity ; op.cit.; p.11).

"While the legitimate government was being denied the right to purchase any type of arms, the insurgents were receiving all they needed from Germany and Italy". (Dolores Ibarruri: op.cit.; p.202).

Furthermore,
"... the strongly pro-rebel government in Lisbon was not only supplying material but permitting transhipment of German and Italian supplies across its country"

(David T. Cattell: 'Soviet Diplomacy and the Spanish Civil War' (hereafter listed as 'David T. Cattell (1957)'; Berkeley (USA); 1957; p.21).

As Australian-born author and translator Gilbert Murray said in a letter to the 'Times' in October 1936:

"The professedly double-edged embargo really cuts only one way. It keeps the Government forces unarmed for the benefit of the well-armed rebels".

(Gilbert Murray: Letter to the 'Times' (22 October 1936): p.12).

[syndicat]

there was an anti-capitalist, worker revolution underway in Spain. it would naive to suppose that capitalist governments would help arm them. talk about "the legitimate government" is misleading.

[mykittyhasaboner]

It's pretty obvious that imperialist governments wouldn't support any Republican combatants, maybe except France. However it isn't obvious that the US, Britain, Italy, Germany, etc supported the fascist rebels under an international pact declaring "neutrality". In fact this is often overlooked, despite being the primary cause for the Republic's demise.

The support for the fascists on part of the imperialist bloc(s), particularly the governments of Italy and Germany, pretty muched sealed the deal. If the Luftwaffe can bomb Barcelona and Valencia, without very much reponse due to lack of capable air force--all the while the front lines are almost constantly moving east, then what hope have you of winning the war?

i think it's relevant to talk of "legitimate government" when were talking about fascist rebels against the Popular Front government. Which one would you prefer to be called the "legitimate government" of Spain? i don't care what ideals you have regarding "legitimacy", the point is that the fascist rebels certainly weren't legitimate, and by supporting them the imperialists broke their own pact, as they had likely always intended.


btw thanks for reccomending more reading material.

[syndicat]

i think it's relevant to talk of "legitimate government" when were talking about fascist rebels against the Popular Front government. Which one would you prefer to be called the "legitimate government" of Spain? i don't care what ideals you have regarding "legitimacy", the point is that the fascist rebels certainly weren't legitimate, and by supporting them the imperialists broke their own pact, as they had likely always intended.


you miss the point. the struggle in Spain wasn't about "defending the Republic." as Durruti, most popular elected militia leader said in a nationwide radio address in Oct 1936: "The workers of Spain aren't fighting and dying to defend the bourgeois republic. they are fighting for the factories and the land, for a new way of life." The anarcho-syndicalist union, which had 2.5 million members, didn't want the Republic. they wanted direct worker power.

the socalled "neutrality pact" was a subterfuge. capitalist politicians & governments can't always be seen as overt agencies of the plutocracy. but in reality the effect was to make it illegal for the anti-fascist forces to buy arms from the USA, UK, France, while the fascists sent in thousands of troops and huge amount of weapons.

but this didn't "seal the deal." the CP's manipulation and attacks on the revolutionary conquests of the working class sowed demorlization, which undermined the will to fight. the Stalin regime looted the Republic...taking 70 percent of the gold reserves. when word got out that the reserves had been sent to Spain, the value of the Spanish currency fell by half, undermining their ability to buy materials to support the populattion and the war effort. they could have used the gold to buy equipment to beef up the capacity of their war industries in Catalonia, which would have provided them a better shot of staving off the fascist victory. if they could have prolonged the battle til the onset of World War 2, then there might have been some chance of the allied powers giving them some aid. during world war 2 the U.S. gave a lot of aid to the USSR.

[Kléber]

The anarcho-syndicalist union, which had 2.5 million members, didn't want the Republic. they wanted direct worker power.
The CNT/FAI leadership as a whole did not maintain its independence from the bourgeoisie; they capitulated to the Popular Front, constantly retreating before the liberals, reformists and Stalinists, to the tragic misfortune of the anarchist movement and the entire Spanish proletariat.

[syndicat]

The CNT/FAI leadership as a whole did not maintain its independence from the bourgeoisie; they capitulated to the Popular Front, constantly retreating before the liberals, reformists and Stalinists, to the tragic misfortune of the anarchist movement and the entire Spanish proletariat.

This is a simplistic statement. The workers expropriated the agricultural and industrial capitalists so there was no longer any "bourgeoisie" to not maintain "independence" from.

