Spanish Civil War

[Invader Zim]

I have formulated my own theories was to why the republic lost, however, I am interested in hearing the views of others.

[KickMcCann]

Although Franco and the Fascists had a strong military with plenty of assistance from other fascist countries, this did not gaurantee them victory. The prime reason the republic lost is because of Stalin's meddling. True, the support of the Soviet Union was essential to fight against franco, but that support came with the personality cult, secret police, and brutal totalitarianism of Stalin. He had complete control of the International Brigades and conducted many military attacks against the very militias that fought for the Republic.
It was impossible for the Republican side to win the civil war because they were being decimated on both sides of the battlefield by both the Fascists and the Stalinists.

[TheKwas]

Stalin never wanted the Republicans or the Communists to win the war. He thought that a communist Spain would result in even more tensions between the Western Democracys and the USSR, which was not a suitable sitiuation for Russia at a time when both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy seemed to have it out for the USSR. IMO, the only reason Stalin supported the Republicans at all (And it should be noted that he only aided Pro-Stalin militias like the PUSC that would take orders from Russia) is because Stalin wished to drag out the war and force both Germany and Italy to waste troops and money on the war and make the war last long enough so that when Franco did win, Spain wouldn't be economically strong enough to present any threat to Russia.

So yeah, Stalin is a major factor to be blamed.

[rebelworker]

Both of the above i think are correct, also unfortunatly also partially due to stalanism and the legacy of authoritarian leftism, much of what remained of the revolutionary working class was in shables and unable to give the concrete material aid that Franco received from both Hitler, Moussillini and some of the wealthy and large companies in America.

Althought the Anarchists in Spain were large and well organised enough in Spain to counter the facists there the internationally situation was much less promising.

Many working class militants who had before the russian revolution been more self organised, when hearng news of the "victory" of communism under the bolsheviks left the antiauthoritarian communist movement and joined newly forming communist(bloshevik) parties.

The revolutionary left never recovered from Stalinism and was in no condition from this point forward to lend real automonous support to revolutionary movments.

Had revolutionaries flooded into germany to counter the rise of hitler or Italy before to stop facsim there, who knows what the world landscape might have looked like. perhaps WWII would have looked more like the spanish revolution.

[SpeCtrE]

Enigma

Let's hear your theories now.

[Lamanov]

Exactly, Stalin wanted to keep "status quo".

[Djehuti]

Was'nt the stalinist party PSUC even smaller than POUM before the war? PSUC probably grew because they could by weapons from Russia, the anarchists and communist never really had much good weapons (the Republic had though), and the stalinists who had modern weapons used their for the police in the cities, while they were much more needed at other places. So the workers militia held the front with 40 year old weapons and seriously lacking heavy arms, while the stalinists and the republic kept their weapons from coming to any real use. The workers milita also lacked good officers, except for in the air force.

But we should not reduce a revolution to a question of arms and armor. The victory does not belong to those with most weapons, or most people. But to those who dares to take the initiative. http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2379/dauve.htm

POUM (generally seen as trotskytes, even though that's not entirely true. They organized many of that sort though) had their strongest support in Catalonia and Aragonia, they had probably between 3000 and 8000 members before the civil war. 1936 they had atleast 30:000, and around a third was organized in the militia. Even though they were quite small, they organized many great class fighters. Nin and POUM made some wrong choices though, they should never have joined the goverment for example. As the Friends of Durutti stated: "Democracy defeated the spanish people, not fascism".

The friends of Durruti (anarchist) and the Bolshevik-Leninists (trotskists) seems to have a close cooperation, and even though neither groups organized very many. Nobody listened to them (as Orwell said), and that is to bad, because they had much important stuff to say. The Friends of Durutti was formed out of the CNT after the enormous treason by the CNT-leaders, who made a naive compromise with the stalinist at the same time as the peoples front army (controlled by the stalinist) marched on Barcelona to destroy the workers controll over the telephone station, break up the militia, confiscate the papers and crush the CNT, etc. The Friends of Durutti was an expression of a rising counciousness within the revolutionarys of the CNT, about the need to seize powe in order to make the revolution. The leaders of the CNT had from the begining refused to seize power, until the uprising in July 1936 after which they joined the goverment. They had from the start been very anti-political and due to this they failed to lead the spanish working class when they revolted. When at power the leaders lacked perspectivs on what to do in the goverment and became a leftist-alibi for the bourgeoisie anti-worker politics of the goverment. They lacked an own alternative and became dependent on other class forces. In words the CNT continued to be radical, but in practise they wigned proclaimations about retaking initiative from the workers and putting them in the hands of the bourgeoisie state that the stalinists from day one was rebuilding. This included amonst else, to brake up agricultural collectives, the workers controll over industries, etc.


I should say it again.
Democracy defeated the spanish people, not fascism.
/Friends of Durutti




The problem was NOT that the spanish people had to fight, no only against fascists but also against stalinists. Stalinism was a VERY small movement in Spain, and the anarchists had a great advantage. The problem was rather a typical anti-fascist illusion about the state, and a failure to understand the role of class struggle for state and capital.

When the revolution broke out, the working class fought against the state as such, no matter if it was in the hand of Franco or the democrats. But they never realised that they indeed had the power and because of that they failed to do anything with this power. The left, that were terrified of the revolution, including the CNT, begun after a time of paralyzation, reinstate their functions. "Communists", (even the anarchist kind) forced workers back to work. Even though the CNT were an anarchist union, they were more of an union than anarchist. INstead of trusting their own ability to change, the state recaptured order, in a new form, and the revolution soon developed in to a civil war.

Even though the FAI was very anarchist, the large majority of the FAI defended the CNT entering the goverment, and the "anarchist" minister of defense, Garcia Oliver saw himself as a specially hardcore anarchost. Relatively few anarchists rejected such cooperation and even fewer suggested an alterantive. Only a small minority rejected the cooperation with the goverment and the militarization, and even less questioned the forced labour. Thats how "revolutionary" they really were!
You should never underrestimate an institutions affect as a intermediary force.
The function changes the organ.

DEMOCRACY DEFEATED THE SPANISH PEOPLE, NOT FASCISM.

[redstar2000]

Well, I guess I'm in the minority here...I think the Republic lost because it was simply outgunned and outmanned.

And possibly out-generaled as well.

Franco could have been defeated; Franco plus 55,000 Italian troops plus the German Air Force could not.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 05:30 PM
Well, I guess I'm in the minority here...I think the Republic lost because it was simply outgunned and outmanned.

And possibly out-generaled as well.

Franco could have been defeated; Franco plus 55,000 Italian troops plus the German Air Force could not.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
It's been claimed that Franco and his allies could not have advanced had their been a Makhnovist style guerilla movement on thier rear. I don't know if that's true or not, but it seems to be confirmed by the way Franco so meticulously 'clensed' conquered territories of enemies.

[PRC-UTE]

Stalin's counter-revolution had a lot to do with undermining resistance to the fascists, but just as important was the way that the anarchists cooperated with the republican authorities rather than just doing away with them.

The Libertarian movement could've taken control (along with the POUM) and waged a more effective war had the leadership of the CNT not sold out in such a huge way. Compromise was useless when revolutionary anarchists and marxists together were such a huge force in Spanish politics and even daily life.

Someone mentioned the POUM and the issue of whether or not they were Trots. The POUM were made up of three former parties that merged as one, a former worker-peasant bloc party, a trots party, and the largest came from a left communist party which the POUM's leader, Andres Nin had belonged to.

[Urban Rubble]

Well, I guess I'm in the minority here...I think the Republic lost because it was simply outgunned and outmanned.

And possibly out-generaled as well.

Franco could have been defeated; Franco plus 55,000 Italian troops plus the German Air Force could not.

RedStar, don't you think the fact that the Anarchist militias didn't even posses pistols while the police in (peaceful) Barcelona were carrying pistols and machine guns ?

The Anarchists lost because of the infighting between them, the P.O.U.M and the Comintern. The Communists didn't trust the Anarchists with machine guns because they knew they'd be used against them after the Civil War, so the Anarchists were badly underequipped.

I basically agreed with RedStar's analysis (that the Fascists were simply more powerful) until I read Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia". Reading that gives a much clearer picture as to how much of an effect the infighting had on the war effort.

The Comintern didn't think Spain was ready for Socialist revolution (ironic considering the fact that Russia was even less ready). They feared the instability that a revolution would bring so they supported the solution of a "Liberal Democracy".

