The Callous Betrayal Of Anti-franco Forces

[emma_goldman]

The Times
May 24, 2006
The callous betrayal of anti-Franco forces
by Antony Beevor

Newly unearthed reports reveal how the Soviet Union was bent
on destroying its allies in the Spanish Civil War

FOR MANY PEOPLE in many countries, the heroic myth of the
Spanish Republic is closely linked to the International
Brigades. Nobody can doubt the idealism and self-sacrifice
of the volunteers from 52 nations who went in the belief
that they could defeat fascism in Spain, yet recent
discoveries in Russian archives cast a chilling light on the
Comintern organisers who threw away their lives so callously
in futile attacks.

Even before most volunteers reached Spain, Soviet advisers
were planning to destroy their left-wing allies. In
September 1936 General Gorev reported to Moscow: "A struggle
against the anarchists is absolutely inevitable after
victory over the Whites. This struggle will be very severe."
André Marty, the Comintern representative, wrote in October:
"After victory we will get even with them, all the more so
since at that point we will have a strong army." And Pravda
declared openly in December that the "cleaning up of
Trotskyist and anarcho-syndicalist elements will be carried
out with the same energy as in the USSR". The Popular Front
alliance was merely a tactic "for the moment". Stalinists
were not prepared to share power with anybody else.

Although Stalin had said that he wanted "to prevent the
enemies of Spain from seeing her as 'a communist republic'"
”, Comintern representatives sought total control. Spanish
Communists had infiltrated the directorate of personnel in
the Ministry of Defence from the start of the war. By March
1937 party members held 27 out of the 38 key posts, and
sympathisers held several more. A report to Moscow that
month claimed: "The party now has hegemony in the army, and
this hegemony is developing and becoming firmly established
more and more each day."

Marty wrote about the socialist prime minister in a
revealing report to Moscow. Largo Caballero, having been a
Communist sympathiser and hailed by their press as the
Spanish Lenin, had discovered the reality of their tactics.
"Caballero does not want defeat," Marty wrote to Dimitrov,
"but he is afraid of victory . . . Victory means an even
greater strengthening of the position of the Communist
Party. A final military victory over the enemy means for
Caballero and the whole world the political hegemony of the
Communist Party in Spain. This is a natural and indisputable
thing . . . a republican Spain, raised from the ruins of
fascism and led by Communists, a free Spain of a new
republican type, will be a great economic and military
power, carrying out a policy of solidarity and close
connection with the Soviet Union." Comintern bosses
evidently saw the Spanish Republic as a future Soviet
satellite state despite Stalin's desire to hide his involvement.

Non-Communist International Brigaders, believing the slogans
of anti-fascist unity, were dismayed by Communist hatred of
Leftist allies, but party members swallowed the line of the
Moscow show trials that "Troskyist-Fascists" were secret
Gestapo agents. Stalinist paranoia was exported to Spain,
yet Russian historians are starting to believe that the
conspiracy theories manufactured in Spain served to
accelerate the purges in the Soviet Union.

The greatest shock for these "volunteers for freedom", as
the International Brigaders were called, came with the
Soviet style of discipline, selecting men at random and
shooting them through the back of the head. When one
division retreated during the Segovia offensive, General
Walter also ordered "the machine-gunning of those who pull
back, executions on the spot, and the beating of
stragglers". Even the elite Spanish Communist formation, the
11th Division, was not spared. After it collapsed during the
Battle of Brunete, the chief Soviet adviser reported to
Moscow: "Lister's division lost its head and fled. We
managed with great difficulty to bring it back under
control. The toughest repressive measures had to be applied.
About 400 of those fleeing were shot on 24 July."

Soviet reports emphasise the appalling state in which the
International Brigades found themselves after Brunete. They
had suffered 4,300 casualties out of a strength of 13,353.
Nearly 5,000 men were in hospital from disease as well as
wounds. The head of the International Brigade camp at
Albacete reported to Moscow that the performance of the
brigades at Brunete had been affected by "the systematic
work of the fifth column".

Every blunder was attributed to deliberate sabotage. General
Walter, convinced that the International Brigades had been
infiltrated, set up machineguns behind the lines. "The
surrender of Brunete and the flight of many brigades were,
to a significant extent, the result of panic sown by the
'fifth column' that the Fascists had spread around our
forces." The International Brigades even established their
own "concentration camp", called Camp Lukacs. No less than
4,000 men were sent to this punishment camp over the next
three months.

