July 27, 1936: which side are you on?

[Traitorfish]

(One of the interesting things about threads like this is it encourages a certain degree of self-reflection. Like, Quackers says "Franco is a hero of mine", and I think "WTH who admits that?", but then my upper-brain points out that a lot of people are going to think I'm at least as bonkers for admiring Durruti, and not just right-wingers. And I'm like "Yeah, but I'm right", but upper-brain just says, sure, but they still think your bonkers, and I don't know if I have a ready response to that. So that's something to think about, I guess?)

 

[Oruc]

Neither holds any real appeal.

 

[gangleri2001]

"Nationalists" is the popular and scholarly consensus.

edit: I take the point that "National" is probably more accurate than "Nationalist", because the former suggest a program of "national unity" or suchlike, while the latter suggests independence or state-building- this is presumably the distinction you drawn between Franco and the Catalan or Basque nationalists?- but as I said, "Nationals" is an awkward term in English, and "Nationalists" is already the consensus, so at least for the purposes of this thread, "Nationalists" makes more sense.

The awkwardness is no real excuse here because both national and nationalist had the exact same meaning in English and the Iberian languages at the beginning of the war but for some weird reason the nationals refused to be called nationalsits and preferred to be called nationals. So no, it doesn't matter if it's already consensus to me. I'll crusade until those who called themselves nationalists during that war are called nationalists and those who called themselves nationals are called so for accuracy's sake.

 

[Josu]

(One of the interesting things about threads like this is it encourages a certain degree of self-reflection. Like, Quackers says "Franco is a hero of mine", and I think "WTH who admits that?", but then my upper-brain points out that a lot of people are going to think I'm at least as bonkers for admiring Durruti, and not just right-wingers. And I'm like "Yeah, but I'm right", but upper-brain just says, sure, but they still think your bonkers, and I don't know if I have a ready response to that. So that's something to think about, I guess?)

There is many people who considers Franco a hero.
There is one concrete politician that says that the period of the Francoism was a periodo of extreme placidity. After that he was the politician that received most votes in spain un the last european elections.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I don't know. From my chair, the nationals seem like the more comfortable bet.
And republicans seem like the choice I can be more proud of.
The actual decision would depend on things I can't know right now. That is how the outbreak of such a civil war would actually affect me. How I would actually feel. What actual people I knew from both sides.
Say I am befriended to some very likable and idealistic Anarchists. I may have no choice to join the Republicans.
Say I don't know any Republicans, but some likable Nationals and say that the war scares me crapless.... ?

I have to add that in a novel I read a part took place in this very civil war and the Republicans were depicted in a very unfavorable light regarding the conditions of their soldiers - due to Soviet influence. Allegedly, the Soviets did the same Russians just kinda did with their soldiers - not give a crap about their lives or opinions. And they were also bad commanders. All while being worse organized and equipped than the Nationals. Don't know how truthful that is, but it makes me think twice about following my political feelings.

"Nationalists" is the popular and scholarly consensus.

Scholars and ordinary people are all used to saying "Nationalists"
I suspect we said the same thing, just that may take lacks the sub-text pretense of justification.

Oh and a bad joke in the end: I would never want to be a "Re-pubican". One puberty seems sufficient.

 

[Agent327]

I think I was quite neutral at that time.

 

[Hojsimpson]

"Nationalists" is the popular and scholarly consensus.

Its nationals. NA-TION-ALS!

Call them the rebels or insurgents or franquists or fascists.

I don't know if it's true but George Orwell said something like "I'm going to Spain to kill fascists cause someone has to do it." Funny statement.
I'd rather try to escape from Spain , I want to live but if I have to choose, republicans. (I'm against everyone)

 

[classical_hero]

Oh and a bad joke in the end: I would never want to be a "Re-pubican". One puberty seems sufficient.

I never noticed that, so the choice is even clearer.

