Talk:Spanish Civil War

July 1936 military uprising in Seville sub-article

I recently left the following note on the talk page of the “July 1936 military uprising in Seville” article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_1936_military_uprising_in_Seville

Why "low importance?"

"Why is this article rated of “low importance”? Aside from being thorough and well-written (I made no contribution), as I pointed out years ago on the main Spanish Civil War article, the rebels taking Seville was of critical importance without which the coup might well have failed. Without Seville and its nearby air force base, Franco would have not been able to get his Moroccan army to the mainland as the sea routes were defended by elements of the Spanish Republican Navy which did not join the coup. Originally, the main article stated that at the outset of the coup attempt the rebels seized no major cities (Seville was within the five largest cities in Spain) and I corrected this by writing “with the critical exception of Seville...”

I find this article to be superb, both well written and researched and replete with relevant images. (As stated in my note above, I made no contribution to the article so I’m not patting myself on the back!) The rebels taking Seville was absolutely critical to their ultimate success in the civil war, yet this article is rated as of “low importance” and B-. The first is absurd and the latter unworthy of the effort by editors, to all of whom I would like to express my appreciation for your time and work.

The article gets few views and its talk page virtually none, which is why I am bringing this up here. I’d have to wait until Hades freezes over to expect a response there. Would editors interested in this tragic internecine conflict please consider gathering together to rectify what I consider to be and hope to be an oversight? If any disagree with my assessment of the article, please indicate why. Thanks to all for your consideration.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The war's start date

Hi there. I've been trying to educate myself on this war's history but I have a problem. The dates of the war do not match between articles. Here are a few examples:

• The article here states it began July 18, 1936.
• The Battle of Badajoz, says it began on July 19, 1936.
• The Badajoz massacre says it began on July 17, 1936.

So which article has the right one and what are the rules for dates? That is to say, which article should be the authority of these dates? The Badajoz articles should fall under the article here, right?

I'm so confused! How do we check all articles related to this war for accuracy? MagnoliaSouth talk) 09:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Magnoliasouth Maybe refering to an encyclopedia could help. I'm also at a loss ^^; 112.206.240.221 (talk) 11:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

--

MagnoliaSouth, thanks for flagging this, inconsistencies across the articles are unfortunately sort of Wikipedia’s trademark.

If you go to GoogleBooks and type “the Spanish Civil War began on July 18, 1936” you will get a number of works. If you type “the Spanish Civil War began on July 17, 1936” you will get lots of books as well. You might get also a number of other versions, like “on July 17-18”. However, I have not found any claim as to “July 19, 1936”. Most of these books would not be about the war itself but rather would be somehow related to the war and only some would be written by professional historians.

Encyclopedias are of little help, as they usually (or at least these which I have checked, Britannica and Larousse) point to years only. Well, I found one “Encyclopedia Iberoamericana” online, which claims that the war was fought “entre el 17 de julio de 1936 y el 1 abril de 1939”, but I have no idea what the credibility of this thing is, guess rather not comparable to this of Britannica or Larousse.

I have just checked the monographs on the war which I have on my shelf (pictured), all written by professional Hispanists (well, except Beevor) specializing in recent history (Payne, Casanova, Thomas, Esdaile, Beevor, Preston and Graham).

• In none of them I found a clear and explicit statement as to on which day exactly the war did begin. The narrative they offer might start at various points, e.g. in 1931 (when the Second Republic was established) or even in the 19th century. When already done with background, run-up, conspiracy etc and when they arrive in mid-July 1936, they write about “the coup” which began on July 17 (also “rebellion”, “insurgency”, and similar). Whether these scholars consider July 17 the beginning of the war is anybody’s guess.
• Graham in her “Chronology” section as the very first entry placed “July 17-18: Military rebellion begins in Spanish North Africa and spreads to garrisons in mainland Spain”
• Casanova begins his "Timeline" section with sub-heading "1931", where the first entry is April 12, 1931, then under sub-heading "1936" there are few dates, with the last one "17-20: Military rising in Morocco and the Peninsula", and then.... there is sub-heading "Civil War", with the first entry "20 July: The republican Jose Giral forms a government; the government appeals to France; Franco sends emissaries to Italy and Germany" (Casanova's is the worst scholarly history of the war I have ever read, and the above is just one of the reasons)
• Information on the cover of an older monograph by Gabriel Jackson claims that “The Spanish Civil War was fought from 17 July 1936 to 1 April 1939”, but as I do not have this book on my shelf I can not tell you whether this is a marketing bla-bla-bla or indeed whether Jackson wrote something in the like.

