Need opinions and the like: Spanish Civil War

kowloon

As a mature student applying late I've been asked to submit an essay for entry into a history course, I was given a handful of titles to choose from:

Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for the outbreak of the First World War?
(A lot of opinion involved so not doing this one)

How competent was the military performance of the American, British and other UN forces during the Korean War?
(would do this one by choice if I had the time to do it properly)

What are the main challenges facing the United States and its allies in the global 'war on terrorism'
(wouldn't touch this with a barge pole)

Best one was:
Why did Franco win the Spanish Civil War?
(I would have prefered why did the Nationalists win the war :rolleyes:)

I only got the mail about it tonight and it has to be written by the end of next weekend for submitting on Monday. I'll be popping into the library on Monday so any books you can recommend would be appreciated.
I have Antony Beevors Battle for Spain but haven't read it yet, .

I also would like to hear your own opinions on the subject or on history essay writing in general, I haven't written an essay in quite a few years.

Cheers lads.

Dr Strange

Hi kowloon,

sorry I don't have any literature recommendations. My personal choice would have been the Korean War. Quite an interesting topic.

Best of luck!

Preusse

kowloon

Preusse wrote: »

Hi kowloon,

sorry I don't have any literature recommendations. My personal choice would have been the Korean War. Quite an interesting topic.

Best of luck!

Preusse

Like I said, it would have been my choice If I had more time to do it properly, I would need to produce a lot of examples to argue the case.

The Spanish Civil War seems like the more expedient option.

Time will tell. :pac:

Black hole sun

Spanish Civil war by Anthony Beevor is pretty good book on the subject

but off the top of my head

-Franco had full support of the Nazi's and Mussolini

-Britain France and the U.S.A were reluctant to help the Republicans because of appeasement, league of nations resolution of non interference, the strength of the left wing in the republican side

- huge lack of unity on the republican side with there being a huge ammounts of groups and factions involved such as psoe,poum, cnt/fai, basque separatists etc each with seperate goals and agendas. There was also a large ammount of infighting in Catalonia between the soviet backed communists and the anarco-syndicalists as well.

-Republican tactics were inferior to the Nationalists who were trying out blitzkreig etc while republicans were reliant on unimagnitive soviet advisors and the often commanders who sometimes didnt even no what they were at

kowloon

Keep it coming, obscure facts welcome too.

Looking for more details on Italian forces, OOBs etc.

Saabdub

Black hole sun wrote: »

Spanish Civil war by Anthony Beevor is pretty good book on the subject

but off the top of my head

-Franco had full support of the Nazi's and Mussolini

-Britain France and the U.S.A were reluctant to help the Republicans because of appeasement, league of nations resolution of non interference, the strength of the left wing in the republican side

- huge lack of unity on the republican side with there being a huge ammounts of groups and factions involved such as psoe,poum, cnt/fai, basque separatists etc each with seperate goals and agendas. There was also a large ammount of infighting in Catalonia between the soviet backed communists and the anarco-syndicalists as well.

-Republican tactics were inferior to the Nationalists who were trying out blitzkreig etc while republicans were reliant on unimagnitive soviet advisors and the often commanders who sometimes didnt even no what they were at

Read Anthony Beevor's book on holiday. Good summary by Black hole sun. I had to laugh at the thought of anrchists vs. fascists, the philosophically unorganized fighting the pathological authoritarian. Also, obscure fact, Daniel Day Lewis's father was on the Republican side.

Saabdub

Cato

i read some of Anthony Beevors book and all of Paul Preston's (i think thats his name?) and those points mentioned above summarise it quite nicely im finding it hard to think of anymore..

I do know that Franco was not a good political leader he often changed his mind about certain subjects and the only reason he got into power was because the rest of the generals were either unsuitable, one got killed the other got captured and was "failed" to be rescued by Franco,Also you cannot leave out the effect his morrocan troops had on the moral of the republican militias and civilians alike...

Black hole sun

Actually if you want a slightly obscure fact you could refer to the habit of the Anarchists mentioned in Beevors book of either shooting or freeing those falange members or nationalists they captured at the start of the war because the concept of imprisoning them was against their whole ideology.

I suppose you could use it to emphasise the wide variance in ideology on the republican side.

George Orwells memoirs of the war "Homage To Catalonia" deals in great detail with the war in general and also the purge of POUM by the Soviet backed communists. It would probaly be an excellent source as he was actually in the poum militia and he gives a fascinating first hand account of the militia and the poor state of affairs regarding their training weapons etc.

kowloon

Read Beevors book, it's not his best, my eyes glazed over during a few chapters, he sometimes gets carried away with the name dropping.
Some of the other books are terrible examples of college textbooks though.
A lot of academic historians seem to think maps and diagrams are beneath them and try to describe entire battles and organisations in text.

The lack of hard data is annoying me. I like facts and figures to back up any point I make and theres just not as much information as there is on other conflicts.

ojewriej

kowloon wrote: »

The lack of hard data is annoying me. I like facts and figures to back up any point I make and theres just not as much information as there is on other conflicts.