Stalinist paranoia intensified. During the Saragossa
offensive in August, General Walter accused Spanish medical
staff of murdering wounded brigaders in hospital through
"methods of treating the sick that were patently the work of
wreckers". In addition, "a large-scale Trotskyist spy and
terrorist organisation" was suspected in XIV International
Brigade. Walter called the Soviet NKVD in Barcelona to come
to investigate, but "Brigade commander Sanje took it upon
himself to carry out the investigation. He went to work so
ardently and clumsily that the arrested man, a French
lieutenant, quickly died during interrogation, taking with
him the secret of the organisation."

The damage to morale was devastating, yet hardly any
brigaders repeated what they had seen on their return home
for fear of harming the cause of the Republic. Meanwhile,
their Comintern commanders, who revelled in a ruthless
devotion to the Stalinist cause, did not imagine that their
reports to Moscow would ever be revealed, albeit nearly 70
years later.

Antony Beevor is the author of The Battle for Spain: The
Spanish Civil War 1936-1939, published by Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

[Cheung Mo]

What else is new? Stalinists prefer totalitarianism and the creation of a bureaucratic elite to civil libertarianism and true socialism.

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 20 2006, 04:57 PM
What else is new? Stalinists prefer totalitarianism and the creation of a bureaucratic elite to civil libertarianism and true socialism.
Agreed,

I think 'totalitarian' is precisely the right word to use.

It isn't surprising that Stalin's infamous paranoia should get in the way of a 'social revolution'.

Trotskyist-Fascists? What a horrible phrase!

From my reading of the Spanish Civil War, I believe that the socialists and liberals, and even the moderate republicans could have reached agreement over the future governance of a 'republican spain' had victory been theirs, even the extreme socialists could have gone along, as the resultant government would almost certainly have had a socialist majority, and from there they could have developed their position into one of victory, a real 'socialist' victory, and whilst you can obviously argue that the 'anti-fascists' (I use this term so as to include the IB's) wouldn't have even got off the ground without the soviet arms (which is true), the Stalinist undermining of the whole 'anti-fascist' movement, in a vain attempt to achieve his 'totalitarian' victory, ended up making the whole movement implode!!

Instead of backing a socialist victory, after which, political influence could have been used to allow greater movement to the left, leading to a communist state in the long run anyway! The Stalin regime stuck it's big boot in, and handed Franco his victory on a plate.

[Raubleaux]

This forum should change its name to "The Love-In for Professional Anti-communists Forum."


Newly unearthed reports reveal how the Soviet Union was bent
on destroying its allies in the Spanish Civil War

This is riduclous. The Soviet Union supported its allies to the bitter end -- which would have come a hell of a lot sooner had it not been for Soviet aid. The Soviet Union sent thousands of aircraft, tanks, armored cars, artillery pieces and guns to their allies. Soviet sailors braved extremely dangerous waters to deliver these supplies to the Republicans. The Comintern organized thousands of revolutionaries to fight in the international brigades. Soviet pilots risked their lives defending the Republicans from fascist bombers. As Harry Fisher, a Brigadista, recounts in his memoirs:


Not long after we took our poisition on the hill, the fascist planes appeared again. This time they were much higher, so high that the planes looked like dots in the sky. We could see trials of exhaust and could hear the sound of planes in full throttle as a dogfight took place. Soviet Chatos had engaged the fascist planes in combat. We cheered and cheered. This was only one of many times that we watched Soviet planes come to our aid.

Sixty years later, Fisher was reminiscing about another similar event:


. . . particularly of the day in Teruel when a large number of German planes had circled overhead, preparing to bomb us. Suddenly a small group of Russian fighter planes had appeared and scared the German bombers off. We witnessed a dogfight between the Soviet and German fighter planes in the distance, each losing a few aircraft. We were all grateful to the Soviet pilots, many of whom lost their lives while protecting us.

In 1979 Ruth and I were invited to visit the Soviet Union. One of the things we did was to visit the office of the Soviet veterans who had fought in Spain as pilots, tankists, or advisers. A Soviet general, then in his seventies and retired, approached me and asked what fronts I had been at in Spain. After naming a few, I mentioned Teruel. He became very excited and told me that he had flown over Teruel at the time I was there. He put his arms around me in a great bear hug, and kissed me on both cheeks and then on the lips. I told the general that this was the first time in my life I had ever been kissed by a general. He laughed and kissed me again.

