Some inaccuracies/omissions: -Falange was by no means popular or relevant enough before the war. During its entire parliamentary existence the number of seats they got I believe could be counted with one hand. It was during the war, especially after Primo de Rivera's execution at the hands of the Republicans that Franco martyrised and instrumentalised the Falange for his own popularity. -The Communists had actually two camps: the Stalinist and the POUM (who were accused of being trotskyites but they themselves denied this) -The Falange itself also had two camps: the Falange herself (led by Primo de Rivera) and the JONS (national syndicalists led by Ledesma Ramos), they united before the war. Primo would be shot by the Republicans while Ledesma would even after the war continue acting as a dissident Falangist to Franco's "Frankenstein monster" that was the FET de las JONS which was a somewhat forced union between the Carlists (traditionalist monarchists) and the already mixed Falange de las JONS.
No mention of Jan Berzin and the coming of the brutal CCCP execution of all not beholden to the NKVD......remember Hitler and Mussolini 'loaned' (never repaid) arms and personnel to the Nationalists while Stalin demanded and got gold
@@jscm6744 You are right, Ramos was killed by the Republicans, I had them mixed up. Hedilla was the one who took up the mantle of the "old" Falange and would scorn Franco for forcing the merger with the Traditionalists/
A thing, you kept showing the Crown of Towers as a monarchist symbol, when it in fact was a Republican one. It was styled in the image of a Crown, but since the Republic obviously didn't want any monarchist iconography they replaced it with a crown made of towers instead of royal symbols
It's called the mual crown and is a recuring theme in many coat of arms of (former) monarchic ruled cities (and countries). The coat of arms of Berlin, Milan, Malta and Sao Paulo are examples for it.
@@leaveme3559This basically created the Carlist wars (the foundations that would lead to the civil war). This would be like saying that no event before 1860 was important to the American Civil War. These events that divide societies are very slow-burning
So does anyone think that there was even a slight chance the 2nd Spanish Republic could've survived, or was it doomed from the start? Clarification: Could the Republic have survived without devolving into civil war at all?
Even if it had survived republic was hollowed out by Stalin side communist who had started jailing other communist, liberals and anarchist. So democracy was dead maybe republic was too
Depends on what you classify as "Republic." If you mean the democratic institutions then no, they were doomed to be sidelined at one point. Spain definitely wasn't ready for the full freedoms of speech and assembly that a democratic nation provided as it was far too divided. If by "Republic" you mean a system without a monarch, then most certainly if the Nationalists had lost the war.
It had complex and volient conflicts. It whould have needed very good examples to cool down the sitaution, probably an ecomomical boom that bought time? There was a toxic mix of problems and hsoitlites and the "at teh time" exapmles where facist Italy, Soviet Union, Nazi Germany etc. Only time could ahve made it more stable ....later in my book.
Good video, it summarizes situation quite well. Spanish civil war is quite well known and it was very important, but it seems that in contrast to other well known civil wars people don´t usually know who fought against who and why (other than the "left against right" and that some Francisco Franco won). I also recommend Homage to Catalonia from Orwell, it gives pretty interesting new perspective on whole conflict.
Primo de Rivera was not involved. Actually, he was in prison already when the war begun. Also, you've painted Navarra as one of the basque provinces, that it wasn't.
I'd argue that what started the Spanish Civil War was Napoleon seizing control of the country and putting his brother on the throne in 1808. Spain would seem to keep tearing itself apart over the issues of democracy vs autocracy after this, and Ferdinand VII only made a bad situation worse.
Excellent video. Until now, I wrongly thought Franco (‘bad’) had simply revolted against a democratically elected government supported by a majority of the people (‘good’).
Another thing to add to the conversation that often times gets omitted is the impact the soviet revolution had on the psyche of the spanish right. The socialist revolution and later marxist revolution was never really meant to go the way the soviets went about it, at least according to Marx. The soviet revolution was a bloody affair in a country that was by all intents and purposes, a backwater. It effectively created a new blueprint on how socialism was to be enacted and in the case of Spain, the violence was both out of hand and nearly a daily occurrence. The levels of paranoia that the right had about a soviet style civil revolution was simply inmense. Ironic that in the end, they would plunge the country in a civil war anyways, though the left did not help matters in any capacity. Just tragic all in all.
Is not difficult to be paranoid if you knew What happened to the upper and middle classes after the Russian Revolution, if they were not shot they were exiled without any of their property. Every institution that united society like the church was destroyed and banned and it de facto became a dictatorship. In addition to certain phrases that Trotsky said about spreading the revolution through war. And seeing what the subsequent Stalinist reign was like, I think the paranoia was not very exaggerated.
