Spanish Civil War/CNT-FAI

[Agent Ducky]

What are some good resources on the Spanish Civil War and the CNT-FAI?
I'm doing a project on them and I need sources and I figured Revleft would know some.
Thanks :D

[Omsk]

Hello.

Resources on the Spanish Civil War itself,or the role of the CNT-FAI movement itself?

[Искра]

Anarchists in Spanish Revolution (http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?y5k8lxlm89jdrh3)

http://libcom.org/library/anarcho-syndicalism-20th-century-vadim-damier

These 2 books are more than enough and they are from anarchist perspective. I don't agree with them in crucial part where anarchists and left communists disagre on nature of Spanish "revolution".

[human strike]

It's your lucky day, I'm writing a dissertation on this topic so I've got resources coming out my arse and most of them are online; what kind of things are you after exactly?

[Agent Ducky]

Hello.

Resources on the Spanish Civil War itself,or the role of the CNT-FAI movement itself?

Both kind of with more focus on the latter.

[Grenzer]

These 2 books are more than enough and they are from anarchist perspective. I don't agree with them in crucial part where anarchists and left communists disagre on nature of Spanish "revolution".

What is the disagreement, exactly?

I don't really know shit about the Spanish Civil War, but I think I would agree that it couldn't really be called a revolution.

[Agent Ducky]

Anarchists in Spanish Revolution (http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?y5k8lxlm89jdrh3)

http://libcom.org/library/anarcho-syndicalism-20th-century-vadim-damier

These 2 books are more than enough and they are from anarchist perspective. I don't agree with them in crucial part where anarchists and left communists disagre on nature of Spanish "revolution".

First link says it's been taken down.

And, more specifically, what caused their efforts to be unsuccessful?

[Comrade Jandar]

What is the disagreement, exactly?

I don't really know shit about the Spanish Civil War, but I think I would agree that it couldn't really be called a revolution.

What? It most definitely was a revolution.

[Black_Flag]

I've done a dissertation on the topic. One book I'd definitely recommend is "We, the Anarchists" by Stuart Christie. It gives a good history of the CNT-FAI both before, during and in the direct aftermath of the war. I'll try and find a copy of the dissertation to see what other sources I used.

[Omsk]

If you want,i can give you a lot of details about the Soviet help to the Republic.

[Искра]

Ducky, first link works fine with me. Try again... if you can't ask some of your friends maybe someone can download it. That is really big and detail book about Spanish anarchists...

Now, to replay why I don't think that this is a revolution. To have a communist revolution you need to take power. CNT/FAI didn't do that but they worked with bourgeuisie and joined government. You can criticize Lenin and Bolsheviks for what they did in Russia, and I do that, but they never made such a mistake. Because, anarchists joined government with bourgeuisie they sabotaged revolution. You could see that from the fact that they didn't touch "anti-fascits" bourgeuisie factories or lands for example. Still, it's important to say that I do consider the base of CNT revolutionary and by "base" I mean on all those workers who made insurection against fascists coup but they were told to keep quiet about revolution and fight "anti-fascist" civil war.

[Paulappaul]

Now, to replay why I don't think that this is a revolution. To have a communist revolution you need to take power.

I think that is wrong and unmarxian comrade. Marx said any revolution must take State Power or in the case of a Proletarian revolution it must develop its own power, its own state. A state means the coercive, unified power of a single class. It basically means the institutionalization of the class "in and for itself" acting in its own best interests. In the Spanish Revolution this defiantly happened, the working class created its own militias, centralized business and collectivized it and created central bodies of administrating the rising socialist social relations. It was unified under a program and this is where Left Communists get all pissy. The program, the leadership of the class however truly proletarian it was wrong. To the working class a step in the social revolution meant the immediate historical battle between Democracy and Fascism.

[Искра]

Well how will you create dictatorship of proletariat if you don't take power? I'm not talking about Party taking power, but working class. Like in Russia... it wasn't Bolsheviks who took the power, but working class trough Soviets... and later class power become Party power when counter-revolution was carried out.

In Spanish "revolution" working class was sent to fight in Civil war between "fascist" and "anti-fascist" bourguisie. Collecitivisation was caried out only in "fascist" enteprises.

[Paulappaul]

Well how will you create dictatorship of proletariat if you don't take power? I'm not talking about Party taking power, but working class.
Ever heard the saying "Change the World Without Taking Power"? It means rather then taking power, you create new forms of power. This is what Marx meant when he was talking about how the Paris commune 'couldn't weld state power to its own ends' it must create new forms of power. Obviously the Soviets didn't take the existing state power, they created new forms of power from their hearts and souls- From the own creations negating the alienation of capital. In Spain it was the same there was obviously a unified proletariat in Barcelona and in other cities that created mediums of expression and therefor, new forms of power which smashed the existing means of control.


Collecitivisation was caried out only in "fascist" enteprises.

How if fascism = Capitalism. Don't draw a difference.

[human strike]

http://www.mediafire.com/?e1st02psaaktdkh,0vii55bglaa1luo,4iplt12l60mqpyb,c v0bepampdler6e,ark2xfsrncrripo,x7b1cq349830edq,j5y f27k9921pajy,3el3o5ghab15yoz,fbg6cm13ej5bjc8,l3ai5 ti2aad3q02,9wm5v850scl2m2b,3u291v32e9tbb4n,a5bcaiz l4ex8r71,vm9iywjaf3vl306,713v9jm7881dkt9,hydxez83r zleu8e,fbabefbanf97u70,qjro26tzynkewrk,91c4xdfpg4a zc1j,l99seh0rs5269kk,gw4995qmv4gc2m4,y5ktx5s8h9wwk 6t,s1reepe60p09y68

[Искра]

Enterprises owned by "anti-fascist" and foreign capitalists were not collectivized. Guess why?

If Soviets manadge to take power from bourgeuisie they took power. It doesn't matter if that is a new way of power because I wasn't talking how, I don't know, proletariat must take bourgeuise state and continue to use it like nothing happened. Tbh, that exactly what CNT made.

[Paulappaul]

Enterprises owned by "anti-fascist" and foreign capitalists were not collectivized. Guess why?

that's bogus


If Soviets manadge to take power from bourgeuisie they took power.

That's not responding to anything I said or what Marx said. Its not about taking the power of the Bourgeois which is structured along hierarchtical and exploitative formations, its about creating new forms of power and crushing the existing state power and replacing it with Proletarian Power.

[human strike]

Some useful links:

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/spancivwar/spancivwarhis.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/spancivwar/spancivwarhis.html)
http://web.archive.org/web/20050204041125/http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/ (http://web.archive.org/web/20050204041125/http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/)
http://libcom.org/forums/news/what-happened-flagblackenednet-12022006 (http://libcom.org/forums/news/what-happened-flagblackenednet-12022006)
http://web.archive.org/web/20110429223028/http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spaindx.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20110429223028/http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spaindx.html)
http://libcom.org/tags/spanish-civil-war
http://libcom.org/library/spanish-civil-war-further-reading-guide (http://libcom.org/tags/spanish-civil-war%20http://libcom.org/library/spanish-civil-war-further-reading-guide)
http://struggle.ws/anarchism/writers/anarcho/reviews/wrongsteps.html (http://struggle.ws/anarchism/writers/anarcho/reviews/wrongsteps.html)
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=1869 (http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=1869)
http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/spain/sp001780/index.html (http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/spain/sp001780/index.html)
http://libcom.org/library/women-barcelona-1930s-michael-seidman (http://libcom.org/library/women-barcelona-1930s-michael-seidman)
http://libcom.org/library/self-management-spanish-revolution-point-blank (http://libcom.org/library/self-management-spanish-revolution-point-blank)
http://libcom.org/library/class-collaboration-old-and-new-and-open-letter-to-the-cnt-1937 (http://libcom.org/library/class-collaboration-old-and-new-and-open-letter-to-the-cnt-1937)
http://libcom.org/history/was-there-spanish-revolution-enric-mompo (http://libcom.org/history/was-there-spanish-revolution-enric-mompo)
http://libcom.org/history/%E2%80%9Crevolutionary-syndicalism-serves-proletariat-whereas-anarchism-one-brand-humanism%E2%80%9D-inte (http://libcom.org/history/%E2%80%9Crevolutionary-syndicalism-serves-proletariat-whereas-anarchism-one-brand-humanism%E2%80%9D-inte)
http://libcom.org/history/women-spanish-revolution-solidarity (http://libcom.org/history/women-spanish-revolution-solidarity)
http://libcom.org/library/uselessness-heroes-charles-reeve-reviews-nestor-romeros-los-incontrolados-chronicles-iron-column (http://libcom.org/library/uselessness-heroes-charles-reeve-reviews-nestor-romeros-los-incontrolados-chronicles-iron-column)
http://libcom.org/library/statistical-information-on-socialisation-in-the-spanish-revolution (http://libcom.org/library/statistical-information-on-socialisation-in-the-spanish-revolution)
http://libcom.org/library/controversy-anarchists-spanish-revolution-sam-dolgoff (http://libcom.org/library/controversy-anarchists-spanish-revolution-sam-dolgoff)
http://www.revleft.com/vb/working-class-saddle-t104674/index.html?t=104674 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/working-class-saddle-t104674/index.html?t=104674)

[Искра]

That's not responding to anything I said or what Marx said. Its not about taking the power of the Bourgeois which is structured along hierarchtical and exploitative formations, its about creating new forms of power and crushing the existing state power and replacing it with Proletarian Power.I'm talking about the same thing. Because when you take power you are taking power from Bourgeois and you are creating your own new forms of power... That is proletarian power... that existed in Russian revolution and didn't exist in Spain.

