|
Pinback posted:Hahaha of all the things you're going to go "both sides are bad" on the Spanish Civil War? Goons.txt I'm reading up more on it now, and it's certainly more complex than I thought, but yes, basically. Both sides summarily massacred large numbers of civilians. Also, Franco protected the Jews and intentionally set his demands so high he'd frustrate Hitler. Spain also became a proper democracy again after some heavy pressure in the cold war. Could easily have been worse if Spain had gone communist, though I doubt it would have lasted. Portugal took decades to recover from the economic malaise that set in after the peaceful Carnation revolution, and Angola and Mozambique are still a mess. It was all thanks to the Soviet Union that kept trying to foment instability (by going after/subverting the junior officers) after the SU and USA both failed at direct military support in the overseas provinces. Anyway... Wikipedia posted:Previously, Payne had suggested that, "The toll taken by the respective terrors may never be known exactly. The left slaughtered more in the first months, but the Nationalist repression probably reached its height only after the war had ended, when punishment was exacted and vengeance wreaked on the vanquished left. The White Terror may have slain 50,000, perhaps fewer, during the war. The Franco government now gives the names of 61,000 victims of the Red Terror, but this is not subject to objective verification. The number of victims of the Nationalist repression, during and after the war, was undoubtedly greater than that".[49] In Checas de Madrid (ISBN 84-9793-168-8), journalist and historian César Vidal comes to a nationwide total of 110,965 victims of Republican repression; 11,705 people being killed in Madrid alone.[50] Historian Santos Juliá, in the work Víctimas de la guerra civil provides approximate figures: about 50,000 victims of the Republican repression; about 100,000 victims of the Francoist repression during the war with some 40,000 after the war.[51] The White Terror was no doubt greater, but it came with greater oppertunity. What we can ascertain was that the Reds were worse during the war, but the Whites kept taking vengeance after winning. History seems to show Reds tend more towards reeducation camps after victory, but I can easily see further massacres. A was a chaotic and undisciplined revolution. If you think slaughtering your way through Spain is the way to start a revolution then I don't have anything more to say. RA Rx fucked around with this message at 09:13 on May 6, 2017 |
#
?
May 6, 2017 09:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:51 |
|
|
RA Rx posted:Spain also became a proper democracy again after some heavy pressure in the cold war. You realize that only happened once Franco died in the 70s, right? Drone fucked around with this message at 09:11 on May 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 09:09
|
|
|
RA Rx posted:Franco (who I would consider to have been mostly in the Catholic faction) legit protected Jews Franco apologism, now I've seen it all
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 09:13
|
|
|
Drone posted:You realize that only happened once Franco died in the 70s, right? Yes. But you also have to judge a regime by how they prepare and handle succession. dylguy90 posted:Franco apologism, now I've seen it all He was a tyrant, but it's a matter of fact that he Seems like the record is mixed, some protection, some harassment. Anyway, I take the point he was a bad guy in more ways than I realized, but the Republicans slaughtered tens of thousands of people, more than the Whites during the war. And we'll never know what kind of government they would've set up, or if they would've taken advantage of their victory to commit furher atrocities as the Whites did, but chances are the government would've been communist and repressive. But anyway, sorry for the derail, we should get back to topic. RA Rx fucked around with this message at 09:27 on May 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 09:14
|
|
|
To get back closer to WW2:HannibalBarca posted:Isn't it even better, they joined the Axis AFTER Germany made them give up Transylvania and Dobrudja? The government crumpled after Germany gave away their land, and then the Fascist Party wanted to join their block, no questions asked. Seems a bit desperate. RA Rx fucked around with this message at 15:49 on May 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 09:30
|
|
|
RA Rx posted:Yes. But you also have to judge a regime by how they prepare and handle succession. By naming his successor, a royal, who had for years had been secretly planning to hold a constitutional referendum as soon as Franco kicked the bucket? Franco had absolutely no desire for Juan Carlos to reinstitute a democratic system in Spain -- in fact he chose him as his successor precisely because he felt Juan Carlos would maintain his ultranationalist style of authoritarian government. Drone fucked around with this message at 09:34 on May 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 09:31
|
|
|
Drone posted:By naming his successor, a royal, who had for years had been secretly planning to hold a constitutional referendum as soon as Franco kicked the bucket? Point taken, and that's mad props for Juan Carlos. Perhaps I'm biased owing to my Norwegian citizenship, but I'm glad the monarchy survived in Spain. In countries where it's mostly a ceremonial position it seems to have a mildly moderating influence. RA Rx fucked around with this message at 09:41 on May 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 09:39
