7 ms·

George Orwell in Spain

88 points by samclemens 11y ago

alex_young 11y ago
"In Homage, Orwell said he felt that if the revolution had been allowed to continue, Republican Spain could have won the war. But by five years later, he took a different view, writing in an essay that “the outcome of the Spanish War was settled in London, Paris, Rome, Berlin.” ... All too few writers about contentious political issues are willing to go public when they change their opinion." It seems that the author is missing something crucial. Orwell was consistent in his later remarks. The resources marshaled to suppress the revolution were controlled and financed by the world powers he mentioned later. Destroying the Anarchist revolution took the combined might of the most powerful forces in the world and clearly demonstrates their justified fear of a collective society.
- jhbadger 11y ago
  You can interpret it that way, but Orwell really did become more cynical as to the feasibility and even desirability of revolutions as time went on. INGSOC was Newspeak for "English Socialism" after all.
  - PavlovsCat 11y ago
    > INGSOC was Newspeak for "English Socialism" after all. To me that's just analogous to the Nazis, who were neither nationalist nor socialist, or the GDR, which wasn't exactly democratic, not to mention that it's in line with titles like "Ministry of Love". It would have been kinda silly to have INGSOC call itself "thugs driven by sadomasochism" or anything else "honest": of course they have a nice name and a handshake as a symbol, while they do the exact opposite. I don't know what Orwell thought of socialism so I'm not saying you're wrong, but that bit by itself is not a very good argument.
    - mrob 11y ago
      For a detailed look at Orwell's views on socialism, read his non-fiction work "The Road to Wigan Pier". It's split into two parts: first an investigation into the living conditions of poor English people; second an examination of socialism, both arguing for its necessity and acknowledging the practical difficulties it faces.
      - markvdb 11y ago
        His first work, "Down and out in Paris and London" was also really interesting in that respect, and highly biographical. http://www.george-orwell.org/Down_and_Out_in_Paris_and_London/index.html http://www.george-orwell.org/Down_and_Out_in_Paris_and_Londo...
      - jhbadger 11y ago
        Wigan Pier was a fairly early work but notice even then how in much of it Orwell is complaining about what he considered "cranks" in the socialist movement. He didn't like vegetarians and was even offended that a socialist convention offered a vegetarian option! He didn't like free-love enthusiasts. He didn't even like people who drank orange juice rather than tea or beer! (OJ I guess was seen as a "health food" back then rather than a normal beverage)
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - pjc50 11y ago
      Orwell was generally in favour of a practical, redistributive socialism, and strongly against Communism, especially after getting betrayed by them in Spain. This is a common problem since about the 1930s, that Communist parties were big on loyalty and short on critical thinking, tending to support Stalinism and downplay or disbelieve its totalitarianism. I second the recommendation to read The Road To Wigan Pier.
      - cmrdporcupine 11y ago
        He was against Stalinism. But he fought in a Trotskyist militia. With criticisms, yes. But he took up arms with communists. Which is why I always find it quite amusing when libertarians and conservatives use Animal Farm and 1984 as support in their arguments. Orwell would break no bread with them; he was a socialist of a revolutionary bent.
- mercurial 11y ago
  > Destroying the Anarchist revolution took the combined might of the most powerful forces in the world and clearly demonstrates their justified fear of a collective society. The anarchist movement was only one component of the Republican front. They were not crushed by the fascist side, they were brought down by the rest of the Republicans, under the influence of the Communists (who were almost as busy hunting any movement they considered rivals, such as the marxist-but-not-Stalinist POUM, as they were fighting fascists). The anarchist social experiment in Catalonia was something unique. The Stalin-backed Spanish communist party's line was to not antagonize the middle class (they were, obviously, to be taken care of later), and of course, the other members of the coalition, being closer to the center, were seeing the anarchists with a dim view. Another factor was the mistaken hope that the French and the British would drop the farcical "non-intervention" policy (which meant "don't do anything and pretend that Germany, Italy and the USSR are violating"), which prevented Republican Spain from bringing in weapons from France. Unfortunately for them, the British had made clear that they would not support the French in case of conflict with Germany if they started supporting the Republicans, and a mixture of fear of igniting another world war, fear of revolutionaries and sympathy for the fascists (in particular in the Royal Navy), as well as diplomatic efforts by the Nazi, ensured they would not change their mind.
  - dtornabene 11y ago
    But it was far and away the largest component. Also, they were brought down by both sides. It took the combination of treachery and fascist counter-revolution to bring it down. My own studies of it have been fairly superficial, and began with Homage, but the even itself is far from understood I believe, even by scholarship.
    - mercurial 11y ago
      Like all wars, it's fairly complicated. > But it was far and away the largest component. I don't know if that's true. If we're talking number of troops, I don't think so. The bulk would be the loyalist part of the army and the Guardia Civil/Guardia Asalto. Then you had a number of political militias which would eventually be integrated into the regular army. In parallel, communists would introduce the political commissar system to enforce ideological "correctness" within the army, thus giving rise to entirely Communist regiments, based on the prototype of the 5th regiment (originally a communist-affiliated unit, later on integrated in the regular army as an elite corps).
- KaiserPro 11y ago
  You should read the book, it explains pretty clearly the problems as he saw it, in his part of spain. In fighting, incompetence and dis-unity, presented with a well trained and cohesive enemy meant that it all fell apart.
  - pessimizer 11y ago