[l'Enfermé]

It was definetely a Socialist Revolution, a Proletarian Revolution can only be socialist, though it was terminated in 1937, by the "multitude of reactionaries imagining themselves as Socialists and Anarchists" that "succeeded under the label of the Popular Front in strangling the socialist revolution and assuring Franco’s victory."

To call the events in Spain in the 1930s "not a revolution" is absolutely ridiculous.

[Искра]

Interesting proletarian revolution, since it was run by bourgeuis parties and opportunists from POUM, CNT and FAI. Interesting proeltarian revolution which fought for democracy against fascism :) which didn't expropriate all bourgeuise and which was aided by imperialist powers.

[x359594]

I think it would be fair so say that there was the beginning of a revolution as Orwell put it in Homage to Catalonia. Here are some excerpts:

"...The estates of the big pro-Fascist landlords were in many places seized by the peasants. Along with the collectivization of industry and transport there was an attempt to set up the rough beginnings of a workers' government by means of local committees, workers' patrols to replace the old pro-capitalist police forces, workers' militias based on the trade unions, and so forth. Of course the process was not uniform, and it went further in Catalonia than elsewhere. There were areas where the institutions of local government remained almost untouched, and others where they existed side by side with revolutionary committees. In a few places independent Anarchist communes were set up, and some of them remained in being till about a year later, when they were forcibly suppressed by the Government. In Catalonia, for the first few months, most of the actual power was in the hands of the Anarcho-syndicalists, who controlled most of the key industries. The thing that had happened in Spain was, in fact, not merely a civil war, but the beginning of a revolution..."

"...In particular the Communist Party, with Soviet Russia behind it, had thrown its whole weight against the revolution. It was the Communist thesis that revolution at this stage would be fatal and that what was to be aimed at in Spain was not workers' control, but bourgeois democracy. It hardly needs pointing out why 'liberal' capitalist opinion took the same line. Foreign capital was heavily invested in Spain. The Barcelona Traction Company, for instance, represented ten millions of British capital; and meanwhile the trade unions had seized all the transport in Catalonia. If the revolution went forward there would be no compensation, or very little; if the capitalist republic prevailed, foreign investments would be safe. And since the revolution had got to be crushed, it greatly simplified things to pretend that no revolution had happened. In this way the real significance of every event could be covered up; every shift of power from the trade unions to the central Government could be represented as a necessary step in military reorganization. The situation produced was curious in the extreme. Outside Spain few people grasped that there was a revolution; inside Spain nobody doubted it. Even the P.S.U.C. newspapers. Communist-controlled and more or less committed to an antirevolutionary policy, talked about 'our glorious revolution'. And meanwhile the Communist press in foreign countries was shouting that there was no sign of revolution anywhere; the seizure of factories, setting up of workers' committees, etc., had not happened--or, alternatively, had happened, but 'had no political significance'..."

Returning to the question of the role of the CNT/FAI, Jose Pierats' three volume study is available in English in both the UK and USA: The CNT and the Spanish Revolution. There is also The Spanish Revolution by Burnett Bolloten. In addition there are studies about the agricultural collectives such as Collectives in the Spanish Revolution by Gaston Leval and With the Peasants of Aragon by Augustin Souchy. A good anthology is The Anarchist Collectives: Workers' Self-Management in the Spanish Revolution.

For the history and organization of the FAI Stuart Christie's We, the Anarchists! is the best book available in English. Not as good because of poor translation is Anarchist Organization: the History of the FAI by Juan Gomez Casas.

[daft punk]

What is the disagreement, exactly?

I don't really know shit about the Spanish Civil War, but I think I would agree that it couldn't really be called a revolution.
It could have been a revolution easily. The leader of the anarchists admitted they could have taken power. However the Stalinists worked to crush the revolution.

a short article:

Spanish Revolution 75th anniversary. Defeat snatched from the jaws of victory

22/07/2011
This week is the 75th anniversary of the start of the Spanish Civil War, on 18 July 18. We mark this hugely important event in world history with an article first published on socialistworld.net in 2009.
Hannah Sell, Socialist Party (CWI in England & Wales)


http://www.socialistworld.net/img/20110806Grafik8522592750250829496.jpg


"The Spanish civil war (1936-39) was the bloodiest stage in the ten year-long Spanish revolution that began in 1931. Spain was a further confirmation of Leon Trotsky’s theory of ’permanent revolution’, which was earlier borne out in the Russian workers’ socialist revolution of 1917.
But unlike Russia in 1917, where the revolutionary leadership under Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks was decisive, in Spain the workers’ leaders vacillated between reform and revolution, thereby allowing the capitalists to reassert control and the triumph of Franco. In this, the Spanish capitalists were aided by the Stalinist Communist Party."


As Orwell commented, "in reality it was the Communists above all others who prevented revolution in Spain."



"The Communist Party did not bear sole responsibility. In Barcelona, for example, Garcia Oliver, the anarchist leader (the anarchists were the strongest force in Barcelona), explained how the anarchists could easily have taken power in July 1936 ’because all the forces were on our side’ but did not do so because, they did not ’believe in doing so’. This did not prevent the anarchist leaders, including Oliver, later joining the Popular Front government together with capitalist parties. In this way the role of the leaders of the workers’ parties allowed the capitalist class, initially no more than a shadow, gradually to regain substance before physically repressing the socialist revolution in May 1937.
Far from strengthening the fight against fascism, the policy of the workers’ leaders resulted in the defeat of that fight. Desperate to re-establish the rule of big capital, and to avoid upsetting the world imperialist powers, the heads of the workers’ organisations refused to adopt the policies that were necessary to win over ordinary soldiers fighting on the side of Franco."


http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5201

[Buitraker]

Interesting proletarian revolution, since it was run by bourgeuis parties and opportunists from POUM, CNT and FAI.
L O L

Who did the real revolution? PCE? Nationalist partys?

[Искра]

No. Read my previous posts. It's not so black and white (i.e. if you are against CNT you are pro PCE). As I said in the first post base of CNT and other groups tried to start a revolution when they spontaniously reacted against coup, but their intitiative was blocked by opportunist leadership which entered into bourgeuis government. Also, I don't feel to comment much on PCE since they were just a regular bourgeuis party which worked for interest of one imperialist power (aka. USSR).

[Paulappaul]

Interesting proletarian revolution, since it was run by bourgeuis parties and opportunists from POUM, CNT and FAI. Interesting proeltarian revolution which fought for democracy against fascism :) which didn't expropriate all bourgeuise and which was aided by imperialist powers.

Ironically for someone who digs Bordiga you are saying this. Like the Russian Revolution it wasn't the party who was doing anything, it was by Proletarian initiative that the revolution in Spain happened that took over factories, collectivized production and ran out bourgeois society. To affiliate everything that happened in Barcelonia to the CNT, POUM or the FAI is fatalistic. Where are you seeing this bogus shit that the revolution picked and choose business' on the basis that they were fascistic or capitalist?

[l'Enfermé]

Interesting proletarian revolution, since it was run by bourgeuis parties and opportunists from POUM, CNT and FAI. Interesting proeltarian revolution which fought for democracy against fascism :) which didn't expropriate all bourgeuise and which was aided by imperialist powers.
If Anarchists and Stalinists terminated the Revolution, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. You can't terminate something that doesn't exist. And which "imperialist" power aided it? The Western democracies? They actually aided Franco. Germany? Italy? Italy sent 100,000 men to fight for Franco. The USSR? The main reason Franco won was USSR's "aid", "aid" meaning Stalin sending his assassins to murder countless revolutionists in Spain. The revolutionists in Spain received aid only from one state, Mexico.


Also, another interesting thing is that so many people ignore that the CNT wasn't particularly anarchist when it came to their membership. The problem was that a small clique of Anarchist conspirators from the FAÍ dominated the leadership.

[DDR]

Interesting proletarian revolution, since it was run by bourgeuis parties and opportunists from POUM, CNT and FAI. Interesting proeltarian revolution which fought for democracy against fascism :) which didn't expropriate all bourgeuise and which was aided by imperialist powers.

Imperialist powers? USSR and Mexico? They were only two contries who helped the republic.

[Omsk]

The revolutionists in Spain received aid only from one state, Mexico.


Of course not.The USSR was the main supporter of the Republican war effort.

[x359594]

Of course not.The USSR was the main supporter of the Republican war effort.

Correct, the USSR supported the war effort but not the revolution.

[Omsk]

The 'revolution' was in the precise time period,something the Civil War dwarfed in importance and attention.And,the victory in the Civil War was the prerequisite for everything.

[pastradamus]

Correct, the USSR supported the war effort but not the revolution.

I think it was more to do with advancing their own Army as opposed to assisting the Republic.

For example the suspension systems used on the T-34 tank in WW2 were first experimented with during the Spanish civil war. The was also opened up eyes with regards to avation. Aeronautical Technological advancements never moved faster than in the period from when the war started to when Franco took power.
Russian fighters were obsolete within 6 months of their dispatch from odessa to Barcelona.