It's not as if the left hadn't already been causing uprisings and killing people before the war. It's hardly paranoia when your opposition was actively trying to pursue revolution.
The left definitely vindicated the right in this instance. While the Right didn't vindicate the left only carrying out stability measures and incarcerations with sparing executions for a civil war as the revolting side. The Left was killing themselves, the church, and the population en mass in Spain. The left and separatists movements would have engulfed in French or soviet style violence inevitably if it meant a single word of their beliefs.
A new fact from a future spanish historian, there is more and more specialists in the civil war and Franco's regime that hate the term nationalists for the military side. The reason is that it implies, because of dictatorship's propaganda, that they were the only ones that cared about the country and unity, so they started saying "sublevados", wich can mean the rebels or the ones who rose up.
Part of the point of this video is to highlight that the Falange was not a particularly significant force until just months before the July coup. It only became critical during the war.
@@LookBackHistory But having won the Civil war and being the sole rulers of Spain for 35 years, we need to know more. It is like Stalin during the Russian revolution, may not be the most important figure, but simply due to his future impact one has to talk about him.
@@EdinProfa Your first statement is incorrect. The Falange of Primo de Rivera and the governing regime of the Spanish State were not the same thing. Related certainly, but not the same.
@@EdinProfa When Franco get the power in the nationalists or rebel side (what you prefer) he unify all movements, all parties, etc in one called Falange Española Tradicionalista de las JONS where the wheight of the unification was mainly in the Falange and carlists, but until that the party didn't have straingth and the ideological positions change a lot. That concluded in dissidents from original Falange against the Franco's party
It was german and italian support that allowed the nationalists to win. Mainly italian weapons and ammunition. The generals had not anticipated a long war and without a massive support operation their rebellion would either have been crushed or the war would have turned into one of attrition with little if any gains.
No, it was the support of the masses which allowed them to win. The leftists were brutalizing Spain and destroying its institutions, including those which the people relied on for survival (just look into the role the church held in welfare). It was godless materialism against the faithful realism which was inherent to Spain for all time. The nationalists didn’t miraculously spring up out of nowhere and fool the nation into falling on their side. They were spains last hope to escape the fate of other socialist states
Well, with Stalin's unmarked military "instructors", including some generals, and airmen and the International Brigades on the left side, it seemed like a fair balance.
Less this due to the industrial bases and forgiegn volunteers and economic sympathies from the western powers being on the Republicans favor. The nationalists never starved and didn't resort to graping nuns and pillaging civilian populations. Equipment and supply was favorable to the right due to the fact they didn't immediately loot everything and destroy any industrial advantages they had.
The supporters of the Spanish left were far more massive which included the U.S., UK, and France. The US by itself was far larger than Germany and Italy. However, their support was never as strong or decisive as Germany and Italy. Just like how the U.S. today is not sending enough aid to Ukraine.
@danol.8595 @Podzhagitel To be fair to both of you, the two cases each had factions on the same side of the spectrum which severely, violently clashed.
@@LookBackHistory, yeah, Franco and Lenin had the right idea in violently forcing everyone on their side to work together so they could actually win. ...Of course, they then proceded to purge everyone they didn't like after they won, but potayto potahto.
This is a neo-liberal lens on the lead up to the spanish civil war - this was not an equal sides affair, the right wing already had paramilitary organisations in both the army and civil sphere of influence, the religious aspect is unique in this situation as not every church had the same political leanings though due to the revolution in russia the vast majority of churches apposed the left wing, lastly and most importantly was the role of the military, as the civil war was ultimately a battle between military forces and the left wing (yes the right utelised paramilitary forcecs, however they were trained, integrated, and used the armies weaponry a long side them). The reason franco became important was due to his control over the forces in the canaries and in morrocco that were not in major combat. The reason it ultimately took so long to conqour spain was a mix of leftists using guerrila tactics and foreign intervention.