 

[civver_764]

(One of the interesting things about threads like this is it encourages a certain degree of self-reflection. Like, Quackers says "Franco is a hero of mine", and I think "WTH who admits that?", but then my upper-brain points out that a lot of people are going to think I'm at least as bonkers for admiring Durruti, and not just right-wingers. And I'm like "Yeah, but I'm right", but upper-brain just says, sure, but they still think your bonkers, and I don't know if I have a ready response to that. So that's something to think about, I guess?)

Hahaha nice

 

[ParkCungHee]

I don't know how anyone could say that they are on the side of the right-wing fascist dictator here. But either way I'm on the other side.

I find it a little weird that the power struggle of the Republican side is always emphasized, and support for it can always be qualified and specific, but the Nationalists always get flattened into just Franco (and still Fascism at the same time. Funny how that works).

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Well the nationals are a beat more leader-orientated. I mean, fascism is very much about the leader, right?

 

[ParkCungHee]

The Fascists hated Franco, and vice versa.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Hm okay, seems fairly complex. I'll just shut my mouth then.

 

[Oruc]

Well the nationals are a beat more leader-orientated. I mean, fascism is very much about the leader, right?

The fascist leader was executed quite early on I think.

 

[gangleri2001]

Hm okay, seems fairly complex. I'll just shut my mouth then.

The Republican army was a mishmash of groups (communists of all sorts, anarchists of all sorts, Catalan nationalists, Basque nationalists, liberals, democrats, etc.) and so was the National side (falangists, pro-italian fascists, pro-german fascists, carlists, traditionalists, etc.).

One anecdote that shows this pretty clearly is that Franco in 1974 said to one of his ministers "You falangists are way to cocky" to which his minister answered that he didn't want to discuss differences between the falangists and him again. Franco didn't even think of himself as a falangist and falangists didn't even consider him his leader even after almost 40 years.

Only uneducated foreigners think of the SCW as the commies/anarchists vs. fascists thing.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

This uneducated foreigner has at least enough manners to not follow a self-degradation with an insult.

 

[SouthernKing]

Most likely: Republicans, specifically CNT-FAI or some affiliated group.

 

[Traitorfish]

I find it a little weird that the power struggle of the Republican side is always emphasized, and support for it can always be qualified and specific, but the Nationalists always get flattened into just Franco (and still Fascism at the same time. Funny how that works).

It's a bit of a puzzle to me why we didn't see more internal conflict on the Nationalist side, given that their divisions seemed to have much deeper historical roots than among the Republicans. In 1936, Stalinists and Trots were still at the "it's complicated" stage of their divorce, but Carlists and Alfonists had been trying to kill each other for more than a century.

 

[gangleri2001]

This uneducated foreigner has at least enough manners to not follow a self-degradation with an insult.

I wasn't insulting you at all.

 

[Josu]

I have to add that in a novel I read a part took place in this very civil war and the Republicans were depicted in a very unfavorable light regarding the conditions of their soldiers - due to Soviet influence. Allegedly, the Soviets did the same Russians just kinda did with their soldiers - not give a crap about their lives or opinions. And they were also bad commanders. All while being worse organized and equipped than the Nationals. Don't know how truthful that is, but it makes me think twice about following my political feelings.

It's a bit of a puzzle to me why we didn't see more internal conflict on the Nationalist side, given that their divisions seemed to have much deeper historical roots than among the Republicans. In 1936, Stalinists and Trots were still at the "it's complicated" stage of their divorce, but Carlists and Alfonists had been trying to kill each other for more than a century.

I don't know how far this internal conflicts due to soviet influence is true. In any case I read somewhere that Soviets made some ideoligal purges in the aragonese front. Even more, some military tactics where discarded just because they where used by Trots. Anyone that proposes these tactics was judged and executed. I think that the Soviets controlling this stuff was the natural consequence of no other countries officaly supporting the republicans. Something similiar happened in the Franco's side as some attacks where commanded by German envoys.

On the other hand, although there were diferences inside the Fascists and the Falange I think that they had a common project based on totalitarism, while the republicans did not have this common project. There where some thousands of parsecs between what for example Basque Nationalists wanted and what FAI wanted.