So I think you made a very true statement "the ussr supported the war effort but not the revolution". Spot on.

[pastradamus]

Of course not.The USSR was the main supporter of the Republican war effort.

Its a matter of opinion, the USSR sent

650 Planes
362 Tanks
1500 Artillery Pieces

As well as a small number of advisors and 500 troops.

Mexico Sent

$2 million in aid
20,000 Rifles
20,000,000 Ammunition Cartridges

As well as advisors, Diplomatic assistance and providing a asylum for Republican refugees.

[daft punk]

"The revolutionists in Spain received aid only from one state, Mexico. "

Of course not.The USSR was the main supporter of the Republican war effort.

He said revolutionists. The USSR didnt support the revolutionaries, quite the opposite, the USSR crushed the revolution. Didnt you know that?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Also, another interesting thing is that so many people ignore that the CNT wasn't particularly anarchist when it came to their membership. The problem was that a small clique of Anarchist conspirators from the FAÍ dominated the leadership.

LOL the CNT was a revolutionary syndicalist organization, and like all such orgs it's members had a certain range of beliefs, but it was definitely heavily influenced with the Spanish anarchist culture. Also the FAI was not a "small clique of anarchist conspirators", they were open about their organization and it's role as a sort of "steering committee", just like, y'know, Leninists do. :lol: Their organization came into open factional conflicts with other tendencies within the CNT, but I guess factional rivalries is indicative of them being a "small clique of conspirators", and Leninists would know nothing about that. :lol:

[daft punk]

The 'revolution' was in the precise time period,something the Civil War dwarfed in importance and attention.And,the victory in the Civil War was the prerequisite for everything.

an excuse a day helps you work rest and play. Always an excuse why a revolution had to be crushed.

No, the Stalinists fought Franco but they also fought and undermined large chunks of the Republican side (the revolutionaries), so paving the way for a fascist victory.

[l'Enfermé]

Of course not.The USSR was the main supporter of the Republican war effort.
Right, the USSR was "supporting" the war effort when Stalin was pretty much stealing all of Spain's gold reserves(one of the biggest in the world) and having his executioners run around Spain killing revolutionists.


LOL the CNT was a revolutionary syndicalist organization, and like all such orgs it's members had a certain range of beliefs, but it was definitely heavily influenced with the Spanish anarchist culture. Also the FAI was not a "small clique of anarchist conspirators", they were open about their organization and it's role as a sort of "steering committee", just like, y'know, Leninists do. :lol: Their organization came into open factional conflicts with other tendencies within the CNT, but I guess factional rivalries is indicative of them being a "small clique of conspirators", and Leninists would know nothing about that. :lol:

It's leadership was heavily influenced with the Spanish "anarchist culture", it's membership didn't give a shit about it. And yes, the FAI was a small clique of anarchist conspirators, that usurped and wrecked the CNT, even they didn't deny that(well at least the first part).

I don't know why you mention Leninists when you mention "steering" committees. Probably a misunderstand of what Leninism is on your part.

[Os Cangaceiros]

It's leadership was heavily influenced with the Spanish "anarchist culture", it's membership didn't give a shit about it.

The FAI had tens of thousands of members, as many as 40,000 when the civil war broke out, so obviously some did.


And yes, the FAI was a small clique of anarchist conspirators, that usurped and wrecked the CNT, even they didn't deny that(well at least the first part).

On the contrary, the FAI expelled moderates from leadership positions in the CNT during the early 1930's.


I don't know why you mention Leninists when you mention "steering" committees. Probably a misunderstand of what Leninism is on your part.

I only know what I've seen of historical Leninist practice, esp. among tiny insignificant Leninist sects, which usually involves desperately latching on to any and all social movements like parasites in a desperate attempt to gain some historical legitimacy by piggy-backing off them.

Just to be clear though: I largely agree with what Kontra has been saying about the Spanish anarchists, with the exception of the whole bit about "taking power". The anarchist conduct in the Republican state was shameful. All the crap about "conspiratorialism" reeks of canned vulgar Marxist ignorance with no bearing on historical fact, though. :)

[Stadtsmasher]

Such a beautiful thing. One of the most sophisticated embodiments of Anarchism in the 20th centry.

[Art Vandelay]

The 'revolution' was in the precise time period,something the Civil War dwarfed in importance and attention.And,the victory in the Civil War was the prerequisite for everything.

I would argue the exact opposite actually, as the saying went: The war cannot be separated from the revolution. The (aborted) revolution being successful was the prerequisite for everything, not the other way around.

[Omsk]

Right, the USSR was "supporting" the war effort when Stalin was pretty much stealing all of Spain's gold reserves(one of the biggest in the world) and having his executioners run around Spain killing revolutionists


The Trotskyite provocateurs and subversives were a distant branch,spearated,from their roots in the anti-Soviet campaign which was led by their political mentors and idols,however,they were still quite organized and ready to engage in various kinds of activities.




No, the Stalinists fought Franco but they also fought and undermined large chunks of the Republican side (the revolutionaries), so paving the way for a fascist victory.


Common Trotskyite lies and misconceptions debunked ages ago,you simply can't prove that the 'Stalinist' fight against the petty-subversives and various kinds of left-wing ultra-leftists somehow undermined the general war efforts of the entire Republican unified anti-fascist side.


Its a matter of opinion, the USSR sent

650 Planes
362 Tanks
1500 Artillery Pieces



These number are far from precise,the USSR sent much more than that,for an example,a shipment was stopped in France:

Airplanes provided by the Soviet government, 500 pieces of artillery, and 10,000 machine guns were held up in France.
Brar, Harpal. Trotskyism or Leninism. 1993, p. 336

This is coming from a historian who despises Stalin:

It is common knowledge that soon after the fascist rebellion and the beginning of the civil war in Spain the Soviet Union began to aid and support the Spanish Republic....
By the end of 1936 the Soviet Union had supplied Spain with 106 tanks, 60 armored cars, 136 airplanes, more than 60,000 rifles, 174 field guns, 3,727 machine guns, and an unspecified amount of ammunition.
Medvedev, Roy. Let History Judge. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989, p. 724

Not to mention the USSR de-facto organized the International Brigades,in which some 35.000 fighters fought.

While 3000 Soviets fighters went to fight alongside with the anti-fascists.

More specific numbers:


"... the Soviet Union sent to the Spanish Government 806 military aircraft, mainly fighters, 362 tanks, 120 armored cars, 1,555 artillery pieces, about 500,000 rifles, 340 grenade launchers, 15,113 machine-guns, more than 110,000 aerial bombs, about 3.4 million rounds of ammunition, 500,000 grenades, 862 million cartridges, 1,500 tons of gunpowder, torpedo boats, air defense searchlight installations, motor vehicles, radio stations, torpedoes and fuel".
('International Solidarity'; op. cit; p.329-30).

and under the new Soviet policy,
"... a little more than 2,000 Soviet volunteers fought and worked in Spain on the side of the Republic throughout the whole war, including 772 airmen, 351 tank men, 222 army advisers and instructors, 77 naval specialists, 100 artillery specialists, 52 other specialists, 130 aircraft factory workers and engineers, 156 radio operators and other signals men, and 204 interpreters".
('International Solidarity': op. cit. p.328).

...more than 2000 Soviet volunteers fought and worked in Spain on the side of the Republic throughout the whole war, including 772 airmen, 351 tank men, 222 army advisors and instructors, 77 naval specialists, 100 artillery specialists, 52 other specialists, 130 aircraft factory workers and engineers, 156 radio operators and other signals men, and 204 interpreters....
The total extent of Soviet military supplies may be seen from the following figures: the Soviet Union sent to the Spanish Government 806 military aircraft, mainly fighters, 363 tanks, 120 armored cars, 1,555 artillery pieces, about 500,000 rifles, 340 grenade launchers, 15,113 machine guns, more than 110,000 aerial bombs, about 3.4 million rounds of ammunition, 500,000 grenades, 862 million cartridges, 1500 tons of gunpowder, torpedo boats, air defense searchlight installations, motor vehicles, radio stations, torpedoes and fuel".
International Solidarity With the Spanish Republic, 1936-39. Moscow: Progress Publishers, c1974, p. 328-330

From this,we can come to the conclusion that the USSR was the main helper of the Republic in its fight against the Fascist Nationalist forces.

[Art Vandelay]

The Trotskyite provocateurs

Oh boy :laugh:


Common Trotskyite lies and misconceptions debunked ages ago,you simply can't prove that the 'Stalinist' fight against the petty-subversives and various kinds of left-wing ultra-leftists somehow undermined the general war efforts of the entire Republican unified anti-fascist side.

You're right because in the middle of a civil war its always beneficial to turn your guns against your allies.


From this,we can come to the conclusion that the USSR was the main helper of the Republic in its fight against the Fascist Nationalist forces.

This is true except for the pesky little fact that they withheld arms and ammunition from the anarchists and outlawed and arrested the POUM (part of the united front) in the middle of a civil war.

[StalinFanboy]

the revolution was crushed because of the idiocy of "anti-fascism," by both the anarchists and the stalinists. It was why the anarchists allowed the bourgeois government to remain, and why the ussr didn't support the revolution.

[Omsk]

You're right because in the middle of a civil war its always beneficial to turn your guns against your allies.

