"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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
> 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.
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.
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).
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.
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.)
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
As well as the point made by the others, part of why he opposed (big C) Communism was that they were counterrevolutionary and suppressed the actual socialist revolution that was happening in Spain at the time. In short, the Stalinists were too right-wing for him. Homage to Catalonia does make that clear.
There's no sense, in any of Orwell's later writing, that he renounced socialism and plenty that affirmed his socialist ideas. Orwell stated in one of those works (Why I Write, 1946), that every word he wrote since 1936 was for democratic socialism, and the ending of Animal Farm, for instance, ultimately shows the communist pigs being no different from the capitalist humans (something that the CIA latched onto when they financed the 1948 animated film version, and so they had the ending changed).
He was against Stalinism and the views of the British Communist Party (which were Stalinists). But he as late as 1946 pronounced himself a supporter of democratic socialism (in "Why I Write"), which can mean anything from the left wing of social democracy to left communists. In other writings he demonstrated a lot of Trotskyist influences. E.g. a lot of the criticism of Stalinism in Animal Farm is heavily incfluenced by Trotskyism.
My point is that Orwell at that time in his life was suggesting that no matter how good the intentions of revolutionaries, oppressive regimes would be the end result. Yes, as others have mentioned he remained vaguely dedicated to "democratic socialism" but that presumably wouldn't involve any revolution, just voting in a democratic fashion.
Yeah. "Ein Volk, Ein Riech, Ein Fuhrer." It's certainly collectivist no matter which color socialist it may or may not be. If anything, it's a socialism of blood, both in heritage and in the sense of sacrifice of blood (of the individual) for blood ( in the sense of Ein Volk) .
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.
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.
In fact, also the Nationalist side had quite a number of international volunteers, to fight communism and its evils.
Not quite as many as in the stalinist-run International Brigades, but certainly over 10 000 volunteers. And not just from the fascist-run Germany or Italy, but a large number of countries. General Franco even turned down legions from Greece and exiled White Russians.
The British Communist party had found George Orwell "politically unreliable", and as we later saw, for a good reason. Likewise, Franco must have considered e.g. the Russian volunteers "politically unreliable", and probably that was also for a good reason - it would be surprising if such volunteer forces were not infiltrated by the NKVD and whoever.
> 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.
That's exactly what young people from all over the world think what they do when they travel to Syria and join ISIS.
Can you imagine travelling today to a foreign country ready to die for fighting oppression?
Maybe we are more realistic now. I would have tried to run as far away as possible from that war (or any other). My grandpas weren't so lucky.
About what happened, I try to listen, learn and then mostly shut my mouth. I'll only say that real life isn't a clear cut story of good and evil people. Look at Syria now and you would find a more accurate image than that of "fight against fascism".
>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.
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.
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.
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!