5 ms·

“Just Like at Madrid, Comrades”

57 points by Thevet 7y ago

tomcooks 7y ago
403'd.
duncan_bayne 7y ago
No idea what this is doing on HN. In addition to being off-topic, it's heavily biased, highlighting the (reprehensible) civilian casualties caused by the Nationalists, while remaining silent on the similar number of (also reprehensible) civilian deaths caused by the Republicans. It also describes the Nationalists as Fascists (which is true), while describing the anarchist and communist backed Republicans as "left-leaning" (which is biased understatement).
- capableweb 7y ago
  > No idea what this is doing on HN. Most likely because people found it interesting. Not everyone finds the same things interesting. > which is biased understatement Funny thing regarding biases in political leaning is that it's all based around context. The US, being very right-leaning, would describe one person as left-leaning while in many European countries that same person would be center or even slightly right. So it all depends. It's useful to outline where you're coming from before laying out your perspective, as it's also biased (just like mine).
  - keiferski 7y ago
    > Funny thing regarding biases in political leaning is that it's all based around context Or it just highlights the complete uselessness of the right-left dichotomy.
    - aaron-lebo 7y ago
      They use right-left in political science departments, so I'm not sure it's "useless". It just requires context. We don't look at US and EU politics on the same scale, or at the very least, EU politics are just further to the left on the universal scale. But you know that...
      - keiferski 7y ago
        > EU politics are just further to the left on the universal scale. But I don't think this is actually true or a useful statement. Many aspects of American politics are more left-wing than their European counterparts; anarchism or libertarianism, for example, roughly defined as antipathy toward the state, is often considered left-wing and is far more prevalent in the US. Left-wing politics in contemporary Europe seems to almost always include a strong state role. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_anarchism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_anarchism As I said, I don't think any sort of universal right-left dichotomy is useful. It also doesn't factor in non-traditional political thinkers, like say, Nietzsche, who could not be accurately described as right, left, or anywhere in between.
  - rumanator 7y ago
    > Funny thing regarding biases in political leaning is that it's all based around context. There is no context on which the Republican side was not comprised of communist and socialist groups supported by Stalin's Soviet Union.
- nudpiedo 7y ago
  I also found it highly biased, romanticizing one side and demonizing the other... falling in the false dichotomy of evil vs good. In Spain often people doesn't remember that in order to have a prolonged civil war there are two equally powered sides needed, both with equal social support and both with equal lack of will to negotiate. I think it is a major mistake to bring back to history the conclusions and ideas from the present, the "democracy" of the "republic" was also highly flawed and often the left sides would try and fail a coup d'etat wanting a communist revolution and it never achieved law and order. The country was just highly unstable politically and socially since the decadence by the loss of the oversea provinces and everything concluded in that war all together.
  - sudosysgen 7y ago
    It is generally recognized that negotiating with Fascists is a bad idea, as many in the Weimar Republic would indicate. Nationalist Spain also enjoyed extreme support by both capitalist Western Europe and the Soviet Union. If your theory of equal popularity being necessary for a protracted civil war, asymmetric foreign support indicates that the non-Nationalist side would have higher social support.
    - evgen 7y ago
      I am not sure where you are getting the delusional idea that the Soviet Union supported the Nationalists since they were the biggest backers of the Republicans and by the later stages of the war had complete control over the Republican leadership.
    - nudpiedo 7y ago
      when a side is superior to the other the conflict is solved in a few weeks/months at most. The national side didn't do the war alone, and the war almost stagnated during long periods of time because at times there was no easy conclusion on the horizon and no side wanted to give up. You cannot infinitely demonize one sided and picture the other as innocent/fighter of freedom when there was such a prolonged conflict and both sides committed selective mass murders against civilians (you can however argue that a side was even more evil than the other, but that's not the topic of today) P.D. The Soviet Union sided with the republicans until they unfairly appropriate (aka stole) the spanish national treasure.
- Spooky23 7y ago
  It's a feature story focused on an obscure and mostly unknown thread spinning out of the war, not a history of the Spanish Civil War. That conflict was an incredibly complex and tragic series of events... beyond the scope of what an article like this can cover. It wasn't a commies vs. nazis event, and this wasn't an article doing a survey view of the conflict.
- Koshkin 7y ago
  Fascism is national-socialism. Communism is international-fascism.
jtr1 7y ago
Orwell's account in "Homage to Catalonia" is moving and chilling. You get a sense of his deep sympathy for the fragile, classless society emerging in the early days of the civil war, but as the narrative progresses, you see how doomed it all is: an abortive bid for freedom pinched between Franco and Stalin. If nothing else, read it for the way Orwell spins being shot in the neck into dry comedy gold. I had the privilege of devouring it over a week in Barcelona. If you are ever there when the world opens up again, there is an absolutely vivid walking tour of the city that covers all the main points, which I can't recommend highly enough. http://iberianature.com/barcelona/history-of-barcelona/spanish-civil-war-tour-in-barcelona/ http://iberianature.com/barcelona/history-of-barcelona/spani...
- lostlogin 7y ago
  His description of trench warfare is powerful and horrifying. He had my heart racing when describing going over the top and chasing someone down a trench with a bayonet.
bzb3 7y ago
Franco won the war.
nudpiedo 7y ago
One should not infinitely demonize one side and picture the other as innocent/fighter of freedom when there was such a prolonged conflict and both sides committed selective mass murders against civilians (you can however argue that a side was even more evil than the other, but that's not the topic of today). When a side is superior to the other the conflict is solved in a few weeks/months at most. The national side didn't do the war alone, and the war almost stagnated during long periods of time because at times there was no easy conclusion on the horizon and no side wanted to give up. Everything else is propaganda and ideology I believe, prove me wrong otherwise.
- RobertoG 7y ago
  In a turbulent time in the politics of country X, an important part of the army of that country rebels against the elected government, wins a terrible civil war, and proceed to establish a 40 years catholic-fascist dictatorship. I tried to take away all the propaganda and ideology. Everyone can judge now by itself if what happened in country X was evil.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
    - RobertoG 7y ago
      I didn't say that the catholic-fascist dictatorship of country X was evil. I said that after they won (whatever their reasons for starting the fight) they kept the power for 40 years using force and without consulting the population. Now, if you want to put other things in the balance, feel free to do it. I can't avoid to ask myself if we were talking about concrete real countries like Germany or Japan, instead of the hypothetical country X, we would be so picky about nuances. Maybe, you are right and it's a propaganda thing.
  - nudpiedo 7y ago
    You just omitted everything, for example that the republic had 8 different Coup d'etat and that it often needed to use the army to repress their own civilians, restrict rights in many regions and became ungovernable during most of its time. Neither the Republic was a free democratically elected nor the dictatorship was fascist during its whole time in the power. And still the fascist dictatorship was still terrible with no doubt, but missing the key facts misses the point of history which should be to honor the truth to avoid repeating those mistakes again. You are still judging it in the frame of the modern world. Do not romanticize the past by judging only parts of the story projecting modern ideas on them. Saludos Roberto.
cannam 7y ago
In case anyone else is like me in wondering why the name of Bir-Hakeim is so familiar - there is a Paris Metro stop named for the battle. South bank, just west of the Eiffel tower.
valuearb 7y ago
Reading Churchill’s Memoirs right now, and there is a line in it where Rommel is telling a captured British officer how in this battle the brits made it so easy for him by spreading out their forces so he could defeat them in detail piece by piece.