Moreover, while some scholars claim that “the coup” was part of “the civil war”, there are some who sort of suggest that the two are separate things, and that it was only at one point in time when “the coup” got transformed into “the civil war”. When was this point? I do not remember any explicit statement, but segmentation of some works might suggest a range from late July (when supposedly it was clear that the coup failed) to November 1936 (when the rebel attempt to seize Madrid failed). And apart from this, it is also possible to find statments – perhaps intended metaphorically, but I am not sure – that the war began in October 1934 (the Asturias revolution) or at any other earlier date (e.g. in May 1936, as the Yeste incident).

So, where do we go from here?

My humble suggestion would be to opt for July 18. The reason is that for decades, among the Spaniards of both sides it has been July 18 remembered as the breaking point, and its anniversaries were the days to celebrate or to mourn. “18 de julio” functioned as sort of a symbol. As far as I can tell not being a Spaniard and not living in Spain, also now it is July 18, not July 17, when national newspapers (local ones might opt for day when the coup occurred locally, so also the 19.) or TV stations publish anniversary materials.

As per your initial comment, I took the liberty of changing both Badajoz entries to July 18.

And BTW, there is also sort of controversy when the war ended. I have once read an article by Spanish historian, published in scientific review, with the claim that the war ended in 1944, as in 1939 it was merely transformed from a war fought by 2 regular armies into a war between regular troops and guerilla units.

regards, --Hh1718 (talk) 08:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate to represent the Viriatos with the Portuguese flag next to the Condor Legion

FarSouthNavy While Portugal was openly and officially pro-Franco during the Spanish Civil War, it should not be classified as a belligerent country alongside Germany and Italy. Unlike the Condor Legion and the Italian Corpo Truppe Volontarie, which were official military units sent by their respective governments with full state support, the Portuguese involvement was more indirect. The Viriatos, a group of Portuguese volunteers who fought for Franco, were not officially sanctioned or equipped by the Portuguese government. They were motivated by personal and ideological commitments rather than state directives. It is also inappropriate to represent the Viriatos with the Portuguese flag next to the Condor Legion, as the latter was a formal and state-supported military intervention. If we were to include the Portuguese flag for the Nationalists due to the Viriatos, consistency would require the inclusion of flags for various other international volunteer groups on both sides. This would include the German flag for the Republicans because of the Thaelmann Battalion, the American flag for the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, the Italian flag for the Garibaldi Brigade, and the French flag for the Commune de Paris Battalion, etc. Additionally, there were Irish volunteers (the Irish Brigade led by Eoin O'Duffy) and Russian volunteers on Franco's side. These battalions, driven by individual ideological motivations without state sponsorship, fundamentally differ from officially supported military units, and this distinction should be clearly maintained in historical representations. J Pratas (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi JPratas. While you can discuss about the "official" status of the Portuguese volunteers (Viriatos was a generic name indeed), Salazar support to Franco is undeniable as a well-established fact, so the flag of Portugal should remain in the infobox as a key contributor to Nationalist victory, as per sources.

Regarding the volunteers, there is no Portuguese flag representing them in the current version of the article, just like there are neither Italian nor German flags for the CTV or the Condor Legion.

I want to make clear that all the foreing combatants in the Spanish war were volunteers; it's basically true that the so called Viriatos were not Portuguese regular forces, but you can say the same of the Germans and the Italians, since both the CTV and the Condor Legion were ad hoc military groups with no direct involvement of the Wermacht or the Regio Esercito.