    That's not at all the impression I got from the book. What I got from the book is that the battle against Franco was taken up by good people doing their best, and were undermined by the Communists and ignored by the western powers until they were destroyed by the Fascists.
    - KaiserPro 11y ago
      The entire anti-facist movement (communist, anarchist, socialist and unionist) were ignored by france and great britian. They basically wanted a nice simple government to "do buisness" with. A democratic/$other government wouldn't be easy to trade with (i.e. buy train systems.)
    - vidarh 11y ago
      They were undermined by the Stalinists. There were communists fighting in Spain who were just as much under fire (as in, actually getting murdered) by Stalinist agents as the anarchists were.
      - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
        It's worth going to "Why Orwell Matters" for much emphasis on this insight. It was written by a (then ex-)Trot, Christopher Hitchens. It'll sound like Rand, which is isn't really meant to, but the issue is and will always be individualism v. collectivism.
lkrubner 11y ago
Homage remains one of my five favorite books of all time. It is rare to read a story that is true and full of political insight, yet also so gripping. Even the parts about boredom (which seems to come up in any war) seemed full of tension, since so much was changing. The alliances of factions that fought for the Spanish government was ever shifting, and Orwell had given his loyalty to a faction that was losing out, even among those who were fighting for the government (the Soviet factions were gaining power and putting pressure on other left factions). It's a rare combination of features for a book.
- Tiksi 11y ago
  Agreed. 1984 gets all the attention and is the first thing anyone thinks when they hear "Orwell" but I think Homage to Catalonia was a much more interesting book and explored political ideas at a much deeper level than 1984. Don't get me wrong, they both have a spot in my top 10, but sadly Homage is relatively unheard of in comparison while (imho) being a better book.
  - dave2000 11y ago
    Homage, though, requires some background knowledge of the war, and of the history leading up to the war. Whereas anyone can pick up 1984.
  - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
    The one that hit me like a thunderbolt was "Burmese Days". I need to reread "Catalonia" though.
pier25 11y ago
People from all over the world volunteered to fight against fascism in the Spanish Civil War. It is estimated that about 35,000 people joined the international brigades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Brigades https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Brigades This always makes me think how much the world has changed. Can you imagine travelling today to a foreign country ready to die for fighting oppression? I have never seen such kind of conviction in my life.
- selestify 11y ago
  Lots of Muslims from western countries are giving up their lives to fight for ISIS... few people are volunteering to fight against it though.
- diskcat 11y ago
  >Can you imagine travelling today to a foreign country ready to die for fighting oppression? I have never seen such kind of conviction in my life. There were russians who fight in Ukraine and if you ask ISIS fighters they will tell you they are fighting to spread the-one-true-religion which is similar to fighting to spread the-one-true-ideology with minor differences. Also fighting oppression was what was sold to US soldiers going to the Mid East at least partially.
  - mercurial 11y ago
    > There were russians who fight in Ukraine The official line from Putin is that all Russian soldiers fighting alongside the independentists are volunteers, but that sounds as true as his earlier lie about the "green men" being local militias.
    - guard-of-terra 11y ago
      This is correct, but there were large independentist brigades comprised of volunteers. Indeed that's how this civil war started. Now there is a formal army of "unrecognized republics" formed from same volunteers plus a lot of locals who are just in it for the pay. The morale is correspondingly much lower. AFAIK Russian army did some heavy lifting but not on the regular basis. They merely protect "republics" from collapse.
alan-crowe 11y ago
"Rome and Berlin, of course, supplied Generalissimo Francisco Franco and his Nationalists with aircraft, pilots, tanks, military advisors and much more, while London, Paris, and Washington refused to help the democratically-elected government of the Republic in any way." That leaves out the twisty-turny story of tanks in the Spanish Civil War. By my count the story has five surprise twists. ONE The germans were forbidden to have tanks by the Treaty of Versailles. So they had no tanks to give. TWO With some creative rules lawyering the Germans came up with the Panzer I, a tracked armoured car with two machine guns instead of a cannon. THREE The proper tanks of the period mostly had a small caliber, high velocity cannon. They could take out an enemy tank with solid shot. On the other hand a small caliber shell doesn't have much room for high explosive, and makes a poor anti-personnel weapon. In the circumstances of the Civil War, with Franco hoping to mow down Republican infantry with machines guns, the Panzer I is a splendid little tank, and I'm wrong to disparage it as a tracked armoured car. FOUR Those weren't the actual circumstances. The Russians supply the Republicans with 281 of their T-26's. Nice little tanks, with a 45mm cannon, just the ticket for making mincemeat out of the crews of Panzer I's FIVE So the Nationalists capture 178 of them from the Republicans and put around 50 of them back in service, killing Republicans. Not only were the Republicans well supplied with tanks from Moscow, Franco also got his best tanks from Moscow!
- ThrustVectoring 11y ago
  The primary weapon of the tank is not the cannon - it is the machine gun. Like, the point of a tank is not to blow up other tanks, the point is to be immune to small arms fire, go places, and suppress or destroy enemy ground forces.
- dtornabene 11y ago
  So, the treaty of versailles may have disallowed that, but the Generals were constructing arms in Russia, actually, in between the two wars. I have to dig up my sources, but I'm fairly certain the Germans had fairly sophisticated tanks by 1936, when the spanish revolution broke out.
rossf7 11y ago
Homage to Catalonia is my favourite Orwell book. There is also a Ken Loach film called Land and Freedom that is similar to Orwell's story. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_and_Freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_and_Freedom

