Talk:Spanish Civil War/Archive 6

message: This article mentions the Republicans like if all the republicans that fought in the war had to belong to one of these political parties that are mentioned: CNT-FAI, UGT, POUM, the Soviet Union or the International Brigades.
This is totally wrong. It's like saying that there wasn't Republican Army, and that all the people who fought in the republican side belonged to one of these groups. Well, there was an official Republican Army: actually, the army of the republic was the army of Spain itself, which included, among others, the Regular force (the Ground forces, the Navy and Air forces), and police corps like the Guardia Civil (Civil Guard) and the Guardia de Asalto (Assault Guard, which was created by the Republic).
So the Republican side was the State of Spain itself (and not what you call the Spanish State), the Country, the Republic, it was Spain as a country, the official institutions of Spain. You can't depict all this as a conjunction of Guilds, the evil Soviet Union and a bunch of foreign volunteers.
So you should mention, first of all, the Republican Army. And then, and only then, if you want, you can mention other forces that helped the Republic: hundreds of political parties, the Soviet Union, the International Brigades (by the way, talking about them as a sepparate force is also inaccurate, because for example, you don't talk about the Irish volunteers as a sepparate force: they were integrated in regiments in the National Army. So the same with the International Brigades: they were a part of the Republican Army), etc.
But anyway, there were hundreds of other small powers that helped the Republic, and you can't mention them all. Because if you mention CNT-FAI, UGT, POUM, etc, you will also have to mention the tens of pro-republican Catalan parties, the pro-republican Basque parties, etc. And this would be eternal. So it's pointless to mention all these smaller forces. The article should focus on The Spanish Republic as the major force that fought on the Republican Side. Yes: there were lots of smaller forces and political parties that fought there, but the Spanish Republic was the bigger one, which grouped all the rest: all the guilds, local and regional corps of volunteers, the international brigades, etc, were inside the Republican Army.
The case of the Soviet Union
The Soviet Union didn't send their army to Spain to help the Republicans, like the Nazi Germany or the Fascist Italy did: they just sent very few troops and sold goods to the Republic (as exchange to the Spanish Gold and it was clearly abusive). Their help was much more lesser than, for example, the help brought by Franco to the Nazi Germany to fight against the communism (the Blue Division). And we don't mention this on the Second World War's combatants list. So why should we mention the Soviet Union here?
So all in all, the Republican side should only mention one thing: The Spanish Republic. Then, if you want, you can create another page like in the case of the Second World War with an infinite list of guilds, national and international volunteer corps that were integrated in the official army, and explain the help of the Soviet Union.
So I think there should be removed the small forces from the combatants list because it mentions just a few of them and they are arbitrarily taken.
.
.
.
On the cast of the fascists:
First of all, they shouldn't be called Spanish State. That was the name given to the paralel state they created when they destroyed the legitimate government of Spain (the Republic). Absolutely no one calls them the Spanish State in Spain. Not now, nor by those times. They were called el Bando Nacional, Rebelde or Sublevado (the National faction, the Rebel faction or the Revolted faction).
After this:
This combatants list has the same problem than the other: it mentions the National side as a conjunction of Carlists + Falangists + the fascist powers of  Germany + Italy.
Again, that is wrong: there was an unofficial state (the Spanish State), that sadly then became official, which grouped a part of the Spanish military and civilian society: army deserters (from all or almost all the factions of the army), deserters from the police, ex-republican civilan employees, civilian volunteers, members from fascist political parties, etc.
And this state had its own army: the National Army. And yes, this army included the Falangists and the Carlists, but you can't depict these two forces as ALL the Spanish contribution on the Nationalist side: there was an organised unofficial Spanish state, which had its own organised army, and the Falangists and the Carlists were included in it. But you can't say they were the whole of this army, and mentioning them is just anecdotal. They were just two of the corps that formed that army.
Apart of this, I agree about the Nazi Germany and the Fascist Italy, because they gave full support to the Nationalists. But they must be added to the Nationalist side as sepparate forces, not as a part of it, like they are now.
So I think it should the Falangists and the Carlists should be removed from the list, and put the National Side as the major Spanish force, and then, at the same level, the Fascist Italy and the Nazi Germany.
.
.
.
The Canary Islands
If we talk about Spain and the Spanish Morocco as sepparate things at the same time, we are comitting a mistake, because the Spanish Morocco is in Spain. So first of all, we must refer to Spain as Continental Spain, and then add the regions of Spain that are not there, as sepparate places. And this includes the Canary Islands.
The forgotten Spanish overseas territory: Equatorial Guinea (or Spanish Guinea)
In a much lesser grade, but the war also reached Ecuatorial Guinea . As far as I know, there was just an accidental death of a priest, but there were fightings and movement of troops.
.
.
.
So all in all, it would be like this:
.
.
.
By the way I resized the picture
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Onofre Bouvila 05:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The combatants list and the places where the war was fought is wrong...