On the other hand, sources report that "A Portuguese Military Observation Mission with members drawn from all three branches of the Portuguese military was present in Spain from 1937 onwards, with the dual objectives of protecting the interests of Portuguese foreign volunteers and collating information on the lessons learned during the civil war (...) its air force contingent took part in combat missions.[1]. Therefore, it's pretty valid to claim an official Portuguese intervention on the battlefield, even if minimal. Darius (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

FarSouthNavy Portugal's support for Franco is well-documented and indeed undeniable. However, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy are widely considered belligerents due to their direct and significant military interventions. The Condor Legion, a unit of the German air force (Luftwaffe) detailed by Hermann Göring, was sent to Franco’s Nationalist forces with the stipulation that it remain under German command. Similarly, the Corpo Truppe Volontarie (CTV) was an official military unit from Italy. These forces, equipped and coordinated by their respective governments, involved significant numbers of personnel and extensive military resources, and were integrated into the Nationalist military operations in a way that the Viriatos, Portuguese volunteers, were not. Placing the Portuguese flag alongside Germany and Italy as a belligerent nation is misleading, as there are no reputable sources classifying Portugal as a belligerent. The claims made by Alejandro Quesada are fringe and unsourced. Esteemed works by historians such as Hugh Thomas, Stanley G. Payne, Paul Preston, Antony Beevor, and Burnett Bolloten do not classify Portugal as a belligerent, underscoring the distinction between indirect support and active military intervention.For the integrity of Wikipedia, it is crucial to rely on reputed academic sources and avoid forcing fringe points of view by quoting minor works. Let's ensure our content is based on well-supported, scholarly research to maintain the highest standards of accuracy and reliability.J Pratas (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

JPratas Since Portuguese support to the Nationalist is, as you said, undisputable as per reliable sources, then further discussion about the flag issue is irrelevant, at least if you want to also take out France and Mexico flags from the infobox for the sake of consistency (both countries supported the Republic and volunteers from both countries fought for the Frente Popular). The infobox in its current status also makes clear the the Portuguese volunteers fought on their own.

The Portuguese Military Observation or Mission or Missão Militar Portuguesa de Observação em Espanha (M.M.P.O.E.E.), composed of regular soldiers and on the ground since March 1937, is mentioned in English primarly by historian Christopher Othen and also by Portuguese and Spanish authors like Buades and Ëmilio Herrera Alonso. Alonso details some combat missions flown by Portuguese pilots. It´s also worth to mention that most of the Viriatos were members of the state-sponsored Legiao Portuguesa (see Luis Nuno Rodrigues and Manuel Loff). Darius (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

FarSouthNavyThank you for your response, Darius. I appreciate the sources you have added to this discussion. However, after carefully reviewing these sources, I believe they do not support the claim that the Portuguese flag should be placed as a belligerent in the same way as Germany's and Italy's flag.

Portuguese Support and the Viriatos:

It is undisputed that Salazar supported Franco, but it is important to clarify that the "Viriatos" were not an official military unit. According to Rui Aballe Vieira in "Tomar o Pulso ao Tigre: Missões Militares Portuguesas em Espanha, entre a vigilância e a cooperação (1934 – 1939)," the Viriatos were Portuguese volunteers integrated into various Nationalist units (such as the Spanish Legion, Falange militias, requetés, rebel aviation, or regular army brigades), without forming a specific Portuguese unit. Vieira emphasizes that Salazar and the military leadership did not look favorably upon any direct intervention that would be difficult to distance from in front of the International Non-Intervention Committee. This is fundamentally different from the Condor Legion, which was a formal, state-supported military intervention by Germany.

Portuguese Military Observation Mission (MMPOE):

The MMPOE, created in March 1937, primarily served an observational role rather than engaging in combat. The mission's objectives were to gain knowledge of new weapons and military techniques, ensure a privileged position for Portugal in the new European scenario, and provide assistance to Portuguese combatants.The support provided by the MMPOE was more humanitarian, akin to what an embassy would offer, rather than direct military engagement.

Decree Prohibiting Volunteer Enlistment:

In February 1937, under pressure from the London Committee, the Salazar government published a decree prohibiting the enlistment of volunteers on either side of the conflict. This further reinforces Portugal's official stance of non-intervention.