I'm going to try to address everything you raised, please bear with me. Thanks for watching the video and commenting. You make some interesting points. This should more-or-less match the order in which you raised them: -To begin, I don't like the term neo-liberalism or any "neo-" terms really. The fundamental problem is that in meaning "new" they position themselves at a specific point in time and so easily become irrelevant. For example, is the "neo-liberalism" today the same as that of the 1980s? I suspect not, so does that make people then "old neo-liberals" or does it make people today "neo-neo-liberals"? Regardless, as it's the most common meaning right now I assume you mean the "neo-liberalism" that became a popular term to describe Reaganite or Thatcherite thinking. I respond by pointing out that my foremost source for this video (by Bolloten, see the description) was compiled before that version of neoliberalism really caught on. Personally, I would characterise my own slant as liberal, but in the classical, descriptive sense (meaning very broadly someone who favours liberty and liberal democracy) not necessarily upper-case Liberal with its centre-left to left connotation especially in American discourse. -I suppose I agree that it was not an "equal sides affair" but mostly because I can think of scant few things that truly are. The real world is much too complex for that. I could say more but I don't want to try too much to guess exactly what you're trying to say by pointing it out. -However, in general, I think you overestimate the Spanish army and particularly the rightist leanings of the army. What I can say categorically is that neither the events of July 1936 nor the war as a whole can be summed up as 'the army' vs the government. If anything, my biggest criticism of my own video would be that I may have over-implied the army's opposition to the Republic. When the coup happened, some officers remained loyal to the government, while the rank-and-file in mainland Spain reflected the population as a whole and so was divided between the two sides. There are multiple examples of lower-ranking men killing their putschist army or navy commanders and throwing their lot behind the government. -Regarding the Church, I think it's a bit of a cop-out or at least a simplification to say that it opposed the left because of the Russian Revolution. Certainly, all across Europe, the revolution and civil war in Russia did scare the pants off of people everywhere from the liberal-left rightwards, but they were also plenty concerned by actual policies being made or proposed at home. In Spain, the treatment of the Catholic Church by the Republican constitution and the general contempt felt for it by the left was nothing short of foolish. I'm not trying to assert that restricting the Church was a good or bad idea on its own merits-heck, if I was I'd probably say I'm in favour of it to a significant degree-but regarding the establishment of a halfway magnanimous social order in the wake of Alfonso XIII's downfall, it was an astronomically bad idea. -Moving on, you're quite right to mention that much of Franco's importance came from his taking control of the Army of Africa. He's actually an excellent example of what I said above. While propaganda in the Spanish State would later portray him as the mastermind who planned an uprising against the Republic, Franco's own correspondence makes it easy to argue that he was only teetering in the Feb-July 1936 period. It may have been as late as Calvo Sotelo's killing that Franco firmly committed himself to what became the Nationalist cause. -I don't know what you mean when you say that it wasn't in "major combat," but the Army of Africa was Spain's most professional and experienced fighting force and that is why getting it to the mainland was so critical. -The reasons for why the war lasted so long are varied, but the two you mention aren't quite right. Firstly, this was a much more traditional war than I think you give it credit for by describing the left's tactics as guerilla-like. The Republic had army units at hand in the way that one would conventionally imagine them; there were battle lines, advances, retreats, victories, and defeats in all the conventional ways. The Spanish Civil War just isn't comparable to guerilla wars like some modern insurgency movements. Secondly, foreign intervention didn't do tons to help the Republic hold out. The support it received from the USSR and Mexico paled in comparison to what Germany and Italy (especially Italy) poured into Nationalist Spain. Republican Spain's greatest allies would've been France and Britain, both of whom refused to help, and the famous volunteer brigades with people from across the world were most effective perhaps in boosting morale, but are well documented as being close to negligible when it came to tipping the balance of power.
I truely appreciate the well reasoned and thought out response to my comment, I truely did not expect that and I think for the most part that my commentary on the video is based in my own biased world view, I did not mean it as an insult to say neo-liberal I meant to highlight the perspective this video looks at the events from. In this case I mean neo-liberal in the descriptor for modern american politics, as both the democratic and republican parties are left and right wing forms of neo-liberalism, I would also refrain from using the term classical liberal as that often gets used to describe people who believe in libertarianism, however I understand what you mean. I agree my comment is very simplistic in terms of academic and thorough critique. I will say that out of all that was apart of that critique the primary criticism I have is the view that both sides were equally powerful. I will address briefly the points on the army and the guerrila tactics. so yes not all soldiers are a monolith and many switched sides however as a system of violence with greater access to weaponry there official support for the nationalists was a powerful asset that formed the key base of support, as said in your video, the plotters of the coup were all military generals who also led the nationalist movement. When i talk about guerilla tactics I dont mean to suggest that there wasnt traditional warfare, but rather that it was both supplimented and boosted by insurgent activities on both sides, something that the spanish people had had a lot of experience in during the previous century. Lastly I'll mention that I meant the army of north africa did not have to fight in north africa and was free to move into mainland spain, not that there wasnt rebel activity in north africa either, it was just a seperate thing and with a lot less power than the civil war.@@LookBackHistory
@@LookBackHistory "...Franco's own correspondence makes it easy to argue that he was only teetering in the Feb-July 1936 period. It may have been as late as Calvo Sotelo's killing that Franco firmly committed himself to what became the Nationalist cause." Not only that, but right before the beginning of the Civil War, Franco corresponded with President Azana (or someone in the government; I don't quite remember who), saying that he would remain loyal to the government if his troops were "taken care of." This obviously implying that he would remain loyal so long as the Republicans put him in charge. Azana, either through not understanding what Franco was getting at or perfectly understanding and being disgusted at the implication, rebuffed Franco. This implies (to me, at least) that while Franco's own ideological convictions may have swayed more towards the Nationalists, at the end of the day, he was concerned with his own personal power more than anything else. Edit: Correction: Franco actually corresponded with Prime Minister Casares Quiroga, not Azana. My bad.