message: Oh yeah, i remember the good old days where wars were carried on with pepper sprays.
are coments like "On all sides, brutality was common." really necessary? do they really improve objectivity?
: Well, considering that each side accuses the other of commiting atrocities, seems a needed starting point towards NPOV. Richy 11:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Athough brutality is common at any war in this case this sentence is particularly justified, because the Spanish Civil War was the unique in this sense that more people died during executions (performed by both sides) that at the frontlines. Jasra 22:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Keep the comment. As long as some people want to keep portraying this as 'bad guys' vs. 'good guys', 'evil soldiers' vs. 'innocents', the fact that this was a civil war, with armies, guns, tanks, airplanes, bombings and deaths on both sides, the point needs to be made over and over, unfortunately... Jope 19:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "On all sides, brutality was common." 

message: Actually, as an adjective "logistic" and "logistical" are synonymous according to my copy of Webster's.  I think it's a matter of style rather than grammar.  My ear prefers "logistic" in the places where the edits were made, but since I like the other work that Jmabel does on this article I'll defer to his taste on this point :) Dasondas 13:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'm sure I'll have occasion to return the favor. - Jmabel | Talk 23:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd have to agree with Dasondas on this one. "Logistic" just...sounds better.--Pewpewlazers 20:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Feel free to switch it back. I don't think I've ever used "logistic" in my life, just "logistics" as noun and "logistical" as adjective. - Jmabel | Talk 01:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "logistic" vs. "logistical" 

message: An editor recently changed the caption on the "Bridge at Ronda" photo. Previously it read Puente Nuevo, the bridge that links together the two parts of Ronda in Spain. Behind the window near the center of the bridge is a prison cell. It is said that during the Civil War the nationalists threw people who supported the Republicans from the bridge to their deaths many meters down at the bottom of the El Tajo canyon. The editor changed the second sentence to read It is alleged by Republicans, that during the Civil War the nationalists threw people who supported the Republicans from the bridge to their deaths many meters down at the bottom of the El Tajo canyon.  I took his point, but thought that it still wasn't right, so I took a couple of stabs and came up with, There have been unproven allegations that during the Civil War the nationalists threw people who supported the Republicans from the bridge to their deaths many meters down at the bottom of the El Tajo canyon.  However, now I'm thinking that there really isn't any great way to state this since, after all, the allegations don't seem to be substantiated.  Thomas footnotes the issue with a source that "assured him" that the killing at Ronda was by shooting.  Anyhow, I hadn't really considered the issue before but now that I've looked at it there seems to be a dilemma vis-à-vis WP:NPOV.  I'd be tempted to replace the photograph with something describing a citable event, but that might be seen to be a drastic edit.  Alternatively, I'm thinking of deleting the phrase many meters down at the bottom of the El Tajo canyon.  Frankly, none of it seems very satisfying to me.  Does anybody else have any thoughts on this?  Dasondas 04:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bridge at Ronda