[PRC-UTE]

I agree, UR, and another factor was Stalin's desire to appease Hitler and not provoke him. We know how well that worked.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 08:22 PM
I agree, UR, and another factor was Stalin's desire to appease Hitler and not provoke him. We know how well that worked.
yeah, it's terrible, the republicans should have wone the war was it not for the medling prick.

[rebelworker]

Saying that the CNT didn't use its strengh is a bit of an overstaement, with 2 million members at the begining of the conflict the CNT was central in organising popular militias, as i understand it they pretty much singlehandedly held the aragon line.

It is true that they lacked revolutionary vision, they had just passed anarchist communism as there collective vision and the leadership obviously was not listening(leadership can be problematic that way even in anarchist groups).

The Friends of durutti came too little too late, and was too isolated. Platformist Anarchist Communism was too new as a political tendancy internationally and was not able to give the material aid needed to defeat the fascists.

We will always be outgunned, but we can be better prepared.


Ya Basat!, No Pasaran!

Viva makhno!

Viva la Platform (somewhat of a joke)

and Viva NEFAC ( had to let that one slip)

[PRC-UTE]

The CNT could’ve take power but didn’t and decided to cooperate with the civil authorities. That’s what I was talking about, but you’re correct that the rank-and-file fought bravely and the collectives were a huge success.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by OglachMcGlinchey+Feb 23 2005, 08:43 PM--> (OglachMcGlinchey @ Feb 23 2005, 08:43 PM)
[email protected] 23 2005, 05:30 PM
Well, I guess I'm in the minority here...I think the Republic lost because it was simply outgunned and outmanned.

And possibly out-generaled as well.

Franco could have been defeated; Franco plus 55,000 Italian troops plus the German Air Force could not.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
It's been claimed that Franco and his allies could not have advanced had their been a Makhnovist style guerilla movement on thier rear. I don't know if that's true or not, but it seems to be confirmed by the way Franco so meticulously 'clensed' conquered territories of enemies. [/b]
Unfortunatly that would have meant that the beautifull anarchist projects that we saw would have been destroyed. In Ukrain the Makhnovist movement, never got much time to build up their societies, due to the quikly changing fronts.

The anarchists were simply outgunned. You can't defeat bombers, airplanes, tanks, armored vehicles with a couple of old rifles.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Disunity among antifascist forces, and, in particular, the monopolization of effective means of carrying out warfare by Stalinist forces combined with the nasty matter of Italian, Nazi, Church (don't discount the Church!), and 'Western' support (material and moral) for the military uprising, methinks the Republic and the revolution were pretty fucked.

Seriously, there's a really great 6-episode British documentry titled simply The Spanish Civil War which I recomend highly. Lots of interviews with folk who were right there, old footage, and fascinating analysis. w00t.

[PRC-UTE]

The anarchist forces couldn't defeat the tanks, bombers, etc head-on, but they could've avoided a direct confrontation and had better results. Early in the war, Durruti had promised to open-up wiht a Makhno-style rearguard action to destroy fascist supply/communication lines. (Durruti was very influenced by Makhno's ideas since the two met in Paris) This didn't happen until much later, too late, but would've been much more successful than the type of conventional war they used. Anarchist militants were poor conventional soldiers but excellent guerillas and the best street fighters.

This would not have won the war, but delayed it enormously until some other method could've been used. What I don't know so don't ask!

[Rockfan]

Well I heard that it was the fist war that an eintire town was distroyed by air in, Hitlers air force did the damage so i guess it was that Franco had the better allies (millitary wise).

[Anarcho-Communist]

i agree anarchist couldnt defeat the bombers and tanks but could avoid confrontation! they were safe in some ways but others were in danger

Peace, Love, Empathy

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I am interested in hearing the views of others.

Militarily speaking...

It was a rule of thumb that when the area around the garrisons were occupied by the people and the people showed strength, the garrisons gave up. In places where the people did not do this, the Nationalists won.

I'd blame the Republican government for being so foolish to think that a coup was not possible despite the evidence that was handed over, and refusing to arm the workers.

The people should've also have done some preperation (there was already HUGE tensions so it is not like it wasn't a possibility), gathering guns, creating armed workers circles etc.

[Tommie]

Blaming Stalin for the Republican loss is an easy scapegoat. I am curious as to exactly what the USSR could have done to save the Republican government from its own military and the combined armed might of two militaristic dictatorships?

In my opinion, the disunity of the Republican side is an excellent example as to why the ultra-left is such a dangerous influence on left-wing governmental experiments. Hugo Chavez and friends beware.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 08:14 AM
Blaming Stalin for the Republican loss is an easy scapegoat. I am curious as to exactly what the USSR could have done to save the Republican government from its own military and the combined armed might of two militaristic dictatorship
Armed the anarchist militas who were fighting on two fronts in stead of smashing them.


In my opinion, the disunity of the Republican side is an excellent example as to why the ultra-left is such a dangerous influence on left-wing governmental experiments. Hugo Chavez and friends beware.

Yes, we are dangerous to your governments and you should be aware.

[Labor Shall Rule]

The republic lost for many reasons. I really think that the blame falls ultimately on itself, due to the fact that they opposed the popular working class efforts of the anarchists, trotskyists, and the other more radical sections of the left. Through forced state seizure of all collectivized land, the abolition of various worker millitias, and the inner conflict that soon developed amongst them, the petty bourgeois "socialist" parties of Spain put down the Spanish Revolution, and set the course for defeat against the fascists.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 9 2006, 08:55 AM
Armed the anarchist militas who were fighting on two fronts in stead of smashing them.
Despite the best efforts of the PCE the anarchist militias were not "smashed". The failure to create a "Spanish Ukraine" was entirely their own.

And for my money it was sheer ineptitude that doomed the Republic. While the reforming of the militias into a regular army made sound sense (the performance of militias was frankly embarrassing when faced with the regulars from Africa) you cannot avoid the fact that the Republicans won a single clear victory during the war. After Guadalajara every Republican offensive was mired in incompetence on the part of the commanders.

Obviously there were a host of other factors but in the end the Nationalists were simply better soldiers.

[Enragé]

The republic lost for many reasons. I really think that the blame falls ultimately on itself, due to the fact that they opposed the popular working class efforts of the anarchists, trotskyists, and the other more radical sections of the left. Through forced state seizure of all collectivized land, the abolition of various worker millitias, and the inner conflict that soon developed amongst them, the petty bourgeois "socialist" parties of Spain put down the Spanish Revolution, and set the course for defeat against the fascists.

also, as for the worker-militias, they should have pursued a more independent course of action from the bourgeois republic and the CNT should've stayed the fuck out of the generalitat.

As for tactics, pitched battles would no longer have been possible without stalinist aid, which would lead to the simple necessity of guerilla warfare.
This however would have had a greater chance of succes than the road which was taken since people would surely support a revolution they themselves had fought for, and friends had died for, whereas in actuality the revolution was betrayed and people thought like "err...is the republic that much better?"

And yes the militias were poorly trained, but what do you expect, they were civilians before the revolution. Which also gives another argument for pursuing a guerilla.

Also, the regular army wasnt that much better. They had better weapons, lower morale, and perhaps a little more training.

[Just Dave]

To keep it brief there were lots of factors, lack of support in arms etc from Stalin, lack of co-operation from stalinists, the churchs role in not influencing Catholics aganst the fascists, and lack of support from France and the UK. Personally I think that with a leader who wasn't a total nazi sympathiser (Chamberlin) WW" would, and should of, started earlier

[Enragé]

the churchs role in not influencing Catholics aganst the fascists

the church sided with the fascists.

[Just Dave]

exactly

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 02:23 PM
Also, the regular army wasnt that much better. They had better weapons, lower morale, and perhaps a little more training.
Considering that the regular army managed to stand and fight... yes it was a hell of a lot better than the militias. The Army of Africa marched all the way to Madrid almost unopposed with various militias fleeing before it. Had the militia system persisted then the war would have been over before the end of 1937.