It also assumes a false distinction between workers and "leaders." in a union without a paid bureaucracy, where the regional and national committees were elected by plenaries of the workplace delegates, where is the distinction between members and "leaders"?

the CNT's program of Sept 3 1936 called for replacing the Popular Front government with national and regional defense councils, elected by regional and national worker congresses, made up of delegates elected from the workplace assemblies. at that time they also proposed a unified people's militia, controlled by the labor organizations, under the coordination of the defense councils.

this program was veto'd and blocked by the UGT union leadership, dominated by the Left Socialists. at that point there was a dispute in the CNT about what to do, and the radical wing proposed the union taking power where it had the power to do so. but they were not able to persuade a majority of the activists to go along with this, who view'd it as too risky.

the CNT was run thru union assemblies and elected workshop delegates. if the workshop delegates had wanted to force the issue and support taking power in Catalonia and Valencia and Murcia, they could have done so. that was what happened in Aragon but not in the other regions where the CNT was the majority.

in any event, my comment was about the CNT's program, not about the extent to which they carried it out.

The failure of nerve on the part of the CNT in Sept-Nov 1936 is true enough, and it did have the tragic consequences you refer to. But simplistic talk about "leaders" is no explanation. it's the usual Trotskyist bullshit about how which "leadership is in control" is always the key thing.

[Kléber]

This is a simplistic statement.
Only because I agree with most of your other points. Nevertheless it was simplistic of you to suggest that the CNT-FAI as a whole was the unflaking tribune of workers' power.


The workers expropriated the agricultural and industrial capitalists so there was no longer any "bourgeoisie" to not maintain "independence" from.It's true that the Spanish bourgeoisie virtually ceased to exist within the Republican zone, but that only makes it all the more disgraceful that the esteemed and feared anarcho-syndicalists, with deep historic roots in the Spanish proletariat, should have bowed before the political manifestation of the bourgeoisie's shadow.


It also assumes a false distinction between workers and "leaders." in a union without a paid bureaucracy, where the regional and national committees were elected by plenaries of the workplace delegates, where is the distinction between members and "leaders"?Obviously there was a distinction within the anarchist movement when Joan García Oliver told the workers to disarm, when the CNT-FAI's representatives still catered to the Popular Front while the revolutionary militants were being assassinated and tortured to death in secret NKVD prisons.


the CNT's program of Sept 3 1936 called for replacing the Popular Front government with national and regional defense councils, elected by regional and national worker congresses, made up of delegates elected from the workplace assemblies. at that time they also proposed a unified people's militia, controlled by the labor organizations, under the coordination of the defense councils.

this program was veto'd and blocked by the UGT union leadership, dominated by the Left Socialists. at that point there was a dispute in the CNT about what to do, and the radical wing proposed the union taking power where it had the power to do so. but they were not able to persuade a majority of the activists to go along with this, who view'd it as too risky.

the CNT was run thru union assemblies and elected workshop delegates. if the workshop delegates had wanted to force the issue and support taking power in Catalonia and Valencia and Murcia, they could have done so. that was what happened in Aragon but not in the other regions where the CNT was the majority. I like how you don't mention the FAI at all, except by the term "activists." It was the advance guard and political center of Spanish anarchism. Some among the "active minority" did defend proletarian political independence, and the Barcelona masses showed their resolve to defend workers' power from all enemies, but it remains that the dominant faction among the anarchist chiefs betrayed all that is revolutionary in anarchism, and the working class base of the CNT itself.


in any event, my comment was about the CNT's program, not about the extent to which they carried it out. A revolutionary organization should be assessed based on what it does moreso than what it says.


The failure of nerve on the part of the CNT in Sept-Nov 1936 is true enough, and it did have the tragic consequences you refer to. But simplistic talk about "leaders" is no explanation. it's the usual Trotskyist bullshit about how which "leadership is in control" is always the key thing.More like the usual anarchist bullshit about how anarchist functionaries and officers are not leaders, but everyone else is, as if by removing the words "leader," "party" and "state" from the vocabulary you might magically cause the organizational contradictions to vanish.

[syndicat]

we've had this debate before. i have limited patience for your trotskyist posturing.


Obviously there was a distinction within the anarchist movement when Joan García Oliver told the workers to disarm, when the CNT-FAI's representatives still catered to the Popular Front while the revolutionary militants were being assassinated and tortured to death in secret NKVD prisons.



when Garcia Oliver was in the government...an office that acted to corrupt his commitment.

but if the rank and file of the CNT had wanted to continue the fight in May 1937 or oust their collaborationist leaders, the workshop delegates could have easily done so. The collaborationist regional committee was elected by the plenary of the delegates. and the delegates were workers who were elected by the assemblies.

So your trot crap that implies some hierarchist domination of the union by "leaders" has no basis in reality.


Nevertheless it was simplistic of you to suggest that the CNT-FAI as a whole was the unflaking tribune of workers' power.



nice strawman. except i didn't say that.