@TheFireaster It makes me a bit sad that you didn't expect such an answer. Not sad for you of course, but for the world generally! I think you're right, unfortunately, to imply that there's a lot of nonsense out there. Also you might find this funny: In addition to being labeled neo-liberal by you, I've now officially been labeled a "commie trying to rewrite history" in this comments section!
Eso que dices és una completa mentira. Como que el Falangismo esta "reviviendo en el sur" en Andalucia???? No tiene sentido. Ademas Franco no esta bien visto por los historiadores, solo aquellos Falangistas y Americanistas por el simple hecho de que era anti comunista. Todavia hay cientos de miles de personas del bando republicano sin encontrar porque el bando Nacional utilitzo mas y durante mas tiempo el fusilamiento desenfrenado sobre cualquier posible opositor, el año pasado encontraron al abuelo de mi peluquera fusilado en un campo de naranjas. Franco no fue centrista ni Bueno para España, nos la dejo cerrada, atascada y abandonada para cuando se fue
@@Al3ixhoveutot he's up their as 1 of the top 3 best moderate dictators. after the war he had lefty prisoners' build a giant cemetary for all the dead. he also allowed lefty pairties to run for offices
Ofcourse that there was more spanish soldiers, so what? Getting conscripts is easy, Italy offered the rest. Just how much more italian than spanish planes fought for nationalists...
@@segiraldovihe's not an isolationist, at best he's for consolidation. Outstretching American war material is likely what the new Republicans are mostly concerned about.
Some inaccuracies/omissions:
-Falange was by no means popular or relevant enough before the war. During its entire parliamentary existence the number of seats they got I believe could be counted with one hand. It was during the war, especially after Primo de Rivera's execution at the hands of the Republicans that Franco martyrised and instrumentalised the Falange for his own popularity.
-The Communists had actually two camps: the Stalinist and the POUM (who were accused of being trotskyites but they themselves denied this)
-The Falange itself also had two camps: the Falange herself (led by Primo de Rivera) and the JONS (national syndicalists led by Ledesma Ramos), they united before the war. Primo would be shot by the Republicans while Ledesma would even after the war continue acting as a dissident Falangist to Franco's "Frankenstein monster" that was the FET de las JONS which was a somewhat forced union between the Carlists (traditionalist monarchists) and the already mixed Falange de las JONS.
No mention of Jan Berzin and the coming of the brutal CCCP execution of all not beholden to the NKVD......remember Hitler and Mussolini 'loaned' (never repaid) arms and personnel to the Nationalists while Stalin demanded and got gold
Ledesma and Onésimo Redondo (leaders of JONS) were also assasinated at the beggining of the Civil War. I think you are speaking about Manuel Hedilla
@@jscm6744 You are right, Ramos was killed by the Republicans, I had them mixed up. Hedilla was the one who took up the mantle of the "old" Falange and would scorn Franco for forcing the merger with the Traditionalists/
Falange's seats could be counted with no hands at all. They got none.
@@rodrigorincongarcia771 They get 1 in 1933 apart of that you're rigth
A thing, you kept showing the Crown of Towers as a monarchist symbol, when it in fact was a Republican one. It was styled in the image of a Crown, but since the Republic obviously didn't want any monarchist iconography they replaced it with a crown made of towers instead of royal symbols
It's called the mual crown and is a recuring theme in many coat of arms of (former) monarchic ruled cities (and countries). The coat of arms of Berlin, Milan, Malta and Sao Paulo are examples for it.
All of this started because Ferdinand the seventh failed to produce A son.
would that really matter in 20th century?
Obvioulsy...
absolutely
Specifically his wife suffered PCOS.
@@leaveme3559This basically created the Carlist wars (the foundations that would lead to the civil war). This would be like saying that no event before 1860 was important to the American Civil War.