The story of the fight against fascism is one of the most inspiring and uplifting stories that communists everywhere should learn about. Unfortunately, reading the anti-communist slanders of Beevor will not teach you a damn thing.


Comintern organisers who threw away their lives so callously
in futile attacks.

Here is a completely unsubstantiated hit-and-run claim by Beevor. This is typical of anti-communist writers. Where is the evidence?


In September 1936 General Gorev reported to Moscow: "A struggle against the anarchists is absolutely inevitable after victory over the Whites. This struggle will be very severe."

Which is obviously true, and completely uncontroversial. Of course there would be a struggle against the anarchists. The Soviets were probably drawing on their experiences from their own revolution, in which anarchists sometimes fought with the Bolsheviks, only to stab them in the back later.


André Marty, the Comintern representative, wrote in October: "After victory we will get even with them, all the more so since at that point we will have a strong army."

I would like to see this document. The statement as quoted is completely ambiguous and out of context. Get even with who? And "get even" in what respect? One cannot assume that the answer to these questions is the answer which Beevor is insinuating (see Grover Furr's review of Ronald Radosh's Spain Betrayed (http://eserver.org/clogic/2003/furr.html), which completely misreads and misquotes Soviet documents to give the reader a misleading or completely false impression of what the documents actually say).


And Pravda declared openly in December that the "cleaning up of Trotskyist and anarcho-syndicalist elements will be carried out with the same energy as in the USSR".

One would hope so! What good would a revolution be if it doesn't do away with counterrevolutionary elements?

Why should the people of Spain allow themselves to be beholden to the whims of a bunch of Trotskyists and anarchists -- two groups who have never won a revolution? If I were a Spanish worker facing down the prospect of fascist oppression, I wouldn't want my fate to be in the hands of anarchists or Trotskyists, who have a 0% chance of successfully defending me, based on history.

The anarchists in Spain were quite simply out of control and undermined the revolution, as anarchists typically do. They engaged in excessive violence against priests, collaborated with the fascists (and played football with them too, apparently), and undermined the Republican cause by trying to take over facilities.


The Popular Front alliance was merely a tactic "for the moment". Stalinists were not prepared to share power with anybody else.

Right -- this is called Marxism. The proletariat does not "share power" with anyone. It is the dictatorship of the proletariat, not the power-sharing arrangement of the proletariat.


Although Stalin had said that he wanted "to prevent the enemies of Spain from seeing her as 'a communist republic'" ”, Comintern representatives sought total control. Spanish Communists had infiltrated the directorate of personnel in
the Ministry of Defence from the start of the war. By March 1937 party members held 27 out of the 38 key posts, and sympathisers held several more. A report to Moscow that month claimed: "The party now has hegemony in the army, and this hegemony is developing and becoming firmly established more and more each day."

"Infiltrated"? This implies some kind of subversion. Evidence? And the notion that Comintern representatives sought "total control" is just a lie.


Marty wrote about the socialist prime minister in a revealing report to Moscow. Largo Caballero, having been a Communist sympathiser and hailed by their press as the Spanish Lenin, had discovered the reality of their tactics." Caballero does not want defeat," Marty wrote to Dimitrov, "but he is afraid of victory . . . Victory means an even greater strengthening of the position of the Communist Party. A final military victory over the enemy means for Caballero and the whole world the political hegemony of the Communist Party in Spain. This is a natural and indisputable thing . . . a republican Spain, raised from the ruins of
fascism and led by Communists, a free Spain of a new republican type, will be a great economic and military power, carrying out a policy of solidarity and close connection with the Soviet Union."

What on earth is wrong with any of the stuff said in this quote? This is a perfect example of another tactics that anti-communists use: quote a completely innocent passage, but preface it with all sorts of dramatic rhetoric about the evil commies. That way the reader assumes beforehand that the communists have the most sinister and evil of motivations, and takes the most damning interpretation possible from the quote.


Comintern bosses evidently saw the Spanish Republic as a future Soviet satellite state despite Stalin's desire to hide his involvement.

How was Stalin "hiding" his involvement by openly giving military aid and moral support to the Republicans?