57 points by Thevet 7y ago

403'd.

No idea what this is doing on HN. In addition to being off-topic, it's heavily biased, highlighting the (reprehensible) civilian casualties caused by the Nationalists, while remaining silent on the similar number of (also reprehensible) civilian deaths caused by the Republicans. It also describes the Nationalists as Fascists (which is true), while describing the anarchist and communist backed Republicans as "left-leaning" (which is biased understatement).

capableweb 7y ago
> No idea what this is doing on HN. Most likely because people found it interesting. Not everyone finds the same things interesting. > which is biased understatement Funny thing regarding biases in political leaning is that it's all based around context. The US, being very right-leaning, would describe one person as left-leaning while in many European countries that same person would be center or even slightly right. So it all depends. It's useful to outline where you're coming from before laying out your perspective, as it's also biased (just like mine).
- keiferski 7y ago
  > Funny thing regarding biases in political leaning is that it's all based around context Or it just highlights the complete uselessness of the right-left dichotomy.
  - aaron-lebo 7y ago
    They use right-left in political science departments, so I'm not sure it's "useless". It just requires context. We don't look at US and EU politics on the same scale, or at the very least, EU politics are just further to the left on the universal scale. But you know that...
    - keiferski 7y ago
      > EU politics are just further to the left on the universal scale. But I don't think this is actually true or a useful statement. Many aspects of American politics are more left-wing than their European counterparts; anarchism or libertarianism, for example, roughly defined as antipathy toward the state, is often considered left-wing and is far more prevalent in the US. Left-wing politics in contemporary Europe seems to almost always include a strong state role. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_anarchism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_anarchism As I said, I don't think any sort of universal right-left dichotomy is useful. It also doesn't factor in non-traditional political thinkers, like say, Nietzsche, who could not be accurately described as right, left, or anywhere in between.
- rumanator 7y ago
  > Funny thing regarding biases in political leaning is that it's all based around context. There is no context on which the Republican side was not comprised of communist and socialist groups supported by Stalin's Soviet Union.
nudpiedo 7y ago
I also found it highly biased, romanticizing one side and demonizing the other... falling in the false dichotomy of evil vs good. In Spain often people doesn't remember that in order to have a prolonged civil war there are two equally powered sides needed, both with equal social support and both with equal lack of will to negotiate. I think it is a major mistake to bring back to history the conclusions and ideas from the present, the "democracy" of the "republic" was also highly flawed and often the left sides would try and fail a coup d'etat wanting a communist revolution and it never achieved law and order. The country was just highly unstable politically and socially since the decadence by the loss of the oversea provinces and everything concluded in that war all together.
- sudosysgen 7y ago
  It is generally recognized that negotiating with Fascists is a bad idea, as many in the Weimar Republic would indicate. Nationalist Spain also enjoyed extreme support by both capitalist Western Europe and the Soviet Union. If your theory of equal popularity being necessary for a protracted civil war, asymmetric foreign support indicates that the non-Nationalist side would have higher social support.
  - evgen 7y ago
    I am not sure where you are getting the delusional idea that the Soviet Union supported the Nationalists since they were the biggest backers of the Republicans and by the later stages of the war had complete control over the Republican leadership.
  - nudpiedo 7y ago
    when a side is superior to the other the conflict is solved in a few weeks/months at most. The national side didn't do the war alone, and the war almost stagnated during long periods of time because at times there was no easy conclusion on the horizon and no side wanted to give up. You cannot infinitely demonize one sided and picture the other as innocent/fighter of freedom when there was such a prolonged conflict and both sides committed selective mass murders against civilians (you can however argue that a side was even more evil than the other, but that's not the topic of today) P.D. The Soviet Union sided with the republicans until they unfairly appropriate (aka stole) the spanish national treasure.
Spooky23 7y ago
It's a feature story focused on an obscure and mostly unknown thread spinning out of the war, not a history of the Spanish Civil War. That conflict was an incredibly complex and tragic series of events... beyond the scope of what an article like this can cover. It wasn't a commies vs. nazis event, and this wasn't an article doing a survey view of the conflict.
Koshkin 7y ago
Fascism is national-socialism. Communism is international-fascism.