Comparative Representation in the Infobox:

Placing the Portuguese flag alongside those of Germany and Italy as belligerents is misleading. The Condor Legion and the Italian Corpo Truppe Volontarie (CTV) were official military units sent with full state support, involving significant personnel, resources and military equipment, under the command of German and Italian high rank officials. In contrast, the Portuguese involvement was indirect and did not constitute an official military intervention. If we include the Portuguese flag due to the Viriatos, consistency would require including the flags of other countries with volunteer groups, such as the German flag for the Thaelmann Battalion, the American flag for the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, and the French flag for the Commune de Paris Battalion. Additionally, there were Portuguese militiamen fighting for the Republic, which are not represented with a flag in the infobox. In summary, while Salazar’s support for Franco is undeniable, the nature of Portuguese involvement through the Viriatos and the MMPOE does not equate to the direct military interventions by Germany and Italy. It is important to rely on reputable academic sources and avoid misrepresenting the historical context. Thank you for considering these points.J Pratas (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Ideology of the initial Nationalist uprising

In the background section about the military coup, the revolt was said to have been devoid of ideology, the goal was to put an end to anarchical disorder [sic]. Other than the potential grammatical error there, this claim is immediately contradicted with plans about the politics of a new Spanish government.

If I remember correctly, a semi-pluralist authoritarian government has an ideology. As Mola planned for such a government, and had emerged as the leader of the resistance, it is obvious that the revolt was not devoid of ideology.

I do not intend to say that having an ideology is wrong; what I intend to say is that these two pieces of information conflict. Thus, the revolt should not be said to have had no ideology.

AEagleLionThing (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

AEagleLionThing The statement "the revolt was said to have been devoid of ideology, the goal was to put an end to anarchical disorder" originates from Carlton Hayes, p103. Hayes aimed to convey that the initial motivation of the military coup was to restore order rather than to implement a specific ideological agenda. This perspective explains why various individuals, including intellectuals like Miguel de Unamuno, initially supported the coup, hoping it would end the prevailing anarchy. Even Franco, in his initial manifesto, emphasized the restoration of peace, fraternity, and justice, rather than outlining a specific ideological framework. Franco's manifesto does not present a clear ideology, supporting the view that the initial revolt was not ideologically driven. Although Emilio Mola had plans for a semi-pluralist authoritarian government, according to Stanley Payne, Mola's program was vague and only a rough sketch, and there were disagreements among coupists and his ideological vision was not universally shared among the rebels. Therefore, the statement from Hayes accurately reflects the initial stage of the revolt, where the focus was on restoring order rather than pursuing a specific ideological agenda. Franco himself is often regarded as a military leader without a clear ideological orientation at the outset and whose ideology was always flexible in order to keep himself in power. But I agree that the paragraph needs to be reworded. The sequence is not coherent. J Pratas (talk) 05:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

If it were intended to highlight the main focus of the revolt, then there might be no point in putting such a statement that is contradicted by the surrounding text; the following statement makes that perfectly clear.

One could maybe associate that statement with Hayes, which might allow for it to stay. And if he made it clear that it was to make a point, maybe one could add that? These are just suggestions; I don't have access to the source.

AEagleLionThing (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

AEagleLionThing: to my taste, there is no contradicion between being “devoid of ideology” and being “political”. In various countries from time to time there are governments which pose as “technical”. I think the world record belongs to Belgium, where a caretaker prime minister was running the country for more than a year. In my country there was once a prime minister (leader of a large party) who upon taking office declared that his prority would be to ensure “there is hot water in the tap”.

As to this article, I would leave the pieces in question as they are. Yes, there are serious scholars who claim that the coup was “Fascist”, which perhaps merits some acknowledgement in a footnote. However, the opinion which – at least as I see it – prevails is that there was no “ideology” behind the coup. Yes, it was clearly intended against the radical Left (Anarchists, Communists, Socialists), thought to have been mounting a revolution, but I believe for most scholars this counter-revolutionary profile falls rather short of an “ideology”. Regards, --Hh1718 (talk) 09:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)