Talk:Spanish Civil War/Archive 8

message: Substitute Herbert Mathews, New York Times, for Ernest Hemingway under "Journalists."  Hemingway is already listed in the column under the Republican side.
GenghisTheHun 19:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: suggestion

message: The figure of 500,000 to 1,000,000 is vastly inflated.  Hugh Thomas, The Spanish Civil War (2001) points out on page xviii of the preface that 500,000 is the maximum.  Thomas states there that since his first edition in 1961, the estimates of casualties have dropped and dropped.  Thomas stated that for the first time in a historical work, and that was his 1961 edition, the estimate of one million dead was challenged as inflated.  Thomas states on the same page that now it would be perfectly admissible to argue that Spain actually lost fewer  people dead in acts of violence than any other major European nation in the 20th Century.
Thomas fleshes out his estimates on pp. 899-901 of his book.  I would suggest that the casualties in the war box be changed to 500,000.  Thomas does point out that 300,000 permanently emigrated because of the war, but they are not casualties.
Many Thanks,
GenghisTheHun 19:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualties are inflated

message: Where is the authority for the inclusion of Langston Hughes under the jounalists and spies section?
GenghisTheHun 22:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you questioning whether he was a war correspondent?  He was, in 1937-38: "Hughes also decided to go to Spain.  From the Baltimore Afro-American and the Cleveland Call and Post and Globe he worked out an agreement to act as a foreign correspondent" (Arnold Rampersad, The Life of Langston Hughes Vol 1, page 339).  He wrote several poems from Spain, as well as essays published in the above periodicals, as well as The Crisis, The Volunteer for Liberty, etc. His autobiography I Wonder as I Wander (1956) also talks extensively about his time in Spain. faithx5 19:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: FYI: Lord Thomas' numbers are quite outdated now. (Keep in sight his work was first published in 1961 IIRC), and the first "scientific" counting of the victims was Gen. Ramón Salas Larrazabal's work "Perdidas de la Guerra Civil" published in 1977, which has been subject of numerous revisions and critiques, but remains seminal. Have a look at [] for a relatively up to date (but obviously biased) account of the casualties of war. It's a pity the author forgot to reference to the global numbers, but for what I know from the site, can be used as a reasonably starting point. In short the site counts some  150.000 direct war casualties, some 160.000 deaths by political represion (extended some years after the war) and some 190.000 post-war deaths atributable to the war. That sums  also up to 500.000, but if you don't include the last entry it goes down to some 310.000 (+-50.000 due to the contencious nature of some represion studies and the wider time frame they allow)--Wllacer 11:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Langston Hughes

message: Thanks, I am satisfied.  
GenghisTheHun 22:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Langston Hughes

message: I posted this change sometime ago and I heard nothing.  I made the change and footnoted it for verification.
GenghisTheHun 17:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI: Lord Thomas' numbers are quite outdated now. (Keep in sight his work was first published in 1961 IIRC), and the first "scientific" counting of the victims was Gen. Ramón Salas Larrazabal's work "Perdidas de la Guerra Civil" published in 1977, which has been subject of numerous revisions and critiques, but remains seminal. Have a look at [] for a relatively up to date (but obviously biased) account of the casualties of war. It's a pity the author forgot to reference to the global numbers, but for what I know from the site, can be used as a reasonably starting point. In short the site counts some  150.000 direct war casualties, some 160.000 deaths by political represion (extended some years after the war) and some 190.000 post-war deaths atributable to the war. That sums  also up to 500.000, but if you don't include the last entry it goes down to some 310.000 (+-50.000 due to the contencious nature of some represion studies and the wider time frame they allow)--Wllacer 11:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: casualties at 500.000

message: I propose to move the vast bulk of the foreign involvement section of this article to the daughter page, "Spanish Civil War and Foreign Involvement."  This would shorten the main article considerably and allow better editing, coordination and discussion of the foreign involvement.
I shall leave this posting up for five days and if I have no objection, I shall move it to the page "Spanish Civil War and Foreign Involvement," and leave behind a small general descripton with a reference.
GenghisTheHun 15:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea, it could conceivably be split into two articles. Involvement of governments and forces acting with their approval, and actions taken by individuals against the wishes of their government. This would allow the military aid given and denied by various governments to be detailed in a clear way. Fluffy999 17:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to move large foreign involvement section to the daughter page

message: The opening of this article is a fairly bland statement about how the War ended.  But the first real mention of how it started is a bit further down and reads:
The war started with military uprisings throughout Spain and its colonies. Republican sympathizers, soldiers and civilians, formally acting independently of the state, massacred... [yada yada yada]
Which makes it sound a bit like it was Republicans doing the uprising, and the qualifier "formally" makes it sound like maybe they really had the state's blessing.  In general, it seems to me like the article leans too far towards being "even handed" and "unbiased" and so ends up making the Republican side look worse than most of the authoritative histories - including Thomas's.  And this lack of a strong statement about the opening salvo of the war seems part of that.
Hopefully, one of these days I can get around to printing this article out and doing a detailed revision of the things in it that really bug me.  As it stands I would have to describe it is flawed and misleading, and down-right inaccurate in places.  And the pacifism stuff doesn't deserve its own heading, which gives a misleading - and down-right inaccurate - weight, much as I might favor pacifism in general.
Zerodeconduite 13:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who Started It? 

message: I tried to rearrange the article and add headings to bring some order to the article.  It needs serious re-writing and citation of sources.
GenghisTheHun 15:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rearranged the article

message: What is this section all about?  I don't think it should be in the war, but moved to its own article.  I shall do that in a few days and I solicit comment.
GenghisTheHun 22:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pacificsm in Spain

message: I rearranged the article and hope we can clean it up over the next few weeks.  I think it can be a good article, but we must get citations for some the statements.
GenghisTheHun 22:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rearranged article

message: As I stated previously, I intended to move this section to its  own article.  I see no comment so I moved it.
GenghisTheHun 12:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pacificism in Spain

message: This happened, but it is not important overall in a general article on the war.  I think it should be removed.  Any comments?
GenghisTheHun 12:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Evacuation of Children

message: I have not recently been active in this article. I see that there have been major recent changes, and, judging by the edit summaries and discussion above, they have basically been by one person, who gave reasonable notice, didn't get much response, and moved forward on the basis that silence is consent. Not necessarily a bad principle, but not a basis for a strong consensus. I doubt I will have much chance to look at this article closely in the near future, but I strongly urge that several people take a good look at the changes over roughly the last four weeks, and either assure that there is a general consensus that these changes are all beneficial, or discuss which may not be. - Jmabel | Talk 07:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Made some grammar and clarity related changes, mostly to Atrocities section. New here, so I just barged in like a bull in a china shop. I don't think I changed any references or meaning, just tried to hone the langauge a bitVerdeleone 17:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major recent changes 

message: I just wanted to mention that the archives of the Lincoln Brigade are at the Tamiment Library in NYC (Online guide). Someone living in NYC might find these to be very useful research materials. - Jmabel | Talk 17:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tamiment Library 

message: There is a mention of the "expulsion of Muslims" that seems some kind of vandalism.
Please check the content previous to its introduction.
--Error 00:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Muslims

message: Link somewhere to Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War.
--Error 00:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Martyrs