4 ms·

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

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.
twic 7y ago
> in order to have a prolonged civil war there are two equally powered sides needed, both with equal social support You might want to do a bit of reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_involvement_in_the_Spanish_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_involvement_in_the_Span...
- evgen 7y ago
  If you want to get into the weeds on this, try to be balanced (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD#Spanish_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD#Spanish_Civil_War) The Spanish Civil War soon became more about blue-on-blue infighting between traditional leftists and straight-up Stalinist agents. Orwell did not flee Spain because of the Nationalists closing in, he was being hunted by soviet agents.
- nudpiedo 7y ago
  Also the soviet union sent people and machinery to the republicans, and they were significantly more powerful at the time (ultimately Russia also defeated Germany, but that is now an unfair statement). I also read several books on the topic, my whole point it that this article is unfair and biased.

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.

twic 7y ago

> in order to have a prolonged civil war there are two equally powered sides needed, both with equal social support You might want to do a bit of reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_involvement_in_the_Spanish_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_involvement_in_the_Span...

evgen 7y ago
If you want to get into the weeds on this, try to be balanced (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD#Spanish_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD#Spanish_Civil_War) The Spanish Civil War soon became more about blue-on-blue infighting between traditional leftists and straight-up Stalinist agents. Orwell did not flee Spain because of the Nationalists closing in, he was being hunted by soviet agents.
nudpiedo 7y ago
Also the soviet union sent people and machinery to the republicans, and they were significantly more powerful at the time (ultimately Russia also defeated Germany, but that is now an unfair statement). I also read several books on the topic, my whole point it that this article is unfair and biased.