88 points by samclemens 11y ago

"In Homage, Orwell said he felt that if the revolution had been allowed to continue, Republican Spain could have won the war. But by five years later, he took a different view, writing in an essay that “the outcome of the Spanish War was settled in London, Paris, Rome, Berlin.” ... All too few writers about contentious political issues are willing to go public when they change their opinion." It seems that the author is missing something crucial. Orwell was consistent in his later remarks. The resources marshaled to suppress the revolution were controlled and financed by the world powers he mentioned later. Destroying the Anarchist revolution took the combined might of the most powerful forces in the world and clearly demonstrates their justified fear of a collective society.

jhbadger 11y ago
You can interpret it that way, but Orwell really did become more cynical as to the feasibility and even desirability of revolutions as time went on. INGSOC was Newspeak for "English Socialism" after all.
- PavlovsCat 11y ago
  > INGSOC was Newspeak for "English Socialism" after all. To me that's just analogous to the Nazis, who were neither nationalist nor socialist, or the GDR, which wasn't exactly democratic, not to mention that it's in line with titles like "Ministry of Love". It would have been kinda silly to have INGSOC call itself "thugs driven by sadomasochism" or anything else "honest": of course they have a nice name and a handshake as a symbol, while they do the exact opposite. I don't know what Orwell thought of socialism so I'm not saying you're wrong, but that bit by itself is not a very good argument.
  - mrob 11y ago
    For a detailed look at Orwell's views on socialism, read his non-fiction work "The Road to Wigan Pier". It's split into two parts: first an investigation into the living conditions of poor English people; second an examination of socialism, both arguing for its necessity and acknowledging the practical difficulties it faces.
    - markvdb 11y ago
      His first work, "Down and out in Paris and London" was also really interesting in that respect, and highly biographical. http://www.george-orwell.org/Down_and_Out_in_Paris_and_London/index.html http://www.george-orwell.org/Down_and_Out_in_Paris_and_Londo...
    - jhbadger 11y ago
      Wigan Pier was a fairly early work but notice even then how in much of it Orwell is complaining about what he considered "cranks" in the socialist movement. He didn't like vegetarians and was even offended that a socialist convention offered a vegetarian option! He didn't like free-love enthusiasts. He didn't even like people who drank orange juice rather than tea or beer! (OJ I guess was seen as a "health food" back then rather than a normal beverage)
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - pjc50 11y ago
    Orwell was generally in favour of a practical, redistributive socialism, and strongly against Communism, especially after getting betrayed by them in Spain. This is a common problem since about the 1930s, that Communist parties were big on loyalty and short on critical thinking, tending to support Stalinism and downplay or disbelieve its totalitarianism. I second the recommendation to read The Road To Wigan Pier.
    - cmrdporcupine 11y ago
      He was against Stalinism. But he fought in a Trotskyist militia. With criticisms, yes. But he took up arms with communists. Which is why I always find it quite amusing when libertarians and conservatives use Animal Farm and 1984 as support in their arguments. Orwell would break no bread with them; he was a socialist of a revolutionary bent.
mercurial 11y ago