These events that divide societies are very slow-burning
very interesting video. you summarised the situation quite well
Glad you think so!
Amazing video
So does anyone think that there was even a slight chance the 2nd Spanish Republic could've survived, or was it doomed from the start?
Clarification: Could the Republic have survived without devolving into civil war at all?
Even if it had survived republic was hollowed out by Stalin side communist who had started jailing other communist, liberals and anarchist. So democracy was dead maybe republic was too
Depends on what you classify as "Republic." If you mean the democratic institutions then no, they were doomed to be sidelined at one point. Spain definitely wasn't ready for the full freedoms of speech and assembly that a democratic nation provided as it was far too divided. If by "Republic" you mean a system without a monarch, then most certainly if the Nationalists had lost the war.
Old spaniard here, i dont think so, they were too divided.
Que? Stalins influence boomed as the republic needed Soviet arms and military experts. Due to the coup...@@Snp2024
It had complex and volient conflicts. It whould have needed very good examples to cool down the sitaution, probably an ecomomical boom that bought time?
There was a toxic mix of problems and hsoitlites and the "at teh time" exapmles where facist Italy, Soviet Union, Nazi Germany etc. Only time could ahve made it more stable ....later in my book.
Good video, it summarizes situation quite well. Spanish civil war is quite well known and it was very important, but it seems that in contrast to other well known civil wars people don´t usually know who fought against who and why (other than the "left against right" and that some Francisco Franco won).
I also recommend Homage to Catalonia from Orwell, it gives pretty interesting new perspective on whole conflict.
Primo de Rivera was not involved. Actually, he was in prison already when the war begun. Also, you've painted Navarra as one of the basque provinces, that it wasn't.
This should give us all pause. This can happen ANYWHERE
Its not about belief in good will, its about believing the others will do evil no matter if they realize it or not.
I'd argue that what started the Spanish Civil War was Napoleon seizing control of the country and putting his brother on the throne in 1808. Spain would seem to keep tearing itself apart over the issues of democracy vs autocracy after this, and Ferdinand VII only made a bad situation worse.
There's a great YT series by CallmeEzekiel about the war.
Very interesting
(S)pain
Excellent video. Until now, I wrongly thought Franco (‘bad’) had simply revolted against a democratically elected government supported by a majority of the people (‘good’).
What part is DR?
Derecha Republicana - the republican right.
@@LookBackHistory awesome thank you :)
Even with this oversimplified explanation, I just cant understand Spanish Civil War politics
Another thing to add to the conversation that often times gets omitted is the impact the soviet revolution had on the psyche of the spanish right. The socialist revolution and later marxist revolution was never really meant to go the way the soviets went about it, at least according to Marx. The soviet revolution was a bloody affair in a country that was by all intents and purposes, a backwater. It effectively created a new blueprint on how socialism was to be enacted and in the case of Spain, the violence was both out of hand and nearly a daily occurrence. The levels of paranoia that the right had about a soviet style civil revolution was simply inmense. Ironic that in the end, they would plunge the country in a civil war anyways, though the left did not help matters in any capacity. Just tragic all in all.
The Spanish right, and the European right in general. Italy is another noteworthy case of the left frightening the centre towards a dictator.
@@LookBackHistory Very much so.
Is not difficult to be paranoid if you knew What happened to the upper and middle classes after the Russian Revolution, if they were not shot they were exiled without any of their property. Every institution that united society like the church was destroyed and banned and it de facto became a dictatorship. In addition to certain phrases that Trotsky said about spreading the revolution through war.
And seeing what the subsequent Stalinist reign was like, I think the paranoia was not very exaggerated.
It's not as if the left hadn't already been causing uprisings and killing people before the war.
It's hardly paranoia when your opposition was actively trying to pursue revolution.
The left definitely vindicated the right in this instance. While the Right didn't vindicate the left only carrying out stability measures and incarcerations with sparing executions for a civil war as the revolting side. The Left was killing themselves, the church, and the population en mass in Spain. The left and separatists movements would have engulfed in French or soviet style violence inevitably if it meant a single word of their beliefs.
It's Napoleon's fault
Napooleon bonerpart
I mean, you're not wrong...
It's always Napoleon, isn't it?
What did he do?
A new fact from a future spanish historian, there is more and more specialists in the civil war and Franco's regime that hate the term nationalists for the military side. The reason is that it implies, because of dictatorship's propaganda, that they were the only ones that cared about the country and unity, so they started saying "sublevados", wich can mean the rebels or the ones who rose up.
i knew as soon as i heard your kvetching voice what kind of video this would be...