Give me the names of the battalions which fought the POUM terrorists instead of the Fascists.Because small scale clashes have nothing to do with the war effort.



This is true except for the pesky little fact that they withheld arms and ammunition from the anarchists and outlawed and arrested the POUM (part of the united front) in the middle of a civil war.


The POUM were Trotskyites,in that period,one of the secondary enemies of the contemporary Comintern aligned communists.

[Art Vandelay]

Give me the names of the battalions which fought the POUM terrorists instead of the Fascists.Because small scale clashes have nothing to do with the war effort.

POUM terrorists? That's laughable. Small scale clashes have nothing to do with the war effort? Yeah I am sure it increased moral throughout the popular front to hear that they might have to be looking over their shoulders for their stalinist "comrades."


The POUM were Trotskyites,in that period,one of the secondary enemies of the contemporary Comintern aligned communists.

So you agree then that a United Front was not the goal of the Comintern aligned communists? Regardless of the tendency of the POUM among the revolutionary left, they were anti-fascists and do not even begin with the "fascist-trot" conspiracy because you'll instantly slash away the foundation of your own argument.

If the Comintern aligned communists were really supporters of the united front then they would not have been arresting, murdering and torturing anti-fascists like Andreas Nin who had his skin flayed. It would seem they opportunistically supported the united front until in a better position to clamp down upon the revolutionary elements of the civil war (the CNT-FAI and POUM).

[x359594]

...The POUM were Trotskyites,in that period,one of the secondary enemies of the contemporary Comintern aligned communists.

Strictly speaking the P.O.U.M. was not a Trotskyist organization. Co-founder Andreu Nin was a former follower of Trotsky while Joquin Maurin was never part of the Trotskyist camp. There was, however an actual Trotskist party, Bolshevik-Leninist Section of Spain affiliated with the Fourth International.

For documents in English issued by the P.O.U.M.: http://www.marxists.org/history/spain/poum/index.htm

[Искра]

Btw. this could also be interesting book:
http://libcom.org/library/anarchist-collectives-workers-self-management-spanish-revolution-1936-1939-sam-dolgoff

[Omsk]

Strictly speaking the P.O.U.M. was not a Trotskyist organization.

Most of their people were in fact hugely influenced by Trotsky and Trotskyite literature,however,since many people just put various pro-USSR1953 or pro-Hoxha streams into a big basket,everything is in order if i just engage in a minor simplification,and to be honest,their party might have not been nominaly Trotskyists,but their rhetorics,politics and acts were.And they were formed out of the ideological 'material' of the Izquierda Comunista de España, ICE - A Trotskyite group.



Co-founder Andreu Nin was a former follower of Trotsky while Joquin Maurin was never part of the Trotskyist camp. There was, however an actual Trotskist party, Bolshevik-Leninist Section of Spain affiliated with the Fourth International.




There were many similar 'branched out' parties in Spain,who tried to get their attempt at gaining some influence.

[x359594]

Btw. this could also be interesting book:
http://libcom.org/library/anarchist-collectives-workers-self-management-spanish-revolution-1936-1939-sam-dolgoff

Referenced above in post #22. Thanks for the link.

[Искра]

Check PDF's (http://libcom.org/tags/pdfs) tag on libcom. That where they put books in .pdf. It full of good stuff on Spanish Civil War. Sad thing is that anarchists are not so critical about 1936, but anyway you can find a lot of resources and data to make your own political positions.

[Искра]

POUM was never Trot organisation. They were called Trotskyite by PCE and that was just a Stalinist slander...

[Omsk]

POUM terrorists? That's laughable. Small scale clashes have nothing to do with the war effort? Yeah I am sure it increased moral throughout the popular front to hear that they might have to be looking over their shoulders for their stalinist "comrades."

Yes,just like the Marxist-Leninists were full of joy when the first 'Anti-Stalinite' groups were formed.
The POUM were Trotskyites,in that period,one of the secondary enemies of the contemporary Comintern aligned communists.

So you agree then that a United Front was not the goal of the Comintern aligned communists? Regardless of the tendency of the POUM among the revolutionary left, they were anti-fascists and do not even begin with the "fascist-trot" conspiracy because you'll instantly slash away the foundation of your own argument.

I was talking about the period when there was open hostility between the communists and the terrorists.


If the Comintern aligned communists were really supporters of the united front then they would not have been arresting, murdering and torturing anti-fascists like Andreas Nin who had his skin flayed. It would seem they opportunistically supported the united front until in a better position to clamp down upon the revolutionary elements of the civil war (the CNT-FAI and POUM).

The major hostility began during the Barcelona May Days,and,as someone who you would probably agree with said:

"It will never be possible to get a completely accurate and unbiased account of the Barcelona fighting, because the necessary records do not exist. Future historians will have nothing to go upon except a mass of accusations and party propaganda".

Ignore the end.

[pastradamus]

The POUM was not a Trotskyist organisation. It was composed of people from various leftist factions, some which shared views with Trotsky -yes but most did not. They were a Marxist organisation. Their main drill barracks was called the "Carlos Marx" barracks. They had pictures of Marx on their posters and flags. Not Trotsky.

As already said, they were called this to simply slander the POUM from Stalinist circles. The POUM was formed against the will of Leon Trotsky as Andreu Nin used to have correspondance with him and the two went seperate ways.

[x359594]

..."It will never be possible to get a completely accurate and unbiased account of the Barcelona fighting, because the necessary records do not exist. Future historians will have nothing to go upon except a mass of accusations and party propaganda"...

One would have to ask, just what are the necessary records? Meantime, there are eyewitness accounts and some surviving written contemporary documents recording the decision to seize the telephone exchange.

[daft punk]

The Trotskyite provocateurs and subversives were a distant branch,spearated,from their roots in the anti-Soviet campaign which was led by their political mentors and idols,however,they were still quite organized and ready to engage in various kinds of activities.

Is this supposed to make some sort of sense? What is it even trying to say?





Common Trotskyite lies and misconceptions debunked ages ago,you simply can't prove that the 'Stalinist' fight against the petty-subversives and various kinds of left-wing ultra-leftists somehow undermined the general war efforts of the entire Republican unified anti-fascist side.

No, You are the one repeatng lies. The best book on Spain probably is the one by Antony Beevor, which became a best seller in Spain.

Here is a bit from one review:
"When Stalin determined that Spain’s communists must secure a monopoly of power, the Republicans conducted a bloody power struggle in their ranks. It was executions, executions all the way: of alleged deserters, traitors, cowards, rivals in scores and even hundreds — most innocent, of course. Non-communist Republican units were often denied ammunition and medical care by communist ones. Who can wonder that they lost?"
http://www.arlindo-correia.com/150606.html

from the article I mentioned earlier by Hannah Sell:
"When the coup came the working class responded, as has already been described, with enormous heroism. They were horribly hampered by a government which, as Beevor quotes one Seville carpenter as explaining, "were not prepared to give us [the workers] arms because they were more afraid of the working class than they were of the army." "
http://www.socialistworld.net/mob/doc/5201

The Stalinists attacked large sections of the Republican side and also disarmed the workers militias. As well as attacking their own side they also employed useless military tactics and made terrible political 'mistakes'. For example they could have split Franco's Moroccan forces away with Marxist slogans, ditto also much of his support. You dont fight a capitalist enemy with your own version of capitalism, you fight it with socialism.

[daft punk]

How Stalin destroyed revolution in Spain

"The Moscow archives give ample evidence – if more evidence were needed – of the anti-revolutionary and repressive policies of Stalin’s representatives in Spain."



http://www.lausti.com/articles/Spain/civilwar.html

[Omsk]

One would have to ask, just what are the necessary records? Meantime, there are eyewitness accounts and some surviving written contemporary documents recording the decision to seize the telephone exchange.

And there were some lone reports about the anarchist provocations and the POUM provocations,still,they do not count as 'evidence' neither the documents supportive of the anarchists,neither the ones who stand on the side of the communists.



Is this supposed to make some sort of sense? What is it even trying to say?



Stop with the childish flaming,if you wan't,i could explain it to you,word by word.


No, You are the one repeatng lies. The best book on Spain probably is the one by Antony Beevor, which became a best seller in Spain.



Do you even read books?Antony Beevor?Could you find a more obscure example of a Western-slanderist and possible anti-communist?


The POUM was not a Trotskyist organisation. It was composed of people from various leftist factions, some which shared views with Trotsky -yes but most did not. They were a Marxist organisation. Their main drill barracks was called the "Carlos Marx" barracks. They had pictures of Marx on their posters and flags. Not Trotsky.

As already said, they were called this to simply slander the POUM from Stalinist circles. The POUM was formed against the will of Leon Trotsky as Andreu Nin used to have correspondance with him and the two went seperate ways.


Unfortunately,that is all just mere 'make-up' - in theory,and actions,they were Trotskyites,as i said,not direct political allies and 'relatives' of the original Trotskyites,but still,quite close to them.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The Trotskyite provocateurs and subversives were a distant branch,spearated,from their roots in the anti-Soviet campaign which was led by their political mentors and idols,however,they were still quite organized and ready to engage in various kinds of activities.




Common Trotskyite lies and misconceptions debunked ages ago,you simply can't prove that the 'Stalinist' fight against the petty-subversives and various kinds of left-wing ultra-leftists somehow undermined the general war efforts of the entire Republican unified anti-fascist side.