|
|
|
RA Rx posted:Yes. But you also have to judge a regime by how they prepare and handle succession. This is incorrect. First of all, there was a qualitative difference in the form of terror and mass killing used by the two sides, in that Republican mass violence was committed by low-level soldiers while their leaders tried to restrain them and refused to condone it, while Nationalist mass violence was systematically planned and orchestrated from the top level as a war of annihilation, encouraging and institutionalizing mass violence as a way to both win the war and lay the foundations for a postwar fascist dictatorship. You're also ignoring the history of class antagonism and violence, including things like conservative Spanish intellectuals visiting Dachau and saying "yep looks good this is what we should do to the Communists and Jews in Spain too", leading up to the coup of 1936. Second, your numbers are wrong. Best estimates have the Republicans killing 49,272 people, and this is fairly well documented since Franco was very interested in researching and publicizing the crimes of his enemies. The current best exact figure (or at least best from a few years ago) for Nationalist violence is 130,199 dead but that's likely still an underestimate since archival records were destroyed, records of summary trials and executions were spotty at best, and research on the subject is still obstructed to this day. The size of this discrepancy, and the weakness of the argument that rebel violence was just in response to government violence, is especially highlighted by the different casualty figures for regions where figures of the dead are known with relative precision: for example, Republicans killed 447 people in Seville; Nationalists killed 12,507. Even besides figures of the dead, there are also issues of systemic violence that were worse on the Nationalist than the Republican side. Repression of women, for example. Nationalist soldiers regularly murdered, tortured, and raped women in Republican areas as punishment for embracing the Popular Front's policies of gender equality and women's liberation. This gendered violence affected thousands upon thousands of Spanish women. On the other hand, there was Francoist propaganda about anarchists raping nuns, but when we actually examine the evidence: Paul Preston posted:“In contrast, despite frequent assumptions that the raping of nuns was common in Republican Spain, there was relatively little equivalent abuse of women there. That is not to say that it did not take place. The sexual molestation of around one dozen nuns and the deaths of 296, just over 1.3 per cent of the female clergy, is shocking but of a notably lower order of magnitude than the fate of women in the rebel zone. That is not entirely surprising given that respect for women was built into the Republic's reforming programme” Seriously, everything you're saying is based on Franco's propaganda and does not match up with recent works of scholarly history. Since you seem like this is something you just don't know a lot about, rather than intentionally trying to repeat fascist talking points about how bad their enemies were, I recommend you pick up Paul Preston's book The Spanish Holocaust because it's a very well done and thorough historical account of both sides' atrocities and mass violence that very effectively unpicks Franco's lingering propaganda about both sides. Preston himself is a reputable historian of the Spanish Civil War from the London School of Economics.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
RA Rx, you have a really poor understanding of the causes of the Spanish Civil war. The Beevor book on it is a decent enough overview and a good read. As has already been said, it's pretty well documented that the Nationalists killed far more civilians than the Republicans during the war. Franco was a brutal dictator; just because he wasn't Hitler or Stalin doesn't mean he was a Good And Positive Influence On Spain And Europe. The world would have been better off if he had eaten a bullet in the Rif wars. If ETA had not assassinated Luis Carerro Blanco, there's a good chance that Spain would not have liberalized as quickly. His replacement as PM immediately relaxed restrictions on free associations and promoted a politically liberal agenda, not just an economically liberal one.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 13:47
|
|
|
Thanks for the info. I'm glad to be proven wrong, as its more natural for me to root for the moderate Republicans, now that I know their worst allies were better than the fascists/monarchists/burgoise. This'll make for a lot of good reading. 
RA Rx fucked around with this message at 15:47 on May 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
RA Rx posted:Thanks for the info. Lol moderate republicans Where did you go to school, Horseshoe University
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
   One of our submarines does something for once! Hooray!   One of their subs does something. Boo!   Down you go!   No sign of the enemy Liberators today! That's a good thing! No kills or losses at sea though!