Non-Communist International Brigaders, believing the slogans
of anti-fascist unity, were dismayed by Communist hatred of
Leftist allies

If anyone wants to understand the opinions of the Brigadistas, read what they had to say for themselves, not Beevor's nonsense. A great many Brigadistas wrote memoirs. Among the best:

Comrades by Harry Fisher
Black Bolshevik by Harry Haywood
Mississippi to Madrid by James Yates

The books by Haywood and Yates are made all the more interesting by the fact that they are both African Americans who faced down fascist style oppression not only in Spain, but at home as well. I believe you will find that their view of the fight they participated in are quite different from Beevor's.


The greatest shock for these "volunteers for freedom", as the International Brigaders were called, came with the Soviet style of discipline, selecting men at random and shooting them through the back of the head.

Show me one shred of evidence for this claim!


Every blunder was attributed to deliberate sabotage.

The notion that there actually were fifth columnists and wreckers seems to be lost on Beevor.

As for the shooting of those who deserted during combat, this is a pretty common military practice.


The damage to morale was devastating, yet hardly any brigaders repeated what they had seen on their return home for fear of harming the cause of the Republic.

Once again, read the memoirs of those who were actually involved.


Meanwhile, their Comintern commanders, who revelled in a ruthless devotion to the Stalinist cause, did not imagine that their reports to Moscow would ever be revealed, albeit nearly 70 years later.

If one actually reads the Soviet documents themselves, rather than the ridiculous commentary that types like Beevor and Radosh give on them, one comes away with a very different impression -- one of admiration for the heroic effort of the brigades, Spanish communists, and the Soviet Union in fighting fascism in Spain.

[Wanted Man]

All lies, the evil Stalinists betrayed us! They wasted millions in resources and lives fighting the fascists, but it was all a plot against us to impose their state-capitalist bureaucracy upon us!!!! :rolleyes: I see the glimmer of tinfoil in this topic...


In September 1936 General Gorev reported to Moscow: "A struggle against the anarchists is absolutely inevitable after victory over the Whites. This struggle will be very severe."
No shit, Sherlock? The anarchists probably felt the same. Hell, they were already doing just that even during the war. Which reminds me, in some other topic here, some anarcho claimed that they could somehow defeat and the liberals, and the conservatives, and the "stalinists", and the fascists, starting with those first three. Apparently he really thought that the anarchists could defeat all other factions of the popular front, effectively tearing the whole country even further apart, and then still being able to destroy the highly organised fascists. It's amazing that some materialists still seem to believe in magick. :lol:

[pcb]

So Stalin helped to push forward the fight against Fascists, for reasons of revolutionary socialism, and the spainish gold that was taken into "protective custody" never to be given back. The setting up of a NKVD unit for the Republic did not bode well for those who did not follow the traits of Stalin. I except that a united fighting force was needed but the needless executions of fellow revolutionaries was WRONG. The IBs were full of people who left everything behind to defend the Republic, not become a statistic for Stalin.
I believe the Anarchists knew that Stalin would see them off if the Republic won , due to the crushing of the anarchist army in the Russian Civil War. So Anarchists played football with Fascists I do remember that Stalin signed a pact with the Nazi Hitler. Counter revolutionaries (Trots and Anarchists) were the dominant before the arrival of the IBs with backing they may have had a chance, but for Stalin,s insistence of killing off all opposition before the bloody war had been won.

[Herman]

I'm sorry to say this, but the USSR helped tremendously the republic, even if it later wanted a socialist state. My great grand father can tell you, if he were alive that is.

[Si Pinto]

This forum should change its name to "The Love-In for Professional Anti-communists Forum."

Why doesn't that response surprise me!!!


If one actually reads the Soviet documents themselves, rather than the ridiculous commentary that types like Beevor and Radosh give on them, one comes away with a very different impression -- one of admiration for the heroic effort of the brigades, Spanish communists, and the Soviet Union in fighting fascism in Spain.

So if someone reads the Soviet documents but doesn't come up with the same evaluation as you, what does that make them?

Let me guess...Anti-Communists...did I guess right?

Obviously, to you anyway, there isn't the slightest possibility that the 'soviet documents' were written with 'defence of the regime's actions' in mind, rather than give a totally unbiased history of the events'.