These number are far from precise,the USSR sent much more than that,for an example,a shipment was stopped in France:

Airplanes provided by the Soviet government, 500 pieces of artillery, and 10,000 machine guns were held up in France.
Brar, Harpal. Trotskyism or Leninism. 1993, p. 336

This is coming from a historian who despises Stalin:

It is common knowledge that soon after the fascist rebellion and the beginning of the civil war in Spain the Soviet Union began to aid and support the Spanish Republic....
By the end of 1936 the Soviet Union had supplied Spain with 106 tanks, 60 armored cars, 136 airplanes, more than 60,000 rifles, 174 field guns, 3,727 machine guns, and an unspecified amount of ammunition.
Medvedev, Roy. Let History Judge. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989, p. 724

Not to mention the USSR de-facto organized the International Brigades,in which some 35.000 fighters fought.

While 3000 Soviets fighters went to fight alongside with the anti-fascists.

More specific numbers:


"... the Soviet Union sent to the Spanish Government 806 military aircraft, mainly fighters, 362 tanks, 120 armored cars, 1,555 artillery pieces, about 500,000 rifles, 340 grenade launchers, 15,113 machine-guns, more than 110,000 aerial bombs, about 3.4 million rounds of ammunition, 500,000 grenades, 862 million cartridges, 1,500 tons of gunpowder, torpedo boats, air defense searchlight installations, motor vehicles, radio stations, torpedoes and fuel".
('International Solidarity'; op. cit; p.329-30).

and under the new Soviet policy,
"... a little more than 2,000 Soviet volunteers fought and worked in Spain on the side of the Republic throughout the whole war, including 772 airmen, 351 tank men, 222 army advisers and instructors, 77 naval specialists, 100 artillery specialists, 52 other specialists, 130 aircraft factory workers and engineers, 156 radio operators and other signals men, and 204 interpreters".
('International Solidarity': op. cit. p.328).

...more than 2000 Soviet volunteers fought and worked in Spain on the side of the Republic throughout the whole war, including 772 airmen, 351 tank men, 222 army advisors and instructors, 77 naval specialists, 100 artillery specialists, 52 other specialists, 130 aircraft factory workers and engineers, 156 radio operators and other signals men, and 204 interpreters....
The total extent of Soviet military supplies may be seen from the following figures: the Soviet Union sent to the Spanish Government 806 military aircraft, mainly fighters, 363 tanks, 120 armored cars, 1,555 artillery pieces, about 500,000 rifles, 340 grenade launchers, 15,113 machine guns, more than 110,000 aerial bombs, about 3.4 million rounds of ammunition, 500,000 grenades, 862 million cartridges, 1500 tons of gunpowder, torpedo boats, air defense searchlight installations, motor vehicles, radio stations, torpedoes and fuel".
International Solidarity With the Spanish Republic, 1936-39. Moscow: Progress Publishers, c1974, p. 328-330

From this,we can come to the conclusion that the USSR was the main helper of the Republic in its fight against the Fascist Nationalist forces.

Seems impressive until you consider the fact that Italy sent 50,000 ground troops, 950 tanks, 763 aircraft and 91 warships, while Germany sent 16,000 military advisors, the Condor Legion and many of the most sophisticated fighter planes available at the time.

[Omsk]

"until" ? No,it will still be 'impressive' ,and you can also consider that the Comintern sent the International troops,and the number of these military formations was about on the same level as the troops sent by Italy.On the other hand,the Soviets sent some amazing tanks,which usually led the charges around the battle for Madrid,or were half-burried in the ground to present a 'bunker'.Not to mention the logistical help the USSR sent,as most of the tank commanders were in fact Soviets.

The Soviet Union also sent many other equipment and help,but it was stopped in the sea or on the ground,and many of the things sent never reached Spain,but this is not the mistake of the Soviets.

[daft punk]

Originally Posted by Omsk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2396698#post2396698)
The Trotskyite provocateurs and subversives were a distant branch,spearated,from their roots in the anti-Soviet campaign which was led by their political mentors and idols,however,they were still quite organized and ready to engage in various kinds of activities.

"Is this supposed to make some sort of sense? What is it even trying to say?

Stop with the childish flaming,if you wan't,i could explain it to you,word by word.

If it was understandable I wouldnt need to ask. I dont understand it. That is not childish flaming, it is your sentence making no sense and me asking what it means. Would you like me to just put you on ignore?

"The Trotskyite provocateurs "
Who are you talking about and why do you call them provocateurs.

"and subversives"
Who are you talking about and why do you call them subversives?

"were a distant branch"
Branch of what?

"spearated,from their roots in the anti-Soviet campaign which was led by their political mentors and idols"
I do not understand this. What roots in what anti-Soviet campaign? What idols and mentors?

"however,they were still quite organized and ready to engage in various kinds of activities. "
What kinds of activities? Subversion and provocation?




Do you even read books?Antony Beevor?Could you find a more obscure example of a Western-slanderist and possible anti-communist?

By your definition, an 'anti-communist' is an anti Stalinist. Stalinists are anti-communist. Therefore according to your statement Beevor is an anti-anticommunist. Actually he is just a historian trying to be objective.

By the way can you please quote who you are replying to, your posts are impossible to follow.

[daft punk]

POUM was never Trot organisation. They were called Trotskyite by PCE and that was just a Stalinist slander...

I read that some were ex Trots. They were to the right of Trotsky anyway, a bit wishy washy, reformists sort of. They were closer to Trotsky that anyone else probably, although in spirit the anarchists workers were close to Trotsky too. But they had no revolutionary programme. The disaster in Spain was a lack of leadership on the left as much as the sabotage by Stalinists.

[Omsk]

If it was understandable I wouldnt need to ask. I dont understand it. That is not childish flaming, it is your sentence making no sense and me asking what it means. Would you like me to just put you on ignore?


Hahah "Would you like me to just put you on ignore?" - actually i would be glad because your one of the poorest Trots in debate,you are just anoying.


"The Trotskyite provocateurs "
Who are you talking about and why do you call them provocateurs.


I am talking about the Trotskyites who were in Spain,with their 'Anti-Stalin' groups,they were provoking the communists.


"and subversives"
Who are you talking about and why do you call them subversives?



I am talking about the Trotskyites who were going against the United Front and who had no intentons to work with the communists.


"were a distant branch"
Branch of what?


Distant branch of the old Soviet born Trotskyite subversives.


"spearated,from their roots in the anti-Soviet campaign which was led by their political mentors and idols"
I do not understand this. What roots in what anti-Soviet campaign? What idols and mentors?


Do you even know anything about the Civil War? The Trotskyites obviously admired Trotsky and the rest of his clique.The Trotskyites had their roots,in the Soviet Union,when their greeeat leeeeader was trying to undermine the Soviets and bring them harm.



"however,they were still quite organized and ready to engage in various kinds of activities. "
What kinds of activities? Subversion and provocation?



Correct.



By your definition, an 'anti-communist' is an anti Stalinist. Stalinists are anti-communist. Therefore according to your statement Beevor is an anti-anticommunist. Actually he is just a historian trying to be objective.


Of course not,he speaks about the 'communists' and puts them in one basket,and his past and previous works proved he was quite against the Soviets,for an example,in his books about the Eastern Front,where he undermined the Soviets,and made wild accusations like all other pro-Right-wing historians.

[daft punk]

Hahah "Would you like me to just put you on ignore?" - actually i would be glad because your one of the poorest Trots in debate,you are just anoying.
Dont tempt me



I am talking about the Trotskyites who were in Spain,with their 'Anti-Stalin' groups,they were provoking the communists.

Which Trotskyists exactly, provoking which communists how exactly? Pleas support your statement with some specifics.




I am talking about the Trotskyites who were going against the United Front and who had no intentons to work with the communists.

You mean Popular Front not United Front. And you mean Stalinists not communists. The Stalinists were in bed with the capitalists, sabotaging the revolution, so no, Trots would not join them. And you probably mean the POUM, not Trotskyists.




Distant branch of the old Soviet born Trotskyite subversives.

why call them subversives? This is an inaccurate description.




Do you even know anything about the Civil War? The Trotskyites obviously admired Trotsky and the rest of his clique.The Trotskyites had their roots,in the Soviet Union,when their greeeat leeeeader was trying to undermine the Soviets and bring them harm.

Yes a bit, do you? Trotsky was trying to do harm to who?





Correct.

A revolution is not provocation or subversion




Of course not,he speaks about the 'communists' and puts them in one basket,and his past and previous works proved he was quite against the Soviets,for an example,in his books about the Eastern Front,where he undermined the Soviets,and made wild accusations like all other pro-Right-wing historians.

I assume when he says communists he means Stalinists. What do you mean by Soviets? Russians? Or soviets?

You have provided no evidence for your claims, which are extremely vague. Please clarify your claims and back them up with some facts. Support them or retract them. Otherwise this is just a waste of time.