Many inaccuracies. Needs better documentation effort.
Is so funny when you pronounce PSOE in english
What about Falangists? Why no more detailed info about them?
Part of the point of this video is to highlight that the Falange was not a particularly significant force until just months before the July coup. It only became critical during the war.
@@LookBackHistory But having won the Civil war and being the sole rulers of Spain for 35 years, we need to know more. It is like Stalin during the Russian revolution, may not be the most important figure, but simply due to his future impact one has to talk about him.
@@EdinProfa Your first statement is incorrect. The Falange of Primo de Rivera and the governing regime of the Spanish State were not the same thing. Related certainly, but not the same.
@@EdinProfa When Franco get the power in the nationalists or rebel side (what you prefer) he unify all movements, all parties, etc in one called Falange Española Tradicionalista de las JONS where the wheight of the unification was mainly in the Falange and carlists, but until that the party didn't have straingth and the ideological positions change a lot. That concluded in dissidents from original Falange against the Franco's party
It was german and italian support that allowed the nationalists to win. Mainly italian weapons and ammunition. The generals had not anticipated a long war and without a massive support operation their rebellion would either have been crushed or the war would have turned into one of attrition with little if any gains.
No, it was the support of the masses which allowed them to win. The leftists were brutalizing Spain and destroying its institutions, including those which the people relied on for survival (just look into the role the church held in welfare). It was godless materialism against the faithful realism which was inherent to Spain for all time. The nationalists didn’t miraculously spring up out of nowhere and fool the nation into falling on their side. They were spains last hope to escape the fate of other socialist states
Well, with Stalin's unmarked military "instructors", including some generals, and airmen and the International Brigades on the left side, it seemed like a fair balance.
Less this due to the industrial bases and forgiegn volunteers and economic sympathies from the western powers being on the Republicans favor. The nationalists never starved and didn't resort to graping nuns and pillaging civilian populations. Equipment and supply was favorable to the right due to the fact they didn't immediately loot everything and destroy any industrial advantages they had.
@@williammkydde Also France had a Leftist Government at the time who gave support to the Republicans.
The supporters of the Spanish left were far more massive which included the U.S., UK, and France. The US by itself was far larger than Germany and Italy. However, their support was never as strong or decisive as Germany and Italy. Just like how the U.S. today is not sending enough aid to Ukraine.
sigh, the left is always like a scooby do show hey gang let's split up. the right unifies and wins.
“sigh, the right is always like a scooby doo show hey gang let’s split up. the left unifies and wins.” - dudes looking at the russian civil war
@danol.8595 @Podzhagitel
To be fair to both of you, the two cases each had factions on the same side of the spectrum which severely, violently clashed.
@@LookBackHistory, yeah, Franco and Lenin had the right idea in violently forcing everyone on their side to work together so they could actually win.
...Of course, they then proceded to purge everyone they didn't like after they won, but potayto potahto.
@@Podzhagitel True!
Spain is just Pain with an S.
ARRIBA ESPAÑA 🇪🇦🇪🇦
Viva Cristo Rey
This is a neo-liberal lens on the lead up to the spanish civil war - this was not an equal sides affair, the right wing already had paramilitary organisations in both the army and civil sphere of influence, the religious aspect is unique in this situation as not every church had the same political leanings though due to the revolution in russia the vast majority of churches apposed the left wing, lastly and most importantly was the role of the military, as the civil war was ultimately a battle between military forces and the left wing (yes the right utelised paramilitary forcecs, however they were trained, integrated, and used the armies weaponry a long side them). The reason franco became important was due to his control over the forces in the canaries and in morrocco that were not in major combat. The reason it ultimately took so long to conqour spain was a mix of leftists using guerrila tactics and foreign intervention.
I'm going to try to address everything you raised, please bear with me. Thanks for watching the video and commenting. You make some interesting points.
This should more-or-less match the order in which you raised them:
-To begin, I don't like the term neo-liberalism or any "neo-" terms really. The fundamental problem is that in meaning "new" they position themselves at a specific point in time and so easily become irrelevant. For example, is the "neo-liberalism" today the same as that of the 1980s? I suspect not, so does that make people then "old neo-liberals" or does it make people today "neo-neo-liberals"?
Regardless, as it's the most common meaning right now I assume you mean the "neo-liberalism" that became a popular term to describe Reaganite or Thatcherite thinking. I respond by pointing out that my foremost source for this video (by Bolloten, see the description) was compiled before that version of neoliberalism really caught on. Personally, I would characterise my own slant as liberal, but in the classical, descriptive sense (meaning very broadly someone who favours liberty and liberal democracy) not necessarily upper-case Liberal with its centre-left to left connotation especially in American discourse.