I mean, I'm sure Stalin wouldn't have objected if his regime's writers actually documented the truth rather than just keep him happy, he was always very level headed about such things wasn't he? :lol:

The fact that you would want to change the name of this forum doesn't surprise me, I agree, it has nothing in common with your own viewpoint, because your viewpoint is 'with all due respect' about as 'revolutionary' as 'Wolfy' Smith's.
---------------

Now back to the point of the thread.

PCB - I agree with you, this was never about Spain becoming a 'communist state' or not, it was about defeating facism. The vast majority of the volunteers went over to defeat facism, pure and simple, from what I've read, most didn't really have a clue what form of government should replace it, they just knew that they didn't want a fascist one (another fascist one).

As I've said, the Soviet Union, which armed the movement, did (to some degree)organise the IB's and Spanish republicans into a reasonably coherent fighting force, but then completly undermined that effort by trying to impose a 'stalinist' regime on a movement that at no time had a communist majority or ever described itself as communist, never mind 'Stalinist'.

Stating that the 'republicans' and 'socialists' and 'anti-fascists' were anti-communist is wrong and is just an attempt by 'stalinists' both then and now, to cover up their own errors. They were non-communists, of course they were, that's why they had names like 'republicans' and 'socialists'. If they did become anti-communist than the 'stalin' regimes handling of them doesn't make that surprising, I don't know many people who would support something that just shot the guy next to you for being a 'non-communist'.

If the Soviet Union can take any credit for the 'organisation' of the anti-fascists and republicans, then they must also take the blame for it's ultimate defeat.

[ComradeOm]

The USSR's support for the Republic was cautious at best. It made a very nice profit out of the "aid" to Spain.

[bombeverything]

:D


One would hope so! What good would a revolution be if it doesn't do away with counterrevolutionary elements?

Why should the people of Spain allow themselves to be beholden to the whims of a bunch of Trotskyists and anarchists -- two groups who have never won a revolution? If I were a Spanish worker facing down the prospect of fascist oppression, I wouldn't want my fate to be in the hands of anarchists or Trotskyists, who have a 0% chance of successfully defending me, based on history.

Who exactly are "the people of Spain" that you are referring to? You are clearly not referring to the working class who were organised along anarchist lines. Given that the anarchists actually fought the fascists, I would think that as a worker in Spain, it would have been beneficial to join in with them. Besides, the working class needs to take economic power themselves, not place it in the hands of someone else.


The anarchists in Spain were quite simply out of control and undermined the revolution, as anarchists typically do. They engaged in excessive violence against priests, collaborated with the fascists (and played football with them too, apparently), and undermined the Republican cause by trying to take over facilities.

Out of control from whom? Clearly not the working class once again. The anarchists were the working class were they not? Given that the church always sided with the bosses, and priests lived in luxury it is hardly surprising that it was hated. How did they collaborate with the fascists? Please enlighten me. Also, how does the working class taking control over their own facilities through collectivization "undermine the revolution"?

All that history shows is that the wellbeing of the working class in Spain was not as important to Stalin as was the need to maintain the rule of the ruling class in Russia at the time. In fact, the Communist Party directed the counter-revolution.

[Herman]

Who exactly are "the people of Spain" that you are referring to? You are clearly not referring to the working class who were organised along anarchist lines. Given that the anarchists actually fought the fascists, I would think that as a worker in Spain, it would have been beneficial to join in with them. Besides, the working class needs to take economic power themselves, not place it in the hands of someone else.

Learn your history. The anarchist movement was only strong in Catalonia, not in ALL of Spain. Most of the working class preferred the more organized and disciplined Communist parties, be it Trotskyist or Stalinist.

[bombeverything]

Anarchism was influential in a number of areas, not just Catalonia. And it was organised. 7 million peasants formed collectives. 3000 workplaces were collectivised. 150 000 joined the militias. Think Barcelona. What I was saying is that anarchists were a significant part of the working class, and as a result was unsure what Raubleaux meant by "the people of Spain".

[FinnMacCool]

The anarchists in Spain were quite simply out of control and undermined the revolution, as anarchists typically do. They engaged in excessive violence against priests, collaborated with the fascists (and played football with them too, apparently), and undermined the Republican cause by trying to take over facilities.
What the fuck? The priests were the ones who were supporting fascists.

Where is your source for anarchists supporting fascists?

Why should anarchists not collectilize their own facilities?

Typical bullshit.