> Destroying the Anarchist revolution took the combined might of the most powerful forces in the world and clearly demonstrates their justified fear of a collective society. The anarchist movement was only one component of the Republican front. They were not crushed by the fascist side, they were brought down by the rest of the Republicans, under the influence of the Communists (who were almost as busy hunting any movement they considered rivals, such as the marxist-but-not-Stalinist POUM, as they were fighting fascists). The anarchist social experiment in Catalonia was something unique. The Stalin-backed Spanish communist party's line was to not antagonize the middle class (they were, obviously, to be taken care of later), and of course, the other members of the coalition, being closer to the center, were seeing the anarchists with a dim view. Another factor was the mistaken hope that the French and the British would drop the farcical "non-intervention" policy (which meant "don't do anything and pretend that Germany, Italy and the USSR are violating"), which prevented Republican Spain from bringing in weapons from France. Unfortunately for them, the British had made clear that they would not support the French in case of conflict with Germany if they started supporting the Republicans, and a mixture of fear of igniting another world war, fear of revolutionaries and sympathy for the fascists (in particular in the Royal Navy), as well as diplomatic efforts by the Nazi, ensured they would not change their mind.
- dtornabene 11y ago
  But it was far and away the largest component. Also, they were brought down by both sides. It took the combination of treachery and fascist counter-revolution to bring it down. My own studies of it have been fairly superficial, and began with Homage, but the even itself is far from understood I believe, even by scholarship.
  - mercurial 11y ago
    Like all wars, it's fairly complicated. > But it was far and away the largest component. I don't know if that's true. If we're talking number of troops, I don't think so. The bulk would be the loyalist part of the army and the Guardia Civil/Guardia Asalto. Then you had a number of political militias which would eventually be integrated into the regular army. In parallel, communists would introduce the political commissar system to enforce ideological "correctness" within the army, thus giving rise to entirely Communist regiments, based on the prototype of the 5th regiment (originally a communist-affiliated unit, later on integrated in the regular army as an elite corps).
KaiserPro 11y ago
You should read the book, it explains pretty clearly the problems as he saw it, in his part of spain. In fighting, incompetence and dis-unity, presented with a well trained and cohesive enemy meant that it all fell apart.
- pessimizer 11y ago
  That's not at all the impression I got from the book. What I got from the book is that the battle against Franco was taken up by good people doing their best, and were undermined by the Communists and ignored by the western powers until they were destroyed by the Fascists.
  - KaiserPro 11y ago
    The entire anti-facist movement (communist, anarchist, socialist and unionist) were ignored by france and great britian. They basically wanted a nice simple government to "do buisness" with. A democratic/$other government wouldn't be easy to trade with (i.e. buy train systems.)
  - vidarh 11y ago
    They were undermined by the Stalinists. There were communists fighting in Spain who were just as much under fire (as in, actually getting murdered) by Stalinist agents as the anarchists were.
    - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
      It's worth going to "Why Orwell Matters" for much emphasis on this insight. It was written by a (then ex-)Trot, Christopher Hitchens. It'll sound like Rand, which is isn't really meant to, but the issue is and will always be individualism v. collectivism.

lkrubner 11y ago

Homage remains one of my five favorite books of all time. It is rare to read a story that is true and full of political insight, yet also so gripping. Even the parts about boredom (which seems to come up in any war) seemed full of tension, since so much was changing. The alliances of factions that fought for the Spanish government was ever shifting, and Orwell had given his loyalty to a faction that was losing out, even among those who were fighting for the government (the Soviet factions were gaining power and putting pressure on other left factions). It's a rare combination of features for a book.