And while I appreciate that guerrilla war is "in fashion" at the moment it would have made absolutely in sense in Spain at the time. This was because 1) The Republic could not count on the support of the entire population... this was a civil war and 2) the Fascists took a refreshingly brutal approach to captured Republican communities with the killings continuing well into the '50s. Guerrilla warfare is pointless when the occupying power is willing to engage in the wholesale slaughter of civilian populations.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Sep 9 2006, 03:20 PM--> (ComradeOm @ Sep 9 2006, 03:20 PM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 9 2006, 08:55 AM
Armed the anarchist militas who were fighting on two fronts in stead of smashing them.
Despite the best efforts of the PCE the anarchist militias were not "smashed". The failure to create a "Spanish Ukraine" was entirely their own. [/b]
So you deny that the anarchists controlled Aragon and Catalonia and were on those fronts with the POUM fighting Franco's army?

Are you saying then, that the PCE, having received shipments of arms from Russia did in fact give out weapons to the anarchists and POUM on the Aragon and Catalonian front and that there was never a decree by the PCE controlled Republic for anarchists to lay down their arms?

Do you also deny that the PCE forces used violence against the anarchists to enforce any decree which included disarming the Aragon and Catalonian fronts? And do you also deny that the PCE disbanded the collectives through out Aragon and Catalonia including the democratic worker and peasent institutions which created them?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 9 2006, 03:03 PM
So you deny that the anarchists controlled Aragon and Catalonia and were on those fronts with the POUM fighting Franco's army?

Did they fight? Yes. In the first months of the war anarchist aid and militias were undoubtedly invaluable to the Republic. For the rest of the war they kept a much lower profile and seemed content to be given a relatively free hand in Aragon and Catalonia. Even then they failed to take Saragosa.

The Popular Army failed in almost all of its major offensives but at least it tried.


Are you saying then, that the PCE, having received shipments of arms from Russia did in fact give out weapons to the anarchists and POUM on the Aragon and Catalonian front and that there was never a decree by the PCE controlled Republic for anarchists to lay down their arms?
That's poor TAT. You really blame Stalin for not supplying the anarchists with arms? Or act surprised that his puppets in Spain didn't like anarchists? In the case of the PCE you have nobody but yourselves to blame - no one forced the anarchists into cooperation with the Republican government.


Do you also deny that the PCE forces used violence against the anarchists to enforce any decree which included disarming the Aragon and Catalonian fronts? And do you also deny that the PCE disbanded the collectives through out Aragon and Catalonia including the democratic worker and peasent institutions which created them?
The Stalinists didn't like the communes. Well there's a shocker. I'm curious though - if the anarchists "controlled" Aragon then why did they allow this? Why did the leadership refuse to issue an outright condemnation of El Campesino's actions? Could it be that the once invaluable anarchists had had their halcyon days in '36 and had been undergoing a steady decline in power and influence since then?

[SPK]

I don't really have a strong position on why the Spanish Civil War turned out the way it did. I just started studying it recently, and I'm baffled by some of the absences or gaps in the stories that people from different political tendencies -- Stalinist, anarchist, etc. -- tell about it.

So I'll throw out a bunch of questions:

1. Why, when we are talking about what is supposed to be the most significant anarchist-led revolutionary process of the twentieth century, do anarchists end up as officials in the Republican government? Anarchists joining a state apparatus? What kind of anarchism is this? In name only? And why doesn't the massive base of those anarchist movements resist or oppose this move by its leadership into the government itself? Does that mass base want to work with the Republic? Are they waiting for their leadership to renounce participation in the state? What does this say about the contradiction between leadership and led -- to use a Marxist-Leninist term -- and the fundamental, underlying principles of anarchism?

2. Franco's forces in the earliest days of his reactionary uprising against the Republic were significantly composed of Moroccan forces -- Morocco was a colony of Spain at that time. Meaning:

a.) There were Spanish troops from the home country that had, so to speak, been trained in the brutal suppression of an entire populace by way of their experiences crushing indigenous resistance in Morocco. These Spanish forces then ultimately turned that experience against people in their own homeland -- a textbook argument against imperialism if I ever saw one.

b.) There were also large numbers of actual, indigenous Moroccans serving Franco -- for financial gain, or because they were drafted, I'm not sure. Since they were not Spanish, and because of the divisions created by capitalism among the multinational working class, they had less compunction than the Spanish did about engaging in some of the most brutal tactics to crush the people's resistance in Spain. These were very important for Franco's efforts, and he could have been fatally weakened by their defection.

It is my understanding that there was no serious effort on the part of the Republican government to move towards Moroccan independence. If they had done so -- if they had engaged in one of the most basic principles of the international solidarity of the working-class and oppressed peoples -- that would have encouraged the Moroccan colonial troops to simply abandon their effort and go home. Did elements within the POUM, the Trotskyists, the anarchists, or the Stalinist Socialist / Communist parties call for the immediate independence of Morocco? If they didn't, that appears to be a huge strategic error. And what was the history of the different political tendencies' stance on the colonial question?

3. The Comintern coordinated the participation of thousands of communists from around the world who came to Spain to fight fascism. Even the much smaller POUM had a significant international component -- Orwell describes this. Was there any similar or analagous effort on the part of anarchists around the globe? What, in the international anarchist movement, was the understanding of their concrete, day-to-day relationship to the struggle in Spain?

I think this question is important, because Italy -- at least prior to the rise of Mussolini – had one of the largest anarchist movements in Europe. Moreover, Franco was being supported by Italian naval and air forces and, most significantly, 50,000 ground forces. If anarchist resistance in Italy had forced Mussolini to withdraw some or all of those troops, again that could have been a fatal blow to Franco. I’m not saying this was necessarily possible, I’m just asking the question.

More on that: the Italian forces were not very effective. They were badly defeated by the outgunned Republicans in February, 1937 at Guadalajara: thousands were killed and the remnants simply fled, leaving behind their weapons and equipment. This indicates that the Italian troops were not exactly committed to the cause of il Duce. Did the different Republican tendencies in Spain attempt to do political and ideological work with the Italian forces – politically educate prisoners, drop leaflets behind enemy lines, etc.? Here is yet another example of a weak-link in Franco’s chain, one where political intervention, rather than a purely military strategy, could have been decisive.

4. It is my understanding that Spain fought a bloody, brutal guerrilla war with French occupation forces sometime in the nineteenth century. The country therefore certainly had knowledge and experience of guerrilla warfare. Why were these tactics not taken up by the Republicans or by any of the other resistance tendencies? It appears that much of the Civil War was conventional. People sat in trenches, along static lines, and so on, with all of the potential problems that brings: air attacks, having your supply lines to the rear cut off, etc. For a weak country like the Republic, without good access to conventional heavy weapons and supplies, that does not, from today’s standpoint – we have seen many successes by guerrilla-style people’s armies – seem like a good idea.

I understand all of the hubbub about Stalin and so forth. However, I think that, even in the context of a hostile global capitalist alliance and a Soviet policy designed to neutralize any truly revolutionary tendencies in Spain, it was still possible for the Republicans and its allies to exploit some of these strategic contradictions and win.

Just a few little questions for RevLeft’s scholars of the Spanish Civil War.
:)

[Karl Marx's Camel]

the performance of militias was frankly embarrassing when faced with the regulars from Africa

If I recall correctly, the soldiers in Africa were regarded highly. Apparently they were the elite soldiers in the spanish armed forces. They were not just "anybody".

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 08:20 PM
If I recall correctly, the soldiers in Africa were regarded highly. Apparently they were the elite soldiers in the spanish armed forces. They were not just "anybody".
The regulares of the Army of Africa were tough veterans but hardly "elite". Their success came because they were organised professionals facing disorganised amateurs. I should also mention that militias caught on open ground fared badly against both the Carlist requetés and legionnaires of the Foreign Legion.

[pastradamus]

HAHA. EXCELLENT TOPIC.

The Spanish Civil war is one of my favourite historical events and something im very Interested in.

But to answer That question you gotta look at the Big picture from day one.

ON Franco's side you had support From:

The German Nazi's (Donating Tanks, Mortars, Rifles, Ammunition, Planes, Artillery, Transport, Military Advisors and a small unit of highly trained
ground support)

Mussolini's Italy ( Giving Boats, Ammunition, Artillery and a massive est 90,000 troops...these troops were rotated and so by the end of the war the starting figure of 50,000 had swelled to 90,000)

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. This prevented some working class soldiers from joining the communist/republican side of things at home and encouraged some people to fight on Franco's side.

The Blueshirts. O Duffys army of blueshirts were a large faction of the second biggest political party in Ireland. Thousands of their facist followers went to fight in Spain after Catholic Church encouragement.

Franco's Forces were Composed of mainly Ex-Army, Elité and other borgeois sponsors.