-I suppose I agree that it was not an "equal sides affair" but mostly because I can think of scant few things that truly are. The real world is much too complex for that.
I could say more but I don't want to try too much to guess exactly what you're trying to say by pointing it out.
-However, in general, I think you overestimate the Spanish army and particularly the rightist leanings of the army. What I can say categorically is that neither the events of July 1936 nor the war as a whole can be summed up as 'the army' vs the government. If anything, my biggest criticism of my own video would be that I may have over-implied the army's opposition to the Republic.
When the coup happened, some officers remained loyal to the government, while the rank-and-file in mainland Spain reflected the population as a whole and so was divided between the two sides. There are multiple examples of lower-ranking men killing their putschist army or navy commanders and throwing their lot behind the government.
-Regarding the Church, I think it's a bit of a cop-out or at least a simplification to say that it opposed the left because of the Russian Revolution. Certainly, all across Europe, the revolution and civil war in Russia did scare the pants off of people everywhere from the liberal-left rightwards, but they were also plenty concerned by actual policies being made or proposed at home.
In Spain, the treatment of the Catholic Church by the Republican constitution and the general contempt felt for it by the left was nothing short of foolish. I'm not trying to assert that restricting the Church was a good or bad idea on its own merits-heck, if I was I'd probably say I'm in favour of it to a significant degree-but regarding the establishment of a halfway magnanimous social order in the wake of Alfonso XIII's downfall, it was an astronomically bad idea.
-Moving on, you're quite right to mention that much of Franco's importance came from his taking control of the Army of Africa. He's actually an excellent example of what I said above. While propaganda in the Spanish State would later portray him as the mastermind who planned an uprising against the Republic, Franco's own correspondence makes it easy to argue that he was only teetering in the Feb-July 1936 period. It may have been as late as Calvo Sotelo's killing that Franco firmly committed himself to what became the Nationalist cause.
-I don't know what you mean when you say that it wasn't in "major combat," but the Army of Africa was Spain's most professional and experienced fighting force and that is why getting it to the mainland was so critical.
-The reasons for why the war lasted so long are varied, but the two you mention aren't quite right. Firstly, this was a much more traditional war than I think you give it credit for by describing the left's tactics as guerilla-like. The Republic had army units at hand in the way that one would conventionally imagine them; there were battle lines, advances, retreats, victories, and defeats in all the conventional ways. The Spanish Civil War just isn't comparable to guerilla wars like some modern insurgency movements.
Secondly, foreign intervention didn't do tons to help the Republic hold out. The support it received from the USSR and Mexico paled in comparison to what Germany and Italy (especially Italy) poured into Nationalist Spain. Republican Spain's greatest allies would've been France and Britain, both of whom refused to help, and the famous volunteer brigades with people from across the world were most effective perhaps in boosting morale, but are well documented as being close to negligible when it came to tipping the balance of power.
I truely appreciate the well reasoned and thought out response to my comment, I truely did not expect that and I think for the most part that my commentary on the video is based in my own biased world view, I did not mean it as an insult to say neo-liberal I meant to highlight the perspective this video looks at the events from. In this case I mean neo-liberal in the descriptor for modern american politics, as both the democratic and republican parties are left and right wing forms of neo-liberalism, I would also refrain from using the term classical liberal as that often gets used to describe people who believe in libertarianism, however I understand what you mean. I agree my comment is very simplistic in terms of academic and thorough critique. I will say that out of all that was apart of that critique the primary criticism I have is the view that both sides were equally powerful. I will address briefly the points on the army and the guerrila tactics. so yes not all soldiers are a monolith and many switched sides however as a system of violence with greater access to weaponry there official support for the nationalists was a powerful asset that formed the key base of support, as said in your video, the plotters of the coup were all military generals who also led the nationalist movement. When i talk about guerilla tactics I dont mean to suggest that there wasnt traditional warfare, but rather that it was both supplimented and boosted by insurgent activities on both sides, something that the spanish people had had a lot of experience in during the previous century. Lastly I'll mention that I meant the army of north africa did not have to fight in north africa and was free to move into mainland spain, not that there wasnt rebel activity in north africa either, it was just a seperate thing and with a lot less power than the civil war.@@LookBackHistory
@@LookBackHistory "...Franco's own correspondence makes it easy to argue that he was only teetering in the Feb-July 1936 period. It may have been as late as Calvo Sotelo's killing that Franco firmly committed himself to what became the Nationalist cause."