It's because the whole thing was really messy, especially on the republican side. Propaganda played a great part on both sides as wll, so it's very hard to know what information is true.

Plus it was hard to get the facts as long as Franco was alive.

As for original question:

As others mentioned before - Franco had full support of Hitler and Mussolini. If i remember correctly, before the Legion Condor was formed, he was directly in charge of all the foreign troops. He also the Army of Africa, most important army on the Nationaliust side behind him.

Important facts to mention (apart from the obvious ones) imo are the treatment Republicans received from the Allies (particlarly British Navy), Russians stealing their gold reserves and charging them for that, hardcore anarchists' refusal to handle money.

Dinter

Anthony Beevor's book is exceptionally detailed and it strikes a fine balance between the factions involved. As mentioned earlier, there is a little too much to try and absorb in the time you have. However the index is well presented and an easier way to sift through it.

If I were you I think I'd concentrate more on Franco instead of the cause he represented. Draw up a profile of the man and what was done either on his authority or direct command. If I were to mention the Republicans it would be solely as a foil for him. I'd say the biggest problem I'd have with that question would be to keep it as relevant to him as possible. From the question you mentioned I'd think that's what's being looked for rather than a discussion of the parties motives or Civil war timeline etc.

I'd have to agree with ojewriej that his own greatest contribution was the army of Africa.

Added to that his cultivated "strongman" image was something that both Hitler and Il Duce would find very familiar when working with.

Lockstep

Black hole sun wrote: »

- huge lack of unity on the republican side with there being a huge ammounts of groups and factions involved such as psoe,poum, cnt/fai, basque separatists etc each with seperate goals and agendas. There was also a large ammount of infighting in Catalonia between the soviet backed communists and the anarco-syndicalists as well.

He's got the main point there.

kowloon

Yup, it's going to be more political than military.
Trying to get even pre-war military estimates is a problem, can't find reliable figures for metropolitan army numbers bar the officer corps.
Carlist militia numbers vary wildly between books, not suprising really.
Industrial figures are just as messed up.

scotus1

kowloon wrote: »

As a mature student applying late I've been asked to submit an essay for entry into a history course, I was given a handful of titles to choose from:

Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for the outbreak of the First World War?
(A lot of opinion involved so not doing this one)

How competent was the military performance of the American, British and other UN forces during the Korean War?
(would do this one by choice if I had the time to do it properly)

What are the main challenges facing the United States and its allies in the global 'war on terrorism'
(wouldn't touch this with a barge pole)

Best one was:
Why did Franco win the Spanish Civil War?
(I would have prefered why did the Nationalists win the war :rolleyes:)

I only got the mail about it tonight and it has to be written by the end of next weekend for submitting on Monday. I'll be popping into the library on Monday so any books you can recommend would be appreciated.
I have Antony Beevors Battle for Spain but haven't read it yet, .

I also would like to hear your own opinions on the subject or on history essay writing in general, I haven't written an essay in quite a few years.

Cheers lads.

Black hole sun does a nice job of summarizing the main reasons why Franco (or the Nationalists as you correctly point out) won the war. Still, had the Republicans won, you could say basically the same thing, just from their perspective. According to La Passionaria, Madrid would have fallen for sure if the Soviets had not aided the Republicans. I definitely would not fall into the trap of believing that the Nationalists were superiorly armed or had more manpower than their opponents. Franco actually loathed foreign interference in the war. If it's not too late, you need to check out any books by Stanley G. Payne. Avoid Paul Preston, who is nothing more than a politcal hack for the left.

Good luck.

kowloon

scotus1 wrote: »

If it's not too late, you need to check out any books by Stanley G. Payne. Avoid Paul Preston, who is nothing more than a politcal hack for the left.

Good luck.

Essay already sent off, not a very good one, I hadn't written an essay in years. Hopefully that will be taken into account when they're comparing it to all the essays from the A level history students with perfect interpretations as per school textbooks.
Had "The Spanish Civil War, the Soviet Union and Communism" by Payne, good book.
Had a book by Preston and on the inside it read: "This book is dedicated to the men and women of the International Brigades who fought and died fighting fascism in Spain" :rolleyes:. No comment on his objectivity so.

paulizei

Ignore "scotus1" and his one post, sounds like a Franco/Mussolini sympathiser who's bitter about how history has treated fascism. Preston's peers regard him as one of the most eminent historians of the war, his record and honours speak for themselves so dismissing his work would be as silly as dismissing Hugh Thomas for being a Thatcherite or Orwell for trying to join the anarchist faction. I'd also recommend Arturo Barea's autobiography.

The Soviet Union did not steal the gold reserves as such, they diddled the exchange rates so the government ended up paying way over the odds for equipment, much of which was obsolete, some debate about this though.

Bit late anyway but hope it turns out ok for you.

ojewriej

paulizei wrote: »

The Soviet Union did not steal the gold reserves as such, they diddled the exchange rates so the government ended up paying way over the odds for equipment, much of which was obsolete, some debate about this though.

Didn't they actually take the Spanish gold reserves for "storage", never to give them back? They even charges Spaniards for transport, security and storage fees.