Now Put All this up against Anarchists (peasents) Communists (peasents) Republicans (peasents) POUM (peasents).

These Were the Main Resistance against the Facist forces. There Was always Constant Infighting between all sides. For example one of the key reasons Barcelona Fell was because the Different Political factions defending it has carved the city up between themselves and were easilly picked off one-by-one.

They Were also ill-equipped to fight against such odds as Stalins Russia did little than send some equiptment from odessa.

But one Constant remains....it was NAZI Germany, Italy, Francos troops and high quality warring equiptment against the People of spain alone, and the prolitariet of spain gave them one hell of a fight.

VIVA LA REVOLUCION!

[Tommie]

A few points.

On Soviet involvement in the conflict

My question as to what was to be expected of the Soviet Union in terms of supporting the Republican side beyond what the arms they provided has not been answered. TAT says he believes the Soviets should have armed the various anarchist militias. This however would have ultimately further damaged the Republican war effort. I’ll get to that in a moment. Keep in mind that the very survival of the Soviet Union depended on Stalin being able to navigate the stormy waters of geopolitics. The USSR needed to survive to support many future revolutionary movements. The political consequences that would follow a full-scale a military intervention in Spain would have been devastating and would probably have lead to a pre-mature death of the Soviet Union.

Disunity of the Republican cause

Again, I believe that the Republican side’s greatest weakness was the same weakness that befell and continues to befall countless left/anti-imperialist movements: complete disunity. How were the Republicans expected to achieve victory over the Nationalists when there was virtually no singular “Republican” military but multiple armies and militias attempting to hold a front against the well-trained, unified and German/Italian backed Nationalists?

The Republican chances for success would have been far greater if they were militarily and ideologically unified. Instead, certain elements in the Republican tent sought to use the political instability to attempt to implement their idealism; thus putting the anti-fascist cause in the backseat.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by pastradamus+Sep 10 2006, 03:57 PM--> (pastradamus @ Sep 10 2006, 03:57 PM)The Blueshirts. O Duffys army of blueshirts were a large faction of the second biggest political party in Ireland. Thousands of their facist followers went to fight in Spain after Catholic Church encouragement.
[/b]
Are you serious? In total no more than 600 Blueshirts left for Spain to fight for the fascists. After being fired on by friendly forces they were withdrawn from the frontline and did not see action for the rest of the war.

With regards the rest of the aid given to Franco -

The Germans were of course invaluable. In particular their aerial assets, the "flying artillery" played a crucial role in many battles. Transport across the Strait was via German planes following the failure of the rebels to secure the navy.

The Italian material aid was no doubt useful but their combat formations were a joke. Notably they were broken up and dispersed amongst the Spanish units after the disaster at Guadalajara.

The Church was hardly of importance despite forming a central part of Nationalist propaganda. Anti-clerical sentiment had been rising for years in Spain as the Church's association with centuries of corrupt rulers destroyed any influence they may have had. The image of "Catholic Spain" has long been a myth. Church attendance dropped to 14% in Madrid following the start of the war.

The Royal Navy and Britain gave tacit support to the fascists with the non-intervention committee severely hindering the Republic's efforts.


They Were also ill-equipped to fight against such odds as Stalins Russia did little than send some equiptment from odessa.
You're forgetting that

a) Russia was the only such source of arms and modern equipment,
b) It supplied a considerable amount of these
c) Up to a thousand "experts" were sent to Spain from the USSR


Tommie
How were the Republicans expected to achieve victory over the Nationalists when there was virtually no singular “Republican” military but multiple armies and militias attempting to hold a front against the well-trained, unified and German/Italian backed Nationalists?
False. By early 1937 the vast majority of Republican soldiers had been organised into the Popular Army

[Tommie]

By early 1937 the vast majority of Republican soldiers had been organised into the Popular Army

The ideological disunity still existed.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 07:36 PM
The ideological disunity still existed.
And? That does not change the fact that your statement, which gives the impression that there was no unified command or military hierarchy, is false.

[Tommie]

Since the very essence of the Republican government was highly ideological it was imperative there be a sense of unity among the Republican armed forces. However, the various ultra-left and anarchist tendencies within the Republican tent were more concerned with implementing their dogmatism than defending the Republican government. The Nationalists were a highly organized and unified front; the Republicans gave the façade of unity but were really quite splintered.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 07:11 PM

Are you saying then, that the PCE, having received shipments of arms from Russia did in fact give out weapons to the anarchists and POUM on the Aragon and Catalonian front and that there was never a decree by the PCE controlled Republic for anarchists to lay down their arms?
That's poor TAT. You really blame Stalin for not supplying the anarchists with arms? Or act surprised that his puppets in Spain didn't like anarchists?
This discussion is not about how Leninists feel towards anarchists, it's about why the Spanish Civil war failed and what I am telling you is, it failed in part because the PCE refused to supply arms to the anarchist militas defending the Aragon and Catalonian fronts, making it easier for the fascists to win.


In the case of the PCE you have nobody but yourselves to blame - no one forced the anarchists into cooperation with the Republican government.

I'm in full agreement. The CNT's participation in the state was a very bad mistake.



Do you also deny that the PCE forces used violence against the anarchists to enforce any decree which included disarming the Aragon and Catalonian fronts? And do you also deny that the PCE disbanded the collectives through out Aragon and Catalonia including the democratic worker and peasent institutions which created them?
The Stalinists didn't like the communes. Well there's a shocker.

So you accept that the "Stalinists" destroyed the anarchist collectives?


if the anarchists "controlled" Aragon then why did they allow this?

Lack of military hardware. Badly armed anarchist militas were attempting to hold two fronts against a fully supported army and then defend itself against another fully supported army hell bent on destroying what they had successfully created.


Could it be that the once invaluable anarchists had had their halcyon days in '36 and had been undergoing a steady decline in power and influence since then?

Perhaps, but according to Anthony Beevers book, CNT-FAI membership was pretty much the same during the whole war.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 10:01 PM
Since the very essence of the Republican government was highly ideological it was imperative there be a sense of unity among the Republican armed forces. However, the various ultra-left and anarchist tendencies within the Republican tent were more concerned with implementing their dogmatism than defending the Republican government. The Nationalists were a highly organized and unified front; the Republicans gave the façade of unity but were really quite splintered.
You said, "when there was virtually no singular “Republican” military but multiple armies and militias". I have pointed out that this is false and that there was in fact a "singular Republican military". If you are asserting that this body was unified in name only then you are again mistaken. Despite being riddled with both ideological and personal rivalries the Popular Army functioned like any other conventional army at the time.


This discussion is not about how Leninists feel towards anarchists, it's about why the Spanish Civil war failed and what I am telling you is, it failed in part because the PCE refused to supply arms to the anarchist militas defending the Aragon and Catalonian fronts, making it easier for the fascists to win.
Then try to supply realistic answers. Asking Stalin to supply anarchists is much the same as suggesting that the Republic could have been saved through divine intervention. It was simply never possible for both ideological and practical reasons.


So you accept that the "Stalinists" destroyed the anarchist collectives?
That's been well documented. As to why the anarchists allowed it I don't agree with the idea that it was lack of arms but rather associate it with a greater malaise that had enveloped the CNT leadership.

In addition Franco didn't turn his attention north until mid '37. About the same time as the PCE troops started dispersing the communes. Until then that front had been extremely quiet.


Perhaps, but according to Anthony Beevers book, CNT-FAI membership was pretty much the same during the whole war.
Could well be. Though I believe the UGT had matched it in numbers at the start of the war and the communists saw rapid growth during it. But that's not important.

What is interesting in reading Beever's book is just how quickly the anarchists slip from notice. While their achievements in the immediate days after the rising are noticed, after the creation of the Catalan generalidad their impact on affairs seems to enter freefall.

[pastradamus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 07:14 PM
Are you serious? In total no more than 600 Blueshirts left for Spain to fight for the fascists. After being fired on by friendly forces they were withdrawn from the frontline and did not see action for the rest of the war.


I apologise as my source was wrong. But you might want to check your own out as it is estimated the 750 blueshirts part of XV Bandera Irlandesa del terico alone. Withdrawn from the rest of the war? Friendly fire? I would like to see a source on this.

I also cant accept that Russia did enough. The most it did was send over Ammo, Guns and obsolete Tanks. They could have made a lot more out of it.

Another thing I cant accept is what you said about the Catholic Church.
They Played a significant part in the war. So? maybe Anarchists and commies dont go to church but local rural peasents sure as hell do. Figures show that when the Church Gave its blessing to the nationalists a large increase in ranks was recorded.