I will leave you with a couple of extracts from a socialist article on Spain to ponder on:

"Even those capitalist historians who have studied Spain seriously, have felt compelled to reflect the courage and determination of the Spanish working class. Beevor, for example, describes how the working class in Barcelona responded to the fascist uprising with "a desperate selfless bravery". He vividly pictures how the unarmed working class of Barcelona prepared to prevent the nationalist army seizing control of their city: "Isolated armouries were seized and weapons were taken from four ships in the harbour. Even the rusting hulk of the prison ship Uruguay was stormed, so as to take the warders’ weapons. The UGT dockers’ union knew of a shipment of dynamite in the port, and once that was seized, home-made grenades were manufactured all through the night. Every gun shop in the city was stripped bare. Cars and lorries were requisitioned and metal workers fixed crude armour plating while sandbags were piled behind truck cabs."
Beevor goes on to describe the key moment the next day when the battle turned in favour of the workers:
"At one moment during the fighting, a small group of workers and an assault guard rushed across to an insurgent artillery detachment with two 75mm guns. They held their rifles above their head to show that they were not attacking as they rushed up to the astonished soldiers. Out of breath, they poured forth passionate arguments why the soldiers should not fire on their brothers, telling them that they had been tricked by their officers. The guns were turned around and brought to bear on the rebel forces. From then on more and more soldiers joined the workers and assault guards.""




"Where they successfully pushed back the fascists the workers held power in their hands. Felix Morrow, in his book, Revolution and Counter Revolution in Spain 1931-1937, explained how the anti-fascist militia in Catalonia, based on workers’ organisations, conquered the Aragon region in five days from 19 July. "They conquered Aragon as a social liberation army. They formed anti-fascist village committees, expropriated land, harvests, cattle, tools etc, from the landlords and the reactionaries. Then the village committee organised production on its new foundation, usually in the shape of a collective and created a village militia to implement the socialisation and to fight reaction."
In republican Spain the capitalist class did not exist, having fled with the fascists. Beevor describes how in Barcelona the anarchists installed their headquarters in the former premises of the Employers’ Federation. The Ritz was used as ’Gastronomic Unit No 1’, a public canteen for all those in need. He goes on to explain how: "In Barcelona worker committees took over all the services, the oil monopoly, the shipping companies, heavy engineering firms such as Vulcano, Ford motor company, chemical companies, the textile industry and a host of smaller enterprises."


Class collaboration

However, the myth that was perpetuated, in essence, by the leadership of all the major workers parties, and above all by the Communist Party, was that in order to preserve ’unity’ with capitalist forces in the fight against fascism it was necessary to postpone the struggle for socialism to some later date. Beevor accurately states that "the most outspoken champions of private property were not the liberal republicans, as might have been expected, but the Communist Party."
At the same time the power of the working class was never organised via democratic workers’ committees, linked up locally, regionally and nationally in the way that took place twenty years earlier in the soviets of the Russian revolution."


http://www.socialistworld.net/mob/doc/5201

[daft punk]

Felix Morrow

Revolution and Counter Revolution in Spain



http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/


http://isocracy.org/sites/default/files/spain-rev.jpeg



Foreword (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/foreword.htm)
1 Why the Fascists Revolted (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch01.htm)
2 The Bourgeois ‘Allies’ in the Peoples Front (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch02.htm)
3 The Revolution of July 19 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch03.htm)
4 Towards a Coalition with the Bourgeoisie (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch04.htm)
5 The Politics of the Spanish Working Class (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch05.htm)
6 The Programme of the Caballero Coalition Government (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch06.htm)
7 The Programme of the Catalan Government (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch07.htm)
8 Revival of the Bourgeois State: September 1936 – April 1931 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch08.htm)
9 The Counter-Revolution and the Masses (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch09.htm)
10 The May Days: Barricades in Barcelona (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch10.htm)
11 The Dismissal of Largo Caballero (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch11.htm)
12 ‘El Gobierno de la Victoria’ (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch12.htm)
13 The Conquest of Catalonia (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch13.htm)
14 The Conquest of Aragon (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch14.htm)
15 The Military Struggle under Giral, and Caballero (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch15.htm)
16 The Military Struggle under Negrin-Prieto (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch16.htm)
17 Only Two Roads (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch17.htm)
18 Postscript (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/postscript.htm)

[daft punk]

http://www.marxist.com/spanish-revolution-1931-37.htm

The Spanish Revolution 1931-37 (http://www.marxist.com/spanish-revolution-1931-37.htm)

[daft punk]

The Lessons of Spain: The Last Warning (1937) (http://www.marxist.com/lessons-spain-trotsky-last-warning-1937.htm)

Written by Leon Trotsky
http://www.marxist.com/lessons-spain-trotsky-last-warning-1937.htm

[Omsk]

All right that's it,i can't stand your spamming,and you should really get warned for that.3 posts in a row,of what,of nothing.



Dont tempt me


Is this a joke? Seriously...



Which Trotskyists exactly, provoking which communists how exactly? Pleas support your statement with some specifics.




The POUM.



You mean Popular Front not United Front. And you mean Stalinists not communists. The Stalinists were in bed with the capitalists, sabotaging the revolution, so no, Trots would not join them. And you probably mean the POUM, not Trotskyists.




This is not worth a reply.



why call them subversives? This is an inaccurate description.



Than answer me please,what is?


Yes a bit, do you? Trotsky was trying to do harm to who?

He was working against the Soviet Union,and against the party,against the leadership to be precise.


I assume when he says communists he means Stalinists.

You assume wrong as usual.He is generalizing.


What do you mean by Soviets? Russians? Or soviets?




Nice nationalism.What i mean is the people,soldiers of the Soviet Union,so - all the people from the former USSR,their nationality has little do with anything.

And i don't plan to read an article from a Trot party,nor the 'objective' work of Felix Morrow.

[daft punk]

All right that's it,i can't stand your spamming,and you should really get warned for that.3 posts in a row,of what,of nothing.

These are useful links and the Felix Morrow book is a classic reference text. So stop whinging.




The POUM.

Wrong. The POUM were not Trotskyists. If you bothered to look at my second 'spam' you would read:

"The POUMists in Catalonia dragged at the tail of the anarchists and entered the Bourgeois Government in Catalonia. Thus preparing their terrible fate at the hands of the Stalinists. Caballero, surrendered to the pressure of the Stalinists and instead of launching the struggle for power - this is an exaggeration, it would have been only a question of brushing aside the discredited republican representatives only of themselves - by calling on the workers to set up their revolutionary juntas and organising socialist power and the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Stalinists would have been unable to resist. Had they done so they would have lost the overwhelming majority of their worker followers. The anarchists would have been compelled to follow this lead. The POUM (centrists standing between reformism and marxism) would have supported and the Prieto wing of the socialist party would have been isolated and incapable of resistance. A workers Government could then have begun a revolutionary socialist war against Franco and appealed to the international working class for support. Caballero and the left socialists failed to understand the opportunity and the dangers and thus inevitably prepared the way for the trushing of the revolution and then the victory of Franco."


or the Hannah Sell article at Socialist World:
"Today, the POUM (Workers’ Party of Marxist Unification) is known internationally to a younger generation chiefly as a result of Ken Loach’s excellent film, ’Land and Freedom’. The POUM was an anti-Stalinist party that, once the revolution had been crushed, suffered horrific repression at the hands of the Stalinists, including the murder of its leader Andre Nin. Despite being decried as ’Trotskyist’ by the Stalinists, the POUM was no such thing."


http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5201





"You mean Popular Front not United Front. And you mean Stalinists not communists. The Stalinists were in bed with the capitalists, sabotaging the revolution, so no, Trots would not join them. And you probably mean the POUM, not Trotskyists. "
This is not worth a reply.

fyp
"in reality it was the Communists above all others who prevented revolution in Spain." George Owell



"why call them subversives? This is an inaccurate description."
Than answer me please,what is?

Subversive means to undermine an established system or institution. There was no established system or institution in Spain, it was a civil war and a revolution. A socialist revolution could have been carried out very easily with decent leaders. However the Stalinists attacked the workers organisations and militias. Franco had launched an unsuccessful coup to which the workers responded as I have described, heroically, as detailed by Beevor. You denounce this magnificent mass movement against fascism.

Please explain why you disagree with actions like this, described by Beevor:

"At one moment during the fighting, a small group of workers and an assault guard rushed across to an insurgent artillery detachment with two 75mm guns. They held their rifles above their head to show that they were not attacking as they rushed up to the astonished soldiers. Out of breath, they poured forth passionate arguments why the soldiers should not fire on their brothers, telling them that they had been tricked by their officers. The guns were turned around and brought to bear on the rebel forces. From then on more and more soldiers joined the workers and assault guards."




He was working against the Soviet Union,and against the party,against the leadership to be precise.

The Soviet Union? No. The Party? Maybe you could say that after 1933. All the socialists were expelled/killed anyway. Mostly. The leadership? You mean the dictatorship. Of course he was, so would any decent Marxist.




You assume wrong as usual.He is generalizing.

I think you are wrong. Please provide evidence to support this claim. When people talk about communists in Spain they mean Stalinists. If they mean the POUM they say the POUM.



"What do you mean by Soviets? Russians? Or soviets? "
Nice nationalism.What i mean is the people,soldiers of the Soviet Union,so - all the people from the former USSR,their nationality has little do with anything.

Where is the nationalism? So you mean the Russians, the people of the USSR (ok i know there were other nationalities but most people think of the people of the USSR as Russians and think of the USSR as Russia.)