Not only that, but right before the beginning of the Civil War, Franco corresponded with President Azana (or someone in the government; I don't quite remember who), saying that he would remain loyal to the government if his troops were "taken care of." This obviously implying that he would remain loyal so long as the Republicans put him in charge. Azana, either through not understanding what Franco was getting at or perfectly understanding and being disgusted at the implication, rebuffed Franco. This implies (to me, at least) that while Franco's own ideological convictions may have swayed more towards the Nationalists, at the end of the day, he was concerned with his own personal power more than anything else.
Edit: Correction: Franco actually corresponded with Prime Minister Casares Quiroga, not Azana. My bad.
@TheFireaster It makes me a bit sad that you didn't expect such an answer. Not sad for you of course, but for the world generally! I think you're right, unfortunately, to imply that there's a lot of nonsense out there.
Also you might find this funny: In addition to being labeled neo-liberal by you, I've now officially been labeled a "commie trying to rewrite history" in this comments section!
@@LookBackHistory, when both the far-left and the far-right go after you, you know you've done something right. 😎
😢😢
Franco is well liked now by historians he built cemeterys for both the right and left. He's even getting a revival in southern Spain.
Eso que dices és una completa mentira. Como que el Falangismo esta "reviviendo en el sur" en Andalucia???? No tiene sentido. Ademas Franco no esta bien visto por los historiadores, solo aquellos Falangistas y Americanistas por el simple hecho de que era anti comunista. Todavia hay cientos de miles de personas del bando republicano sin encontrar porque el bando Nacional utilitzo mas y durante mas tiempo el fusilamiento desenfrenado sobre cualquier posible opositor, el año pasado encontraron al abuelo de mi peluquera fusilado en un campo de naranjas. Franco no fue centrista ni Bueno para España, nos la dejo cerrada, atascada y abandonada para cuando se fue
I'm quite sure even a stupid minotaur could understand that Franco was not good
@@Al3ixhoveutot he's up their as 1 of the top 3 best moderate dictators. after the war he had lefty prisoners' build a giant cemetary for all the dead. he also allowed lefty pairties to run for offices
What on earth are you smoking? He’s not regarded in any good light and there is no revival of any kind anywhere in Spain
@@Al3ixhoveutotweird way to spell that he was good
Basically the republic in Spain was literally pain thats why Franco and the nationalist won because the left was fighting itself
It's a shame Spain's republic didn't last, they had a fine flag.
Regarding the flag, I agree with you completely.
@@LookBackHistory, press F in chat for the 2nd Spanish Republic's flag.
I despise that flag
Biggest reetardd vs reetrad fight until Twitter was invented
The spectrum war
Franco: *“Better Dead Than Red!”*
Francisco Franco saved Spain.
He was a butcher.
Your neutrality between democrats and fascists is worrying.
Such a shame the Republic fell. May it rise again stronger than before.
*_“Nobody Expects The Spanish Counter-Revolution !!!”_*
😂😂😂
¡Muy Basado! Arriba españa
¡Viva Franco! ¡Viva España! 🇪🇸
What are the francoist bots doing here?
Trying to get a date with your mom!
Ad hominem moment
Everyone i dont like is le bot!
They're just commenting from the 'Based Department', I'm not sure if you've ever been there before
@@icannotfinda🤓
A million Spaniards served in nationalist army. Contribution of Italians was minor
Ofcourse that there was more spanish soldiers, so what? Getting conscripts is easy, Italy offered the rest. Just how much more italian than spanish planes fought for nationalists...
Francisco Franco did nothing wrong.
¡Arriba España!
The Falange is the best
Aliba Espana (Chen)
When a commie tries to rewrite history.
I've now been accused of being both a communist and a neoliberal in this comment's section. Nice!
@@LookBackHistory now you just need to be called a fascist to have the whole spectrum
@@LookBackHistory this displays the divisiveness of today's world
@@joshuafrimpong244and the world has more idiots than straight forward objective people .
As an American, the right is in the process of giving up on Republicanism with Trump (a firebrand centrist)
What do you mean by republicanism and why do you call Trump a centrist?
Personally, I consider Trump a protectionist isolationist.
The present day republicans without Trump are one liberal uniparty. While the dems are 50% anarcho-islamo-communists.
@@segiraldovihe's not an isolationist, at best he's for consolidation. Outstretching American war material is likely what the new Republicans are mostly concerned about.
@@williammkydde "anarcho-islamo-communists"? O_O
@@tefky7964 A paradox, right?