Maybe the Italians were poor fighters but what your forgetting is that there was 90,000 of them, Trained & Armed fighting milita's & Poorly trained troops.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

I think a major reason was the sheer military muscle of the Fascist enemies of the Republic.

I mean, its not like the Left has to win everywhere. Sometimes they can be overwhelmed by sheer brute force too.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 12:39 AM
I apologise as my source was wrong. But you might want to check your own out as it is estimated the 750 blueshirts part of XV Bandera Irlandesa del terico alone. Withdrawn from the rest of the war? Friendly fire? I would like to see a source on this.
Beevor, Antony., 1999, The Spanish Civil War, (Paperback ed.), pg. 211


I also cant accept that Russia did enough. The most it did was send over Ammo, Guns and obsolete Tanks. They could have made a lot more out of it. Between 1,000 and 4,000 Red Army military advisers served in Spain. Furthermore this link (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPrussia.htm) gives figures for the Soviet support of "1,000 aircraft, 900 tanks, 1,500 artillery pieces, 300 armoured cars, 15,000 machine-guns, 30,000 automatic firearms, 30,000 mortars, 500,000 riles and 30,000 tons of ammunition." In comparison the next largest donor, Mexico, gave 20,000 rifles. No other source of modern equipment was available. Trinkets really :rolleyes:

So please tell me, just what more could Russia have done? Invaded Europe?


They Played a significant part in the war. So? maybe Anarchists and commies dont go to church but local rural peasents sure as hell do. Figures show that when the Church Gave its blessing to the nationalists a large increase in ranks was recorded.
Bullshit. Navarre was the only province in which the Church had any impact on recruiting figures. This can even be put down to the monarchist loyalties of the population and the nature of the private peasant holdings. This was despite the fact that, with the exception of the Basque lands, the local Church structure unreservedly backed the Nationalist cause.


Maybe the Italians were poor fighters but what your forgetting is that there was 90,000 of them, Trained & Armed fighting milita's & Poorly trained troops.
Despite this no Italian formations won a battle against the Republic. Indeed it was their incompetence that allowed the latter its sole victory at Guadalajara. The Italians were a factor but far more so for their logistical aid than combat abilities.

[Tommie]

So please tell me, just what more could Russia have done? Invaded Europe?

Well said.

[The Incorruptible]

Take a look at the back cover of this book and it will tell you why the Spanish Republic lost. Click on the book then click on where it says "back cover" on your left:

http://www.amazon.com/Lessons-Spanish-Revo...ie=UTF8&s=books (http://www.amazon.com/Lessons-Spanish-Revolution-Vernon-Richards/dp/0900384239/sr=1-4/qid=1158003379/ref=sr_1_4/102-3340076-0636109?ie=UTF8&s=books)

The Soviet Union under Stalin was reactionary. They did not want the revolution to take place. (Read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia). Stalin was more interested in his foreign policy, his obsessive hatred of Trotsky, and his anti-Trotskyite theory of "Socialism in one country" than on "permanent revolution." Stalin was one of the worst figures in all of history. I've often pondered why someone can call themselves socialists and at the same time idolize Stalin.

Do you think Lenin would have let this opportunity slip by without taking advantage of it--- of another revolution in Europe? If Lenin had still been alive we would have all Europe socialist and Spain would have been the first. That fool Stalin sucked big time.

[Tommie]

I am sorry, but it is just too easy to scapegoat Stalin for the failures of the Republicans during the Spanish Civil War. I (as a social democrat) am no fan of a lot of the measures took to defend socialism in the Soviet Union during his time. Whether or not these measures were required to defend the new socialist state is an entirely different debate.

The question must be posed to you since you did not answer it, instead only giving the scapegoat excuse for the Republican defeat. What more could the USSR have done?

[VRKrovin]

I see so many people bashing comrade JV Stalin. How can you dare call yourself communists with such an anti-Leninist position?


Krovin

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 11 2006, 07:37 PM
Take a look at the back cover of this book and it will tell you why the Spanish Republic lost. Click on the book then click on where it says "back cover" on your left:

http://www.amazon.com/Lessons-Spanish-Revo...ie=UTF8&s=books (http://www.amazon.com/Lessons-Spanish-Revolution-Vernon-Richards/dp/0900384239/sr=1-4/qid=1158003379/ref=sr_1_4/102-3340076-0636109?ie=UTF8&s=books)

The Soviet Union under Stalin was reactionary. They did not want the revolution to take place. (Read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia). Stalin was more interested in his foreign policy, his obsessive hatred of Trotsky, and his anti-Trotskyite theory of "Socialism in one country" than on "permanent revolution." Stalin was one of the worst figures in all of history. I've often pondered why someone can call themselves socialists and at the same time idolize Stalin.

Do you think Lenin would have let this opportunity slip by without taking advantage of it--- of another revolution in Europe? If Lenin had still been alive we would have all Europe socialist and Spain would have been the first. That fool Stalin sucked big time.
Please, tell me that you're a troll account. :lol: If Lenin had lived, and was as batshit insane as you seem to be depicting him and would launch an attempt to "have all Europe socialist"(funny how you trots criticise Stalin for "forcing socialism on Eastern Europe" when the USSR liberated those lands from fascism :rolleyes: ), the world would rally behind Hitler and Mussolini in a "crusade against Bolshevism", Soviet troop transports would be sunk, the USSR would be crippled by internal division and a foreign intervention against it even bigger than the one during the Civil War, Franco would still have beaten the Republic, and we'd have a fascist Europe(trot dreamland ;)).

[VRKrovin]

Please, tell me that you're a troll account. If Lenin had lived, and was as batshit insane as you seem to be depicting him and would launch an attempt to "have all Europe socialist"(funny how you trots criticise Stalin for "forcing socialism on Eastern Europe" when the USSR liberated those lands from fascism ), the world would rally behind Hitler and Mussolini in a "crusade against Bolshevism", Soviet troop transports would be sunk, the USSR would be crippled by internal division and a foreign intervention against it even bigger than the one during the Civil War, Franco would still have beaten the Republic, and we'd have a fascist Europe(trot dreamland).

Agreed! What's your stance on Stalin?


Krovin

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 03:38 AM
Agreed! What's your stance on Stalin?
http://www.virtualservices.com.au/images/thumbs%20up.jpg

[VRKrovin]

Are you american comrade?


Krovin

[Enragé]

Considering that the regular army managed to stand and fight... yes it was a hell of a lot better than the militias. The Army of Africa marched all the way to Madrid almost unopposed with various militias fleeing before it. Had the militia system persisted then the war would have been over before the end of 1937.

While the bourgeois army trained in the rear, the militias kept the line, while arms shipments were sent to only a small fraction of the militias (the socialist ones, excluding the POUM), the militias kept the line.

When the fascists marched on madrid, attacked, the militias beat them off.

so?


This was because 1) The Republic could not count on the support of the entire population

No, but it could in many parts.
Also
what is more likely to gain popular support?
A revolutionary cause or a bourgeois republic?
I think you can figure that out for yourself.
why fight for one leader against the other


2) the Fascists took a refreshingly brutal approach to captured Republican communities with the killings continuing well into the '50s. Guerrilla warfare is pointless when the occupying power is willing to engage in the wholesale slaughter of civilian populations.


It is?
Why then was partisan activity in Yugoslavia in WW2, and generally behin the nazi lines on the eastern front sp extensive?

Slaughter of the civilian population only brings more recruits.

Also, as you said, it happened anyway, and you still can ambush the death squads, which would force them to commit large portions of their army at the same time to this wholesale slaughter, which would lead to a significant weakening of the actual fascist military effort.


The regulares of the Army of Africa were tough veterans but hardly "elite". Their success came because they were organised professionals facing disorganised amateurs. I should also mention that militias caught on open ground fared badly against both the Carlist requetés and legionnaires of the Foreign Legion.


No shit.
That usually happens when civilians fight the actual army.
So dont get caught in the open, ambush etc.

I am NOT against training, against (a form of) discipline, but you dont need a regular standing army to do this.

For instance, it "might" have been useful for the POUM barracks to have had you know, working guns and a machine gun to train with, but they didnt.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 07:06 PM
Are you american comrade?


Krovin
Communism is about communal ownership of the means of production etc

not about leaders
at all

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 03:43 PM
I see so many people bashing comrade JV Stalin. How can you dare call yourself communists with such an anti-Leninist position?