"Originally Posted by Omsk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2398691#post2398691)
Of course not,he speaks about the 'communists' and puts them in one basket,and his past and previous works proved he was quite against the Soviets,for an example,in his books about the Eastern Front,where he undermined the Soviets,and made wild accusations like all other pro-Right-wing historians. "

So, you think Beevor is opposed to the people of the USSR. I find this a remarkable claim against the objectivity of a serious historian, as if he is some kind of mad racist with a thing against Russians.



And i don't plan to read an article from a Trot party,nor the 'objective' work of Felix Morrow.

The links were not for you they are for people interested in knowing about the Spanish revolution/civil war.

[pastradamus]

Unfortunately,that is all just mere 'make-up' - in theory,and actions,they were Trotskyites,as i said,not direct political allies and 'relatives' of the original Trotskyites,but still,quite close to them.

Maybe close to them - yes. Many members of the POUM were supporters of Trotsky. But the POUM was composed of two camps the ICE and BOC. The BOC were not at all Trotskyist. You cant simply tar and feather the POUM as an entity composed of two camps with the same brush. The Stalinist movement despised them but it must be said that without the CNT-FAI & the POUM that the entire war would have been over before it even began. When the PCE needed time to equip and train troops in the far away barracks, the POUM and the CNT were fighting as militias and putting up the resistance needed to get the PCE's forces off the ground by buying them the time nessecary.

Both Orwell and Beevor highlight this fact.

[daft punk]

Maybe close to them - yes. Many members of the POUM were supporters of Trotsky. But the POUM was composed of two camps the ICE and BOC. The BOC were not at all Trotskyist. You cant simply tar and feather the POUM as an entity composed of two camps with the same brush. The Stalinist movement despised them but it must be said that without the CNT-FAI & the POUM that the entire war would have been over before it even began. When the PCE needed time to equip and train troops in the far away barracks, the POUM and the CNT were fighting as militias and putting up the resistance needed to get the PCE's forces off the ground by buying them the time nessecary.

Both Orwell and Beevor highlight this fact.

And in what way did their Stalinist chums than them for this help?

[x359594]

...Many members of the POUM were supporters of Trotsky....

But Trotsky was never a supporter of them, nor were his followers in the rest of the world. I think that Morrow's criticism is a fair sample of the common Trokskyist line on the P.O.U.M.

In any case, the Stalinist line was that the P.O.U.M. was under the control of Trotsky and executing his policies in Spain, just as Trotsky was behind every anti-Stalinist (or anti-U.S.S.R.) action anywhere in the world at any time, the phantom Osama bin Ladin of his day.

[Omsk]

These are useful links and the Felix Morrow book is a classic reference text. So stop whinging.



Felix Morrow was involved with a Trotskyite organization,so his view on the entire war is horribly biased.




Wrong. The POUM were not Trotskyists. If you bothered to look at my second 'spam' you would read:

"The POUMists in Catalonia dragged at the tail of the anarchists and entered the Bourgeois Government in Catalonia. Thus preparing their terrible fate at the hands of the Stalinists. Caballero, surrendered to the pressure of the Stalinists and instead of launching the struggle for power - this is an exaggeration, it would have been only a question of brushing aside the discredited republican representatives only of themselves - by calling on the workers to set up their revolutionary juntas and organising socialist power and the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Stalinists would have been unable to resist. Had they done so they would have lost the overwhelming majority of their worker followers. The anarchists would have been compelled to follow this lead. The POUM (centrists standing between reformism and marxism) would have supported and the Prieto wing of the socialist party would have been isolated and incapable of resistance. A workers Government could then have begun a revolutionary socialist war against Franco and appealed to the international working class for support. Caballero and the left socialists failed to understand the opportunity and the dangers and thus inevitably prepared the way for the trushing of the revolution and then the victory of Franco."


or the Hannah Sell article at Socialist World:
"Today, the POUM (Workers’ Party of Marxist Unification) is known internationally to a younger generation chiefly as a result of Ken Loach’s excellent film, ’Land and Freedom’. The POUM was an anti-Stalinist party that, once the revolution had been crushed, suffered horrific repression at the hands of the Stalinists, including the murder of its leader Andre Nin. Despite being decried as ’Trotskyist’ by the Stalinists, the POUM was no such thing."





So when the Trotskyites need to whine,the POUM is suddenly Trotskyist,but when the POUM is questioned,they were absolutely not Trotskyites.These are all empty words,they were influenced by Trotsky,and a big number of their own members were Trotskyites,you can try to entangle this as much as you want,but in the end,they were a classical Trotskyite group.


fyp
"in reality it was the Communists above all others who prevented revolution in Spain." George Owell



Im not interested in the opinion of that slanderer from the POUM.He proved his worth.



Subversive means to undermine an established system or institution. There was no established system or institution in Spain, it was a civil war and a revolution. A socialist revolution could have been carried out very easily with decent leaders. However the Stalinists attacked the workers organisations and militias. Franco had launched an unsuccessful coup to which the workers responded as I have described, heroically, as detailed by Beevor. You denounce this magnificent mass movement against fascism.




No,i am against the opportunists and the Trotskyites.However,the communists from Spain are not too glorious,as many of them turned to complete revisionist.


The Soviet Union? No. The Party? Maybe you could say that after 1933. All the socialists were expelled/killed anyway. Mostly. The leadership? You mean the dictatorship. Of course he was, so would any decent Marxist.


This is not a proper argument,just ultra-sectarian/personalized/baseless lump of words in the defense of your 'Dear Leader'.


I think you are wrong. Please provide evidence to support this claim. When people talk about communists in Spain they mean Stalinists. If they mean the POUM they say the POUM.


So,the only communists in Spain were the "Stalinists" - absolutely not,and there have been many non-party personas,and communists in the International-Brigades,and to some historians,they are all "Stalinists" - when in fact,they were a big mix of different people,with different ideas,following different ideologies,for an example,there were many Trotskyites in the Ernst Thalmann battalion.


Where is the nationalism? So you mean the Russians, the people of the USSR (ok i know there were other nationalities but most people think of the people of the USSR as Russians and think of the USSR as Russia.)



These people are nationalists.When i say 'Soviets' i am speaking about the people of the USSR - not the people of "Soviet Russia" . Clear?



So, you think Beevor is opposed to the people of the USSR. I find this a remarkable claim against the objectivity of a serious historian, as if he is some kind of mad racist with a thing against Russians.



His works,like the ones about the end of WW2 in Europe,or the ones about the battle of Stalingrad,are biased and show an anti-Soviet side,and were severely criticized by many authors.



The links were not for you they are for people interested in knowing about the Spanish revolution/civil war.


Would you object if i posted some 34 book parts and articles from ML sources on the Spanish Civil War?


Maybe close to them - yes. Many members of the POUM were supporters of Trotsky. But the POUM was composed of two camps the ICE and BOC. The BOC were not at all Trotskyist. You cant simply tar and feather the POUM as an entity composed of two camps with the same brush. The Stalinist movement despised them but it must be said that without the CNT-FAI & the POUM that the entire war would have been over before it even began. When the PCE needed time to equip and train troops in the far away barracks, the POUM and the CNT were fighting as militias and putting up the resistance needed to get the PCE's forces off the ground by buying them the time nessecary.


Orwell is not a adequate source on the POUM,as he was a member,and was full of bias.The PCE was not the main fighting force of the republicans,as it never had the numbers,and was a generally small party,but a very organized one,which was of great help to the republican side.(The relative ties to the USSR,enabled it to negotiate.)

[x359594]

...Orwell is not a adequate source on the POUM,as he was a member,and was full of bias...

As a matter of fact Orwell was not a member of the P.O.U.M. He joined a P.O.U.M. militia unit because he was accepted without question. Prior to the outbreak of the May Days he was making arrangements to join the International Brigades so that he could fight on the Madrid front.

As for being an adequate source on the P.O.U.M., he wrote very little about their ideology except to say that "they were not exactly Trostkyists" while acknowledging that Andreu Nin had worked for Trotsky in the U.S.S.R. Since this is the sum and substance of what Orwell wrote about the P.O.U.M. it's hard to see any bias here.

[pastradamus]

As a matter of fact Orwell was not a member of the P.O.U.M. He joined a P.O.U.M. militia unit because he was accepted without question. Prior to the outbreak of the May Days he was making arrangements to join the International Brigades so that he could fight on the Madrid front.

As for being an adequate source on the P.O.U.M., he wrote very little about their ideology except to say that "they were not exactly Trostkyists" while acknowledging that Andreu Nin had worked for Trotsky in the U.S.S.R. Since this is the sum and substance of what Orwell wrote about the P.O.U.M. it's hard to see any bias here.

He just happened to bump into a couple of them on his way to Spain, showed them his CPGB membership card and they invited him in. His accounts of the frontline are amongst the best written in English, ie The Huesca front and The operation to re-take the Jaca road - where the POUM attempted to relieve Anarchist offensives.

[daft punk]

So when the Trotskyites need to whine,the POUM is suddenly Trotskyist,but when the POUM is questioned,they were absolutely not Trotskyites.These are all empty words,they were influenced by Trotsky,and a big number of their own members were Trotskyites,you can try to entangle this as much as you want,but in the end,they were a classical Trotskyite group.

Which bit of the following didnt you understand?
Despite being decried as ’Trotskyist’ by the Stalinists, the POUM was no such thing.




Im not interested in the opinion of that slanderer from the POUM.He proved his worth.