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
SCWchat: Going to give a shoutout to Helen Graham's The Spanish Republic at War 1936-1939. As with most scholarly publications, it has its problems (namely a bias towards the PCE/Stalin and an overemphasis on the fact that only France/Britain actually stuck to the neutrality treaties), but it's a solid and depressing review of the Civil War. It is also in full agreement with vyelkin's post, for what it's worth. The Spanish Republicans were crippled by a few things, among them the fact that academic republicans (like Manuel Azana) were deeply skeptical of mass politics and mass mobilization; the central government's hesitance towards arming the unions in the mistaken belief that the coup wasn't that big a deal is evidence of this. The Madrid/Valencia governments were also hamstrung by a desperate need to balance between maintaining legitimacy with both the more leftist/anarchist militias and provinces (read: Catalunya) to secure military and political cohesion and with the European democracies in an attempt to secure funding and arms that were never really going to show up -- the British in particular were more than happy to liaise with Franco (they reached out to him) to deny the Republicans access to the (free) port of Tangier, for example. What I would argue was the other principal hindrance for the Republicans was the fact that the nature of the fracture in their alliance was a question of centralism. For example: the army and the militas had a mutual disrespect for each other -- the militias were seen as politically and militarily unreliable and inefficient by the army, and the army was operating under deep suspicion of Francoist sympathies (understandably) from the militias. The unintegrated armed forces worked during the opening stages of the conflict when you had individual garrisons/Civil Guard regiments sparring off with individual unions in the major urban centers and you needed flexibility and manpower more than anything, but once Franco shipped over his colonial forces the ongoing question of whether CNT/etc. forces would accept central or army leadership was doing nothing to help the Republican war effort. Overall the civil war was a clusterfuck and the Republican effort was kind of shot from the beginning, but only one side was unabashedly telling reporters that they massacred civilians (it was the Fascists).
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
6 May 1943 Italian escort destroyer Tifone, crippled by air attack off Tunis and scuttled to avoid capture as the city fell.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Two of my grandparents fled from the Spanish Civil War. My grandfather was actually living in the city where the coup started. The night before, he was out riding with some friends when they came across soldiers at a checkpoint that hadn't been there before. Grandad and friends were taken out and lined up in a field. One of his friends knew one of the soldiers, and they were let go. The days after that were spent hiding in a basement while the city was fought over. He said they sent out children to scrounge for food, because the snipers would shoot anybody else. Eventually he told his brother, "I'm going crazy trapped in here, I have to go out for a walk." His brother told him he'd get killed, but Grandad said "No, it's quiet, I'll be fine." He leaves the basement and walks to a park, sits down on a bench. He only sees one other person the entire time, a guy who also sits on the bench. A machine gun fires a burst at them. Both start to run. The machine gun fires a second time, and the other guy goes down. Grandad reaches cover. And that's how close I came to not being born.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
tunapirate posted:
No doubt the Nationalists were more prone to inflict massacres, and prouder of it, and I agree with your overall point, but the Atadell brigade was praised in the Republican press.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:No doubt the Nationalists were more prone to inflict massacres, and prouder of it, and I agree with your overall point, but the Atadell brigade was praised in the Republican press. Canada had the Mackenzie-Papineau brigade (Mac-Paps) and after the cause was lost they were pretty much poo poo on.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
My grandfather was Franco.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
tatankatonk posted:My grandfather was Franco. 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:Canada had the Mackenzie-Papineau brigade (Mac-Paps) and after the cause was lost they were pretty much poo poo on. That was true for a lot of the International Brigades. US members were generally considered potential Communists and subversives, and generally denied commissions and promotions in the Army after the US got into WWII, and, in a lot of cases, blacklisted after the war. The Polish volunteers lost their citizenship. A lot of them went on to serve in Communist partisan groups in Poland during the German occupation. The Irish volunteers tended to get blacklisted when they got back home. And, of course, the German and Italian volunteers had nowhere to go, and wound up in France, interned by the French government, for the most part, until the German occupation, where a lot of them were put in concentration camps or just shot. The same thing generally happened to French volunteers. Generally, it wasn't a fun time being a former member of the International Brigades after the war was over.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
"Premature Anti-Fascist" was the term used for members of the US volunteers, if I recall. When they got home and got discriminated against.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:The shipyard is a bit overloaded. The Oi's refit time should drop once the carriers are done with.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
I was curious about Orwell's relative success after Spain and looked it up. Apparently he was effectively blacklisted as well, at least when he first returned.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:"Premature Anti-Fascist" was the term used for members of the US volunteers, if I recall. When they got home and got discriminated against. The term was used a lot sardonically by American volunteers, but less by government officials. Harvey Klehr, who's a professor at Emory who's written books on American communism and Soviet espionage in the US, claims that he never found any government documents using it, and that the term was used later. This isn't entirely true, as far as I can tell, because I've seen some speeches by Congressman Coffee of Washington, where he uses the term (or at least claims that the term was being used as a slur) from 1945-46. Klehr's overarching point was that this was a later term of justification by members of the Brigades to frame their fighting as being motivated by opposition to fascism, instead of loyalty to communism, and that, after the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact until the invasion of the Soviet Union, former brigade members tended to be neutralist/non-interventionalist. This is, of course, an oversimplification. Foreigners joined the Republican forces for a whole bunch of reasons, and while some of the volunteers held to the CPUSA line of American non-intervention while the Germans and Soviets were at peace, others, like Milton Wolff, were strong interventionalists (Wolff went to Britain in 1940 and joined the SOE).