Krovin
How can you call yourself a Leninist when you support an anti-Marxist person that a lead a politcal counterrevolution against October after Lenin had died? Lenin did call for Stalin's removal in his "Last Testament."

Stalin had tried to woo the imperialist bourgeois nations to try to get support in what would eventually become WWII. He had sent agents into Spain, killed off Marxists, even Stalinists that he had feared to have become infected with revolution, etc. He basically carried though the counterrevolution, as he had feared that a healthy revolution would spread to Russia, overthrow him, and return to the ideas, methods, etc. of Lenin and Trotsky. The POUM's centrism did not help matters either, nor did the anarchists voluntarily leaving power in hands of the enemies of the proletariat. I need to look further into this.

I used to support Stalin, but I read and thought, and I eventually figured out the truth. Leninism and Trotskyism are the same thing.

Do not get me wrong: a deformed workers' state is still better than no workers' state at all (look at the case of Russia, for a great example), but Stalinism is opposed to workers' democracy and it the only viable replacement for it is not capitalism, but genuine socialism based on workers democracy and not on a bureaucratic stratum hovering over a workers' state.

[Enragé]

nor did the anarchists voluntarily leaving power in hands of the enemies of the proletariat

word

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 02:43 AM
I see so many people bashing comrade JV Stalin. How can you dare call yourself communists with such an anti-Leninist position?


Krovin
What in the fuck does that picture even mean? It's so ridiculous.

[Herman]

I dislike this anti-stalinist attitude. If you do not like Stalin, use arguments and facts, not insults.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 04:39 PM
I dislike this anti-stalinist attitude. If you do not like Stalin, use arguments and facts, not insults.
Why should anyone do that? Stalin is antithetical to working class liberation and is the reason why communism is the most misunderstood ideology on the planet.

He is, for all intents and purposes, a fucking **** and deserves no less.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 03:39 PM
I dislike this anti-stalinist attitude. If you do not like Stalin, use arguments and facts, not insults.
You must understand, politics here often do not go any deeper than "fuck shit up anarchyyyyy!!!" Hell, just look at the post below yours. :)

TAT: good point! Why didn't I see this before? If it wasn't for Stalin, the bourgeoisie would never have slandered communism at all! If someone else had taken his place, they would have never shouted about totalitarianism killing millions. They would just be like "Okay, you guys look pretty cool, we won't say anything bad about you!" Ahh, comrades, the things we could have accomplished, if only that monster Stalin didn't step in when he did...

[Herman]

Why should anyone do that? Stalin is antithetical to working class liberation and is the reason why communism is the most misunderstood ideology on the planet.

It is the most misunderstood ideology because of the bourgeoisie, not Stalin.


You must understand, politics here often do not go any deeper than "fuck shit up anarchyyyyy!!!" Hell, just look at the post below yours.

And it is something to be fixed. This way we'll never get anywhere.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Sep 26 2006, 02:41 AM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Sep 26 2006, 02:41 AM)
[email protected] 25 2006, 04:39 PM
I dislike this anti-stalinist attitude. If you do not like Stalin, use arguments and facts, not insults.
Why should anyone do that? Stalin is antithetical to working class liberation and is the reason why communism is the most misunderstood ideology on the planet.

He is, for all intents and purposes, a fucking **** and deserves no less. [/b]
Yeah, why should anyone use facts? Like, come on guys we don't need facts.

[KC]

Yeah, why should anyone use facts? Like, come on guys we don't need facts.


Who needs facts? Opinions are much more supportive of my argument. :D

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 10:01 PM
While the bourgeois army trained in the rear, the militias kept the line, while arms shipments were sent to only a small fraction of the militias (the socialist ones, excluding the POUM), the militias kept the line.
Except the militias did not keep the line. Their performance in the early months of the war was dismal. This is something that has to be hammered home, via the miracle of bold text, because it is still of importance today – when the militias encountered regulares in open country they lost. Badly.


what is more likely to gain popular support?
A revolutionary cause or a bourgeois republic?
Clearly the latter. I’m sorry to burst your bubble but the fascists in Spain enjoyed considerable support. Their victory would have been impossible otherwise. Even the Popular Army, certainly its command structures, was largely made up of recruits with no real revolutionary zeal.


Slaughter of the civilian population only brings more recruits.
Except that this time it didn’t. Franco did slaughter all his enemies and he did create a stable state. Guerrilla activity following the end of the war was minimal and never approached the level of popular resistance.


That usually happens when civilians fight the actual army.
And what do you think the militias were? Trained revolutionary battalions ready to slay the fascist beast? :rolleyes:

Militias are, by definition, comprised of civilians. That’s the whole fecking point!

[Enragé]

Except the militias did not keep the line. Their performance in the early months of the war was dismal. This is something that has to be hammered home, via the miracle of bold text, because it is still of importance today – when the militias encountered regulares in open country they lost. Badly.


err yea they did
if they didnt keep the line, what the fuck else prevented the fascist from taking over the entirity of spain?
there was no army.
the militias did it all.


Clearly the latter. I’m sorry to burst your bubble but the fascists in Spain enjoyed considerable support. Their victory would have been impossible otherwise.

Oh right
thats why in over half of spain the PEOPLE rose up AGAINST the fascists and beat them back.
yeh.


Even the Popular Army, certainly its command structures, was largely made up of recruits with no real revolutionary zeal.


No shit
Maybe because the Popular Army was a BOURGEOIS military?


And what do you think the militias were? Trained revolutionary battalions ready to slay the fascist beast?

no but they can be trained to be while still retaining the militia structure.

[Lenin's Law]

I guess we have two thumbs up here then! :D :hammer:

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Sep 25 2006, 04:41 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Sep 25 2006, 04:41 PM)
[email protected] 25 2006, 04:39 PM
I dislike this anti-stalinist attitude. If you do not like Stalin, use arguments and facts, not insults.
Why should anyone do that? Stalin is antithetical to working class liberation and is the reason why communism is the most misunderstood ideology on the planet.

He is, for all intents and purposes, a fucking **** and deserves no less. [/b]
Absolutely. Stalin was the single biggest betrayal of our movement and our class that could be possible. The russian people didn't not kill one tsar to get another brutal fuck like Stalin. Fuck him.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Its very sad how the Spanish Republic failed as a result of the finest efforts by fascists, Stalniists and the liberal democracies.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Mattijs, Stalins Law, VRKrovin ...you guys sicken me. Stalin was a MASS MURDERER! He killed millions of people including his own comrades!!!

How can you guys just sit there and give him the thumbs up like at a movie or something?!?!? :angry: :angry:

[Wanted Man]

http://lightbulb.typepad.com/light/images/burger_king_1.jpg

YOU GONNA GET PURGED.

[Comrade Doug]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 22 2005, 07:24 PM
I have formulated my own theories was to why the republic lost, however, I am interested in hearing the views of others.
I think it simply breaks down to the overwhelming support to the facists by nazi germany and facist italy, and the very underwhelming help sent by the soviets.

[ComradeOm]

if they didnt keep the line, what the fuck else prevented the fascist from taking over the entirity of spain?
At this stage I’m wondering if you have any idea what you’re talking about.

1936: Fascist risings take place in most major Spanish cities. In some they are successful, in others they are not. The major areas of fascist strength are Seville, Morocco and Navarre. From these areas the first fascist columns began to spread out throughout the country. In particular the Army of Africa’s march from the south was critical. Whenever these columns met militia resistance they won. The battle lines in the first months of the war were constantly shifting in favour of the Nationalists.

I can’t say anything else on this as you continue to deny historical reality. The militias failed to halt the fascist advance. This is fact.


Oh right
thats why in over half of spain the PEOPLE rose up AGAINST the fascists and beat them back.
yeh.
Three issues here:

1) It was the fascists that rose up
2) Half the population counts as “considerable support”
3) The fascists were not “beaten back”


no but they can be trained to be while still retaining the militia structure.
And when exactly should this training have taken place? Perhaps Franco should have given a date for the rising in advance so that the militias could have organised beforehand?

[Enragé]

1936: Fascist risings take place in most major Spanish cities. In some they are successful, in others they are not. The major areas of fascist strength are Seville, Morocco and Navarre. From these areas the first fascist columns began to spread out throughout the country. In particular the Army of Africa’s march from the south was critical. Whenever these columns met militia resistance they won. The battle lines in the first months of the war were constantly shifting in favour of the Nationalists.