jtr1 7y ago

Orwell's account in "Homage to Catalonia" is moving and chilling. You get a sense of his deep sympathy for the fragile, classless society emerging in the early days of the civil war, but as the narrative progresses, you see how doomed it all is: an abortive bid for freedom pinched between Franco and Stalin. If nothing else, read it for the way Orwell spins being shot in the neck into dry comedy gold. I had the privilege of devouring it over a week in Barcelona. If you are ever there when the world opens up again, there is an absolutely vivid walking tour of the city that covers all the main points, which I can't recommend highly enough. http://iberianature.com/barcelona/history-of-barcelona/spanish-civil-war-tour-in-barcelona/ http://iberianature.com/barcelona/history-of-barcelona/spani...

lostlogin 7y ago
His description of trench warfare is powerful and horrifying. He had my heart racing when describing going over the top and chasing someone down a trench with a bayonet.

bzb3 7y ago

Franco won the war.

nudpiedo 7y ago

One should not infinitely demonize one side and picture the other as innocent/fighter of freedom when there was such a prolonged conflict and both sides committed selective mass murders against civilians (you can however argue that a side was even more evil than the other, but that's not the topic of today). When a side is superior to the other the conflict is solved in a few weeks/months at most. The national side didn't do the war alone, and the war almost stagnated during long periods of time because at times there was no easy conclusion on the horizon and no side wanted to give up. Everything else is propaganda and ideology I believe, prove me wrong otherwise.

RobertoG 7y ago
In a turbulent time in the politics of country X, an important part of the army of that country rebels against the elected government, wins a terrible civil war, and proceed to establish a 40 years catholic-fascist dictatorship. I tried to take away all the propaganda and ideology. Everyone can judge now by itself if what happened in country X was evil.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
  - RobertoG 7y ago
    I didn't say that the catholic-fascist dictatorship of country X was evil. I said that after they won (whatever their reasons for starting the fight) they kept the power for 40 years using force and without consulting the population. Now, if you want to put other things in the balance, feel free to do it. I can't avoid to ask myself if we were talking about concrete real countries like Germany or Japan, instead of the hypothetical country X, we would be so picky about nuances. Maybe, you are right and it's a propaganda thing.
- nudpiedo 7y ago
  You just omitted everything, for example that the republic had 8 different Coup d'etat and that it often needed to use the army to repress their own civilians, restrict rights in many regions and became ungovernable during most of its time. Neither the Republic was a free democratically elected nor the dictatorship was fascist during its whole time in the power. And still the fascist dictatorship was still terrible with no doubt, but missing the key facts misses the point of history which should be to honor the truth to avoid repeating those mistakes again. You are still judging it in the frame of the modern world. Do not romanticize the past by judging only parts of the story projecting modern ideas on them. Saludos Roberto.

cannam 7y ago

In case anyone else is like me in wondering why the name of Bir-Hakeim is so familiar - there is a Paris Metro stop named for the battle. South bank, just west of the Eiffel tower.

valuearb 7y ago

Reading Churchill’s Memoirs right now, and there is a line in it where Rommel is telling a captured British officer how in this battle the brits made it so easy for him by spreading out their forces so he could defeat them in detail piece by piece.