Tiksi 11y ago
Agreed. 1984 gets all the attention and is the first thing anyone thinks when they hear "Orwell" but I think Homage to Catalonia was a much more interesting book and explored political ideas at a much deeper level than 1984. Don't get me wrong, they both have a spot in my top 10, but sadly Homage is relatively unheard of in comparison while (imho) being a better book.
- dave2000 11y ago
  Homage, though, requires some background knowledge of the war, and of the history leading up to the war. Whereas anyone can pick up 1984.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  The one that hit me like a thunderbolt was "Burmese Days". I need to reread "Catalonia" though.

pier25 11y ago

People from all over the world volunteered to fight against fascism in the Spanish Civil War. It is estimated that about 35,000 people joined the international brigades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Brigades https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Brigades This always makes me think how much the world has changed. Can you imagine travelling today to a foreign country ready to die for fighting oppression? I have never seen such kind of conviction in my life.

selestify 11y ago
Lots of Muslims from western countries are giving up their lives to fight for ISIS... few people are volunteering to fight against it though.
diskcat 11y ago
>Can you imagine travelling today to a foreign country ready to die for fighting oppression? I have never seen such kind of conviction in my life. There were russians who fight in Ukraine and if you ask ISIS fighters they will tell you they are fighting to spread the-one-true-religion which is similar to fighting to spread the-one-true-ideology with minor differences. Also fighting oppression was what was sold to US soldiers going to the Mid East at least partially.
- mercurial 11y ago
  > There were russians who fight in Ukraine The official line from Putin is that all Russian soldiers fighting alongside the independentists are volunteers, but that sounds as true as his earlier lie about the "green men" being local militias.
  - guard-of-terra 11y ago
    This is correct, but there were large independentist brigades comprised of volunteers. Indeed that's how this civil war started. Now there is a formal army of "unrecognized republics" formed from same volunteers plus a lot of locals who are just in it for the pay. The morale is correspondingly much lower. AFAIK Russian army did some heavy lifting but not on the regular basis. They merely protect "republics" from collapse.

alan-crowe 11y ago

"Rome and Berlin, of course, supplied Generalissimo Francisco Franco and his Nationalists with aircraft, pilots, tanks, military advisors and much more, while London, Paris, and Washington refused to help the democratically-elected government of the Republic in any way." That leaves out the twisty-turny story of tanks in the Spanish Civil War. By my count the story has five surprise twists. ONE The germans were forbidden to have tanks by the Treaty of Versailles. So they had no tanks to give. TWO With some creative rules lawyering the Germans came up with the Panzer I, a tracked armoured car with two machine guns instead of a cannon. THREE The proper tanks of the period mostly had a small caliber, high velocity cannon. They could take out an enemy tank with solid shot. On the other hand a small caliber shell doesn't have much room for high explosive, and makes a poor anti-personnel weapon. In the circumstances of the Civil War, with Franco hoping to mow down Republican infantry with machines guns, the Panzer I is a splendid little tank, and I'm wrong to disparage it as a tracked armoured car. FOUR Those weren't the actual circumstances. The Russians supply the Republicans with 281 of their T-26's. Nice little tanks, with a 45mm cannon, just the ticket for making mincemeat out of the crews of Panzer I's FIVE So the Nationalists capture 178 of them from the Republicans and put around 50 of them back in service, killing Republicans. Not only were the Republicans well supplied with tanks from Moscow, Franco also got his best tanks from Moscow!

ThrustVectoring 11y ago
The primary weapon of the tank is not the cannon - it is the machine gun. Like, the point of a tank is not to blow up other tanks, the point is to be immune to small arms fire, go places, and suppress or destroy enemy ground forces.
dtornabene 11y ago
So, the treaty of versailles may have disallowed that, but the Generals were constructing arms in Russia, actually, in between the two wars. I have to dig up my sources, but I'm fairly certain the Germans had fairly sophisticated tanks by 1936, when the spanish revolution broke out.

rossf7 11y ago

Homage to Catalonia is my favourite Orwell book. There is also a Ken Loach film called Land and Freedom that is similar to Orwell's story. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_and_Freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_and_Freedom