Err yes

in most major cities
in the places where they didnt succeed the people beat them back. This happened especially ofcourse in areas where the unions were strong (UGT and CNT)


1) It was the fascists that rose up
2) Half the population counts as “considerable support”
3) The fascists were not “beaten back”


1) They staged a coup, yes, and then the people rose up in defence of the republic or more often simply to push for revolution
2) that half the population rose up (in those cities where the coup failed) doesnt mean that the rest was all like "hurray for fascism"
3) Yes they were, in the cities where the coup failed the military failed to take control because the people rose up, and after getting weapons at the last moment from a desperate republican government, formed militias and beat them back.


And when exactly should this training have taken place? Perhaps Franco should have given a date for the rising in advance so that the militias could have organised beforehand?

In the same way the Popular Army was trained; while other units held the line.

[Invader Zim]

(funny how you trots criticise Stalin for "forcing socialism on Eastern Europe" when the USSR liberated those lands from fascism rolleyes.gif )

'Liberated'? Imperialistically annexed and brought to heel, more like.

In terms of the numeric death count of Stalin, he is worse than Hitler!

If I had my way Stalinists would be where they belong - in OI with all the other capitalists or we could go one better and ban them like the authoritarian proto-fascists that they are.

[Darth Revan]

Because Germany and Italy had supplied General Franco with better weapons they gave him new weaponry in order to test it besides the republic got support only from the Soviet Union England and France didn't even lift a finger to help and the fact that the republicans were outnumbered by the fascists

[Karl Marx's Camel]

From reading more about this, it seems that another reason the Republicans lost was that people were sort of apathetic when it came to what happened outside their immediate area, and that people only really started reacting when the nationalists closed in on them.

[pastradamus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 01:39 PM
From reading more about this, it seems that another reason the Republicans lost was that people were sort of apathetic when it came to what happened outside their immediate area, and that people only really started reacting when the nationalists closed in on them.
Extremely valid point. Good post.

[ComradeOm]

I hate to say this NewKindOfSoldier but you really are a fucking idiot. This will be the last time I repeat myself in stating basic historical info on the war. Until you actually learn about the conflict then don't bother replying.


in most major cities
in the places where they didnt succeed the people beat them back. This happened especially ofcourse in areas where the unions were strong (UGT and CNT)
Read what I post you moron! I have stated several times that "when the militias encountered regulares in open country they lost. Badly." Now what part of that can you not understand? What part of Nationalist column meeting and defeating Republican militias in the countryside can you not understand? Is it possible that you lack the capacity to understand such a simple scenario?

If so I've got even worse news for you - the fascists won. What a shocker :o

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Extremely valid point. Good post.

Thank you :)

[SPK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 08:39 AM
From reading more about this, it seems that another reason the Republicans lost was that people were sort of apathetic when it came to what happened outside their immediate area, and that people only really started reacting when the nationalists closed in on them.
Where did you read this? (I'm not disputing it, I'm just asking.) What forces tended to more focussed on or concerned with their own local areas in the way you describe (the communists, the anarchists, the Catalan / Basque nationalists, etc.)?

[A CLOCKWORK ORANGE]

Quick question for anyone who has read it. Anyone read, 'The Battle for Spain' by Anthony Beevor. Can this historian be trusted? Is it any good? Please let me know as I am trying to educate myself on the Spanish Civil War.

[gilhyle]

I admit first to not having even read all the posts on this thread but I throw in my tuppence ha'penny anyway

1. In the years preceding the war, Anarachist electoral tactics facilitated the consolidation of the right and weakened the revolutionary movement by its inability to form a principled united front of the left and thus placed a decidedly weak demcocratic bourgeoisie in power;

2. the republican bourgeoisie preferred defeat to the mobilisation of the working class and the peasantry and thus accepted (even sought) Stalinist domination of the republican cause;

3. Stalinism's first priority was to ensure that no independent centre of revolution emerged in Spain and subordinated all else to that goal - under this policy, defeat was success for Stalinism.

4. POUM failed to lead revolutionary forces.

5. But ultimately, the underlying cause was the failure to ally the hammer with the sickle - the vast Spanish peasantry stood on the sidelines because noone offered them private ownership of their land.

By comparison with these underlying political causes, the military facts were entirely malleable.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Where did you read this?


The battle for Spain, by Antony Beevor.



Quick question for anyone who has read it. Anyone read, 'The Battle for Spain' by Anthony Beevor. Can this historian be trusted? Is it any good? Please let me know as I am trying to educate myself on the Spanish Civil War.

I like it.



He also mention something else that could of possibly be one of the major problems in the Republican areas; A lot of the anarchists didn't want to have anything to do with money,and they didn't want to be "good" with money, and that lead to, in some areas, economic chaos. And if the surplus was collected, it often went to farming equipment, "charity", instead of weapons, ammunition etc.

No wonder they lost, when the enemy was highly organized and used the surplus on the war, while the other side used it for peaceful purposes not related to defeating the enemy.

[Enragé]

Read what I post you moron! I have stated several times that "when the militias encountered regulares in open country they lost. Badly." Now what part of that can you not understand? What part of Nationalist column meeting and defeating Republican militias in the countryside can you not understand? Is it possible that you lack the capacity to understand such a simple scenario?

:blink:

because, "comrade", if what you say is true

then the fascists would've taken the whole of spain in 1936 already.

The only reason they didnt was because the militias fought back.
There was no organized republican army, support from the police forces was low to say the least (they just went with who won in whatever area), so that logically leads to the conclusion that in some areas, actually in over half of spain, the militias/unions DID beat them back

[violencia.Proletariat]

5. But ultimately, the underlying cause was the failure to ally the hammer with the sickle - the vast Spanish peasantry stood on the sidelines because noone offered them private ownership of their land.

What is your basis for this claim? The peasants of Catalonia and Aragon did not want private ownership, thats why they voluntarily collectivized their land.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 29 2006, 11:13 AM
'Liberated'? Imperialistically annexed and brought to heel, more like.
Fighting back against fascist countries that attacked you is imperialism these days? Okay, you said it, not me. As for the rest of your post... no, just no. :lol: Although it must be said that you are closer to fascism, considering that you think that occupying the aggressive Nazi Germany, Arrow Cross Hungary, Antonescu's Hungary, the Kingdom of Bulgaria and fascist Slovakia was a bad thing to do.

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 12:06 AM
He also mention something else that could of possibly be one of the major problems in the Republican areas; A lot of the anarchists didn't want to have anything to do with money,and they didn't want to be "good" with money, and that lead to, in some areas, economic chaos. And if the surplus was collected, it often went to farming equipment, "charity", instead of weapons, ammunition etc.

No wonder they lost, when the enemy was highly organized and used the surplus on the war, while the other side used it for peaceful purposes not related to defeating the enemy.
I am also reading the book, but I didn't get the impression that that fact had much to do with it at all. It seemed like the biggest problems were the western countries' "Non Intervention Committee" which allowed the fascists to get interntional arms but not the Republic. Military aid from Franco and Mussolini were key. It was also stated that Franco couldn't have won without all the vehicles that American corporations like the Ford motor company sold him.

However, lack of formal organization may have contributed to the loss in some areas. Beevor states that militias were more concerned about protecting their own community and would not go on offensive military operations outside their territory (in general, obviously there were exceptions). This structure sometimes worked well though, and informal militias were the reason that the fascist rising didn't take hold in some cities in the early days.

EDIT:

From reading more about this, it seems that another reason the Republicans lost was that people were sort of apathetic when it came to what happened outside their immediate area, and that people only really started reacting when the nationalists closed in on them.

Oops, I didn't see that you said this already :blush:

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 03:47 PM

5. But ultimately, the underlying cause was the failure to ally the hammer with the sickle - the vast Spanish peasantry stood on the sidelines because noone offered them private ownership of their land.

What is your basis for this claim? The peasants of Catalonia and Aragon did not want private ownership, thats why they voluntarily collectivized their land.
You been watching Ken Loach's film.

Even if what you say is true, the peasantry over the bulk of the country could not be mobilised and the Nationalists gained vast areas because the peasantry could not be galvanised into action. What was needed was what they did in Russia in 1917 - land to the peasants.

If they had tried collectivization in 1917 they would have lost.....and in the end in underdeveloped countries which have a serious land question (like Spain), revolution is about winning the Sickle to support the hammer.