He proved his worth by travelling to Spain to fight for the revolution. Now, support that he was a slanderer or retract. The slander was directed at Orwell not from him.




No,i am against the opportunists and the Trotskyites.However,the communists from Spain are not too glorious,as many of them turned to complete revisionist.

They acted under Stalin's instructions





Originally Posted by Omsk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2398778#post2398778)
"He was working against the Soviet Union,and against the party,against the leadership to be precise."
"The Soviet Union? No. The Party? Maybe you could say that after 1933. All the socialists were expelled/killed anyway. Mostly. The leadership? You mean the dictatorship. Of course he was, so would any decent Marxist. "
This is not a proper argument,just ultra-sectarian/personalized/baseless lump of words in the defense of your 'Dear Leader'.

I am sick of the fact that you are too lazy to quote people properly. Why cant you do it the way everyone else does - properly?

I did a thread on the Moscow Trials. Neither you nor any other Stalinist posted on it. Therefore you have no argument that Trotsky did anything wrong. No argument in favour of the purges. You didnt debate it because you cant. So therefore I can say that the Stalinists killed socialists because they feared socialism. If you want to argue otherwise put up a proper argument on the relevant thread. Otherwise it is you who is spouting the empty words. The facts are the facts. Most of the old Bolsheviks and their families were killed in the counter-revolution led by Stalin.






So,the only communists in Spain were the "Stalinists" - absolutely not,and there have been many non-party personas,and communists in the International-Brigades,and to some historians,they are all "Stalinists" - when in fact,they were a big mix of different people,with different ideas,following different ideologies,for an example,there were many Trotskyites in the Ernst Thalmann battalion.

what is your point? That Beevor was against Trotskyists? That just makes him unbiased in regard to Stalinists killing the revolution then.




His works,like the ones about the end of WW2 in Europe,or the ones about the battle of Stalingrad,are biased and show an anti-Soviet side,and were severely criticized by many authors.

I'm not gonna let you side-track. Stick to Spain. If you think he said anything that is incorrect, quote it and say what is wrong with it.




Would you object if i posted some 34 book parts and articles from ML sources on the Spanish Civil War?

Well, that's different. Stalinist stuff is lies from the first sentence to the last. Lol. I looked at some link a Stalinist posted a while back. It took me about 20 seconds to find a classic whopper.

Now tell me, did any books on Spain written by Stalinists become best sellers in Spain?

Now we dont just have Beevor, Trotsky, Orwell , Hugh Thomas and Felix Morrow. We have the Stalinists themselves, eg Orlov and Berzin. There are people like Fernando Claudin, who was in the Spanish CP.

"The Stalinists’ arguments were summarised in the beginning of August 1936, in the French communist daily, L’Humanité: "The Central Committee of the Spanish Communist Party asks us for an answer to fantastic and tendentious reports published in certain papers, to inform the public that the people of Spain are not fighting to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, but have only one purpose: the defence of the republican order through respect for property"."

http://www.socialismtoday.org/102/spain.html

[Omsk]

Which bit of the following didnt you understand?
Despite being decried as ’Trotskyist’ by the Stalinists, the POUM was no such thing.



Didn't understand?What are you trying to do?Bore me to death?I disagree with such claims.That is all.I have explained why.


He proved his worth by travelling to Spain to fight for the revolution. Now, support that he was a slanderer or retract. The slander was directed at Orwell not from him.



Support or retract?Do you know he wrote books? And he :"proved his worth by going to Spain to fight" - would you use the same argument for the thousands of 'Stalinists' (Heroes,to be precise) who also went to fight in Spain?


I did a thread on the Moscow Trials.

It's probably just as bad as your other threads,no wonder no-one responded to it.


Neither you nor any other Stalinist posted on it.

Yes,and?Do you understand my life does not base on posting on an internet forum and replying to a fanatical and anoying Trot.


Therefore you have no argument that Trotsky did anything wrong.

I mean,this is just laughable.


You didnt debate it because you cant. So therefore I can say that the Stalinists killed socialists because they feared socialism. If you want to argue otherwise put up a proper argument on the relevant thread. Otherwise it is you who is spouting the empty words. The facts are the facts. Most of the old Bolsheviks and their families were killed in the counter-revolution led by Stalin.



You are the one derailing the thread with nonsense,enough.



what is your point? That Beevor was against Trotskyists? That just makes him unbiased in regard to Stalinists killing the revolution then.




No,its just that he is usually generalizing and refers to the many factions,as simply: communists.


I'm not gonna let you side-track. Stick to Spain. If you think he said anything that is incorrect, quote it and say what is wrong with it.

..

We are talking about Beevor,you brought up his work,and i commented that he wrote a slandering work on WW2 and the Soviet side,you wanted examples and i gave you examples.If we are going to be pedantic,you are the one who engaged in side-tracking.


Well, that's different. Stalinist stuff is lies from the first sentence to the last. Lol. I looked at some link a Stalinist posted a while back. It took me about 20 seconds to find a classic whopper.



Good job on being objective and proving to eweryone how serious you are.


Now tell me, did any books on Spain written by Stalinists become best sellers in Spain?


What is the point?It is normal for books written by the Western authors to be praised in a market-style way,the entire "best sellers" , "famous" "mega-popular" .
Plus,if a book is popular,it does not mean that it is good.If we would follow that line of logic,than he Black Book of Communism would be the most popular book on the subject,just because it's a best seller and is being bought by a huge number of right-wingers.


Now we dont just have Beevor, Trotsky, Orwell , Hugh Thomas and Felix Morrow. We have the Stalinists themselves, eg Orlov and Berzin. There are people like Fernando Claudin, who was in the Spanish CP


Trotsky is not a historian and is not objective.Neither is Morrow.Neither is Orwell.

And i thought that Orlov was the person you liked to quote,and that he was a fighter against "Stalinism".

Plus,Orlov was not a "Stalinist".

[daft punk]

Didn't understand?What are you trying to do?Bore me to death?I disagree with such claims.That is all.I have explained why.

The POUM were not Trotskyists. End of




Support or retract?Do you know he wrote books? And he :"proved his worth by going to Spain to fight" - would you use the same argument for the thousands of 'Stalinists' (Heroes,to be precise) who also went to fight in Spain?

You mean the NKVD who went to crush the revolution?




It's probably just as bad as your other threads,no wonder no-one responded to it.I am incapable of responding to your thread on the Moscow Trials, I prefer vague wild accusations.

fyp





Yes,and?Do you understand my life does not base on posting on an internet forum and replying to a fanatical and anoying Trot.

au contraire, I believe that your life suddenly flashed before your eyes when I threatened to put you on ignore.




I mean,this is just laughable.

If you wish to make a case that Trotsky's followers deserved to be killed, do it properly on my thread on the Moscow Trials. Posting 'this is laughable' as justification for political genocide is not very convincing.




You are the one derailing the thread with nonsense,enough.

The Moscow Show trials happened at the same time as the Stalinists sabotaged the Spanish revolution. This is not a coincidence, and not a derail, it is closely linked. Stalin was scared a revolution in Spain might provoke a revolution in Russia for socialism, so he crushed both.




No,its just that he is usually generalizing and refers to the many factions,as simply: communists.

So he was against communists, all communists. If this is true it weakens you case that he was biased towards the Trots.



Good job on being objective and proving to eweryone how serious you are.

Stalinist writings are mostly full of lies, it is a fact. Stalin crushed the revolution in Spain. Some Stalinists admit this. Some dont. Stalin certainly didnt at the time. He even killed the NKVD as they returned to Russia.




What is the point?It is normal for books written by the Western authors to be praised in a market-style way,the entire "best sellers" , "famous" "mega-popular" .
Plus,if a book is popular,it does not mean that it is good.If we would follow that line of logic,than he Black Book of Communism would be the most popular book on the subject,just because it's a best seller and is being bought by a huge number of right-wingers.

So, no books on Spain by a Stalinist appeal to Spaniards. Thing about Beevor is he is popular there because he was pretty objective, telling it how it was. If he had been biased against all the republican side it would not be a best seller.




Trotsky is not a historian and is not objective.Neither is Morrow.Neither is Orwell.


Trotsky was writing about it as it happened ffs. He wasnt there but he was getting plenty of info on what was happening. Ditto Morrow. Orwell was with the POUM who the Stalinists banned and hunted and killed.




And i thought that Orlov was the person you liked to quote,and that he was a fighter against "Stalinism".

Plus,Orlov was not a "Stalinist".

Orlov was NKVD liaison to the Republican Ministry of the Interior, appointed in Sept 1936. He was in charge of moving all Spain's gold to Moscow. His main job was repressing POUM, anarchists etc, ie the revolution. He realised that Stalin was shooting people like him, people who knew too much, so he did a bunk, rather wisely.

[l'Enfermé]

Omsk: There were some Trots in POUM.
This means POUM was a "classical trotskyist" group.

Omsk: There were hundreds of thousands fascists and saboteurs and German agents and Trots and Zinovievites and Bukharinites in the Communist Party, so Glorious Comrade Stalin, the Gardener of Human Happiness, was forced to start a purge!

By this logic, the Communist Party in the Soviet Union was a fascist party, a Trotskyite party, a Zinovievite party and a Bukharinite party.

Yup, pretty accurate.

[Agent Ducky]

Why has my learning thread devolved into an argument about Trotskyists?
....
Oh wait, it's revleft. :glare: