[Red_Army]

I am reading a book on the Spanish Civil War and am amazed at the clash of ideologies that ocurred there. Does anyone else know anything about the Spanish Civil War or have any book recommendations?

[Fernando]

What book are you reading?

There are (literally) thousands of books about SCW. All of them are biased. If you are very interested you would have to read a good portion on them.

If not, I recommend you to center in one particular subject (political struggle, warfare, war crimes, international involvment...).

General books: Ricardo de la Cierva (rightist), Stanley Payne, Tuñón de Lara (leftist),...

[Red_Army]

The book I'm reading is The Spanish Civil War by: Hugh Thomas, he seems to be sympathetic to the fascists if anyone. I want to get Homage to Catalonia.

[Sid]

Paul Preston is an excellent historian to read on the SCW, his biography of Franco is brilliant. Preston is an English historian who belongs to the PSOE (Spanish Socialists) but has also been honoured by King Juan Carlos for services to Spanish Culture, so well respected.

[jaakko]

Not a book but an article. Anyway, thought you might be interested:

http://www.mltranslations.org/Spain/civilwar.htm

http://www.mltranslations.org/Spain/LandFreedom.htm

Yes, it's from MList perspective, but to provide that is the reason I'm here for.

[Red_Army]

Thank you, this information will help me understand the war much better!

[Fernando]

Hugh Thomas is (if something) pro-leftist.

About the first article quoted by J.: It is a bit hard to me to discuss the Marxist language, so I am not going to deny the political 'facts' he describes.

I only want to say the militar analysis is simply naive.

[jaakko]

I only want to say the militar analysis is simply naive.

I don't know much about the war, except for basics of its social and political background and the political/class composition of the forces involved. It's apparent that the analysis is a simplified summary, but I don't necessarily see it as "naive".

[Red_Army]

I think his military analysis is pretty good. He does not seem to be sympathetic of either side to me. He talks about the atrocities and virtues of both sides but he seems to describe the greatness of fascists more than he does of communists. I don't think he means to be sympathetic to the fascists per se, but I think he is trying to be moderate by actually talking about the honorable fascists.

[Fernando]

Sorry if you think that 'naive' is excessive. My apologies.

But every time republicans tried to use guerrilla tactics they were badly defeated, since they performed non-coordinated attacks. Some anarchist units (such as 'El Campesinos's) were pretty good, but as a whole they had a negative impact. Communists were far better drilled and organised.

Moreover, on the offensive they were very bad (except at the end of the war). On the deffensive they were good and sometimes brilliant (Madrid, as an example).

By the way, I consider inaccurate to call the sides 'communists' and 'fascists'. They called themselves 'republicanos' (=republicans) and 'nacionales' (='nationals').

Sometimes the 'republicanos' called themselves 'rojos' (=reds) but anarchists of FAI or Azaña would be consider 'communist' as an insult.

There were fascists in the national side but, as a whole, they never claimed to be a fascist movement, even when receiving help from Germany and Italy. They were simply extreme conservative people.

I apologise again for my comment.

[Red_Army]

First of all El Campesino was a communist, his name, the peasant was supposedly given to him so that peasants would like him by the communists. A better example of an anarchist commander is Durruti although he was not very successful. Some Republicans considered themselves communist and the vast majority of International brigades were communist. Many Nationalists considered themselves fascists, most notably the Falange. I agree with you that the Republican forces were often incompetent but I would say this is more because of internal squabbles and soviet meddling. Although the USSR gave them weapons and war materiel they also tried to purge the Republicans of Trotskyists and Anarchists while fighting a superior armed and better trained enemy. This was fatal for the Republicans.

[Fernando]

You are right, El Campesino was (nominally) a communist, but he was opposed to the stalinists and he was more an anarchist than a communist. It is doubtful, but he claimed to be abandoned by communist forces when he was encircled in Teruel. About his anarchist past:

http://www.fundanin.org/gorkin7.htm (in Spanish, sorry)

Some Republicans considered themselves communist and the vast majority of International brigades were communist.

Right. But the PCE (Spanish Communist Party) has little influence. The dominant party was PSOE (Spanish Socialist Worker Party). I agree that, by current standards, it would be considered a communist party.

Many Nationalists considered themselves fascists, most notably the Falange.

The founder of Falange (José Antonio Primo de Rivera) didn't consider himself as a fascist. Franco was a conservative pragmatical with no ideology. Both of them said his movement had some similarities with Nazis and (notably) Italian Fascists. The same as republicans the war increased more and more the sympathy for fascism and communism, respectively.

As a whole and letting aside nuances, you could consider Falange as a fascist party, at least until 1936. During the war became the only party in nationalist side and many rightist with no ideology joined the party.

I agree with you that the Republican forces were often incompetent but I would say this is more because of internal squabbles and soviet meddling

I disagree. Although Russian influence was negative when speaking of internal quarrels, they were the most organised force in Spain.

When the war began the republicans were notably better in weapons but they were so badly organised that they spoiled this advantage. Only communists enphasized organization and unity (under its lead, of course).

[Red_Army]

I agree with your posts but it seems we use different acronyms, in my book its the PSUC that is the Spanish socialist party, the POUM is the Trotskyite party, the CNT-FAI are the anarchists and whether or not Primo de Rivera says he is a fascist doesn't make him any less of one.

[Fernando]

The PSUC was the fussion in Catalonia of the PCE and PSOE. It was mostly a communist organization. Nowadays is a part of PCE and the PSOE has its own organization in Catalonia (PSC).

You are right: Someone can be a fascist, say it or not. But in 1936 it was no shame to claim to be a fascist, so give some credit to him. Furthermore he was too much a catholic to be a complete fascist. Some members of the direction of the Falange (as an example, Serrano Suñer) were definitely fascists. Of course it depends on the definition of fascist.

[Solidarity]

HOMAGE TO CATALONIA by Orwell

[Red_Army]

Yes Fernando, I'll agree that fascism in Spain was different from other places because of the strong Catholicism that existed there.