I dont base this on what the peasantry did - thats the point : the Spanish peasantry were, for the most part, silent - and hardly raving revolutionaries even in Catalonia: the cities were overcome by the dead weight of the countryside just like in Paris in 1871.

[rebelworker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 07:39 PM


If so I've got even worse news for you - the fascists won. What a shocker :o
Yes they did you dumbass, but their eventual victory was against the mighty Stalinist "organised army".


Above some of you support postponing the revolution so people would support the burgeoise democracy. But in the Russian example the same people slander their enemies for doing the same thing...

your a bunch of flip flopping hacks who will change your theiry to meet the reality of what your party did. Flag wavers in the defence of power are not revolutionaries, they are burocrats!

The facists probably would have won no matter what people in Spain did. They were better trained, better armed and had the support of the Axis, which went on to nearly beat the rest f the world combined. The fact is that the Stalinists actively attacked, disarmed and generally workerd to derail the work of active Spanish revolutionaries ( lets not forget that the Spanish communist party had only 20,000 members at the begining of 1936, and without real popular support can be seen as nothing less than a soviet puppet organisation).

The anarchists lacked a cohearant revolutionary organisation. The CNT was what it should have been, a mass organisation for uniting thecombatative elements of the working class into a largely democratic fighting organisation and building a culture of popular activity, education and a secular counter power to the catholic church which at the time dominated all aspects of life.

Concious anarchists militants should have built, years before, an organisation like what the friends of Durrutti tried to do. Union leadereship will always be unreliable in periods of revolutionary upheaval. Thats a structural problem with large burocracies, they tend to work towards self preservation above all else.

A concious and popular anarchist revolutionary organisation, with a good international support netwrok, and the vision and resolve to carry the mass of revolutionary workers and peasants forward at the crutial moment, would have been the best chance for the spanish toilers. That wasnt the case and like the rest of the 20th century the reactionaries won out in the end. A very sad, but inspiring period in revolutionary history.

The extent of self organisation in both the cities and the countryside shows us a great example of the hopes for a trully communist society. It dose leave much to be desired in the way of revolutionary organisation.

This is the lesson from spain.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier+--> (NewKindOfSoldier)then the fascists would've taken the whole of spain in 1936 already.[/b]
How? Franco himself had limited resources and the fascists were not omnipresent. The Nationalist drive in 1936 threw the Republicans out of the south of Spain as they moved north towards Madrid. At the time this was still an uprising, not a civil war, and Madrid was considered key to the country.

What Franco failed to appreciate was that the very weakness of militias in the countryside lent themselves to the defence of urban centres. Franco’s obsession with the city compelled him to spend 3-4 months trying futilely to take the city. In late 1936 and early 1937, ie when Madrid was still very much threatened, the militias were amalgamated into the Popular Army.

So to summarise, and simplify, in the drive to Madrid the militias were soundly defeated in the countryside. When the Nationalists did reach Madrid they were unable to break the defence of the city. After wasting months in Madrid Franco had effectively squandered much of the Nationalist momentum and allowed the Republicans to reorganise into the far more successful Popular Army.


rebelworker
Yes they did you dumbass, but their eventual victory was against the mighty Stalinist "organised army".
Because the militias had done so well previously :rolleyes: I’m not going to argue with another ignorant anarchist on this. Try reading the history of the rolling back of the militias in July-October 1936.

Ironically you go on to criticise the anarchists for not being "organised" enough. I think someone’s a closet Stalinist :lol:

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Matthijs+Oct 3 2006, 02:25 PM--> (Matthijs @ Oct 3 2006, 02:25 PM)
Invader [email protected] 29 2006, 11:13 AM
'Liberated'? Imperialistically annexed and brought to heel, more like.
Fighting back against fascist countries that attacked you is imperialism these days? Okay, you said it, not me. As for the rest of your post... no, just no. :lol: Although it must be said that you are closer to fascism, considering that you think that occupying the aggressive Nazi Germany, Arrow Cross Hungary, Antonescu's Hungary, the Kingdom of Bulgaria and fascist Slovakia was a bad thing to do. [/b]
Don't even try and play this game with me, mate.


Fighting back against fascist countries that attacked you is imperialism these days?

No, but using that as an excuse to vastly extend your borders is.


As for the rest of your post... no, just no. :lol: Although it must be said that you are closer to fascism, considering that you think that occupying the aggressive Nazi Germany, Arrow Cross Hungary, Antonescu's Hungary, the Kingdom of Bulgaria and fascist Slovakia was a bad thing to do.

Whatever, mate. You, just like your counter revolutionary idols, are a blot on the radical left and the sooner you are evicted from our numbers the better the reputaion of the left will be. Take your state-capitalist cult of the individual bullshit to someone dumb enough to buy it.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 4 2006, 02:00 PM
No, but using that as an excuse to vastly extend your borders is.
O RLY?! And what "extensions" would those be? With the exception of Kaliningrad, all the land that the USSR took back already belonged to them before Barbarossa.


Whatever, mate. You, just like your counter revolutionary idols, are a blot on the radical left and the sooner you are evicted from our numbers the better the reputaion of the left will be. Take your state-capitalist cult of the individual bullshit to someone dumb enough to buy it.
Noted. But I'm not your mate. Quit coming on to me. But sure, we will continue taking it to people "dumb enough to buy it", as we have always done; I see that your opinion of the working class is not very high.

[Enragé]

How? Franco himself had limited resources and the fascists were not omnipresent. The Nationalist drive in 1936 threw the Republicans out of the south of Spain as they moved north towards Madrid. At the time this was still an uprising, not a civil war, and Madrid was considered key to the country.


The coup was expected to take over spain in a matter of days, weeks at the most.

And who do you think defended madrid?
and the rest of spain whilst the popular army was trained behind the lines?


I am NOT against a well trained, well organised group of fighting (wo)men (which, coincidentally, in the popular army was MEN only, the sexist bastards), however, what the popular army was was an army along bourgeois lines.
An effective force could most definitely have been forged out of the inexperienced, untrained militias, while still retaining the militia structure.


When the Nationalists did reach Madrid they were unable to break the defence of the city.

the defence of the city
BY the militias
see my point?

Yes, the enemy troops were of higher caliber
but that usually is the case when your forces comprise out of a group of untrained individuals.
Solution?
Train them!

[ComradeOm]

That's it. I am unable to deal with your simple refusal to read my posts. If you cannot grasp the simple differences between "open countryside" and "urban centres" then there's nothing more I can do.

I've pointed out the historical realities here but you are so intent on clinging to your ideal version of history that my words, and time, have been wasted. More fool am I for persevering.

[rebelworker]

Ok so the militias faired poorly in open ground but were able to defend urban centers (much like the current war in Iraq).

Well The facists had overwealming firepower, like tanks, artillery and the fucking german Luftwaffen who could bomb troops out in the open.

Again this is about equipment not will or discipline.

[ComradeOm]

At no point have I denied the impact of German arms. In particular the Condor Legion, what Franco called his “flying artillery” had a major impact on the later stages of the war. However its impossible to subscribe every Republican defeat, certainly not those prior to October 1937, to foreign aid to the Nationalists.

I’d like to be able to say that the militias performed well. That would be much more comforting for future revolutions. But Spain 1936 is concrete proof that the usefulness of militias is limited to urban environments. (I’d recommend Connolly’s work on street fighting and his analysis of the 1905 Moscow Rising on irregular units in cities.) This is an inescapable reading of the reality of Spain – when confronted by regular military units in open countryside the militias lost.

I’d also like to stress that I’m not advocating the Popular Army as a “fix-it” route. The Popular Army enjoyed considerable success only when compared to the militias – it was capable of holding land and staging offensives. Compared to the Nationalists the organised army proved haplessly incompetent.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 11:10 AM
That's it. I am unable to deal with your simple refusal to read my posts. If you cannot grasp the simple differences between "open countryside" and "urban centres" then there's nothing more I can do.

I've pointed out the historical realities here but you are so intent on clinging to your ideal version of history that my words, and time, have been wasted. More fool am I for persevering.
omfg i KNOW that they'd get slaughtered without good strategic positions (aka "in the open")

thats because they ARENT TRAINED

not because of the militia-structure

its because they KNOW the streets, the city they are defending, and that material advantage doesnt matter (all that much) in the cities that they won there

its because they dont know how to fight in the countryside, in the open, that the material advantage did matter a fuckin lot, that they lost there

solution?
TRAIN THEM