
“Just Like at Madrid, Comrades” - Thevet
https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/just-madrid-comrades
======
nudpiedo
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
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.

~~~
nudpiedo
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
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.

------
jtr1
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/spani...](http://iberianature.com/barcelona/history-of-
barcelona/spanish-civil-war-tour-in-barcelona/)

~~~
lostlogin
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.

------
valuearb
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.

------
bzb3
Franco won the war.

------
tomcooks
403'd.

------
duncan_bayne
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
> 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
> 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
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
> 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.