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:HMS Valiant, HMS Queen Elizabeth, HMS York. Errr.... the Valiant wasn't sunk. Damaged by limpet mines and sent to drydock, but she lived to be scrapped in 1948.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 09:40
|
|
|
Serpentis posted:Errr.... the Valiant wasn't sunk. Damaged by limpet mines and sent to drydock, but she lived to be scrapped in 1948. The Queen Elizabeth wasn't sank either. Heavily damaged but was repaired and back in action by 43.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
RA Rx posted:I'm reading up more on it now, and it's certainly more complex than I thought, but yes, basically. Both sides summarily massacred large numbers of civilians. I think there is a big difference between random conservatives getting shot because of local grudges that happened on the Republican side and the "Anyone who has held a rifle and a hundred more for good measure are going to get shot" that happened under Franco. After the war 20.000 people were shot accused of being freemasons, and when the archives were opened in 1975 it turned out spain had about 3000 of those. A minister during Franco did save a lot of jews by just signing that all of them were sephardic, but he did that against official wishes while Spanish state was busy publishing [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion]this book[/url.] And Paul Preston concludes in his book about the Spanish civil war that Franco was very eager to enter the war.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
Wow that sure was a lot of local grudges, just a few bad apples killing 50,000 people I guess
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
Why is there an earnest debate about the spanish civil war in this lp thread about the war in the pacific?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
   Now this is a deep range strike!  We trade planes over Luganville.  This is just embarrassing.  My god, their using my tactics!  That's the first base to change hands in months! 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Why is there an earnest debate about the spanish civil war in this lp thread about the war in the pacific? The conversation went from discussing Italian military incompetence, to discussing how Francoist Soain was smart for not throwing in with the Axis, to warcrimeschat 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Why is there an earnest debate about the spanish civil war in this lp thread about the war in the pacific? It's either that or debating the effectiveness of the Tiger tank.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:It's either that or debating the effectiveness of the
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
I mean, if the Japanese had only sent Hitler more katana-grade thousand folded steel the Tiger would have been impenetrable.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
dylguy90 posted:I mean, if the Japanese had only sent Hitler more katana-grade thousand folded steel the Tiger would have been impenetrable. I finally understand giant robot swords
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
whitewhale posted:The Queen Elizabeth wasn't sank either. Heavily damaged but was repaired and back in action by 43. both those ships were sunk at anchor and raised, I'd count Littorio, Nevada, Caio Duilio exactly the same way
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-I discuss 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
The final production version would remove all the interior guns, ammo, seats, etc., strap an armed 500lb bomb on the end of the unfinished 105mm barrel, and remove the bottom of the tank entirely. The gas(lol what gas)-powered engine is replaced by 50 dudes crammed in there with their feet sticking out the bottom who would ram into Shermans by running the tank forwards Flintstone-style. Wait, sorry, 51 guys - one guy carries bongos for the "wacky music while they run in place" start up.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
That would surely solve their oil shortage.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:51 |
|
|
a Ferdinand and a T-35 had a baby?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 04:55
|
|
