Talk:Spanish Civil War

Infobox commanders and leaders again
Having read the discussion above I wonder whether there is any official WP “policy” or whatever (“guidelines”, “recommendations” etc) as to who should be listed among “leaders and commanders” in infoboxes of articles on wars and battles. Currently the assortment of people listed appears to be a fairly disputable selection to me (as to the point above, I believe Lister should be out). Please let me share my thoughts.

Republicans:

There are obvious must-be people:
 * Azaña (president of the Republic)
 * Largo Caballero (prime minister)
 * Negrin (prime minister)
 * Rojo (central military commander)
 * Miaja (central military commander)

However, among the rest none appears a must-be:

Also, there are some individuals which might merit consideration as to their place in the infobox, though I would leave them out:


 * Giral (prime minister July to Sep 1936)
 * Garcia Oliver (Anarchist leader, with major impact, CNT-FAI is listed among "Belligerents")
 * Diaz (Communist leader, with major impact)
 * Matallana (chief of staff; if Martínez Cabrera is in, Matallano also should be)
 * Buiza (commander of Republican navy)
 * Hidalgo de Cisneros (commander of Republican air force)
 * Castelló Pantoja (minister of war in Giral government)

Nationalists:

Undisputable candidates are few:
 * Franco (since Oct 1936 supreme military commander and head of state, de facto leader)
 * Queipo (leading southern troops throughout the entire war)
 * Mola (leading northern troops from July 1936 till June 1937)
 * Davila (leading northern troops from June 1937 till March 1939, minister of war from Jan 1938 onwards)

and now the doubtful ones:

As to individuals who might merit consideration as to their place in the infobox (again, I would leave all of them out):


 * NN - chief of General Staff (Jefe de Estado Mayor del Cuartel General - but who was he? have never found out)
 * Berti (CTV commander from late 1937 till end of the war, if Roatta and Bastico are in he should be in as well)
 * Kindelan (head of Nationalist aviation)
 * Moreno Fernandez (head of Nationalist navy)
 * Serrano Súñer (key Franco political adviser and to some extent decision-maker, minister of interior Jan 1938 till the end)
 * Volkmann (Condor commander, if Sperle is in he should be as well)
 * Richthoffen (Condor commander, if Sperle is in he should be as well)
 * Orgaz (head of Army of Levant)
 * Saliquet (head of Army of Centre, member of Junta de Defensa)
 * Ponte (member of Junta de Defensa)
 * Gil (member of Junta de Defensa)

In case of both Republicans and Nationalists some names seem derived from "Belligerents" section of the infobox, i.e. the logic being that each "belligerent party" deserves its leader to be listed. First, I do not think so. Then, "belligerents" also contains a fairly nonsensical selection, e.g. there is "Army of Africa" among the Nationalists (what about all other armies, and navy, and airforce) and there is POUM among the Republicans (and PCE, far more important, is missing), let alone that "Germany" and "Italy" are listed among Nationalist belligerents, while the USSR is not listed among the Republican ones. But perhaps targeting the "Belligerents" section is the task to do once we are done with this.

Final general comment: I believe stuffing the infobox with 15 "commanders and leaders" on each side is an overkill. To my taste, 5-6 would be perfectly OK. rgds, --Hh1718 (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Hh1718: Figured this deserved a response, as you've clearly put a lot of thought and effort into it. I don't think having a lot of commanders in the infobox is overkill, as this war is incredibly multi-faceted; neither the Republicans nor the Nationalists were easily reduced to a few commanders, locales or factions. But I do agree that it should probably be trimmed back a bit and I broadly agree with most of the points made here. The only two removals I would disagree with are:
 * Agirre: He was a pretty big figure in the Basque country's efforts and the northern front in the war. I think you need some representation of that effort in there, even if not necessarily Agirre himself.
 * Durruti: While his scope of action was obviously limited to the beginning of the war, I'd argue his role was an absolutely vital commander in that phase of the war. This was during a period where the Republican state functionally didn't exist and Durruti was one who led the militia system during this time, not to mention his leading role in defeating the coup in Barcelona.
 * --Grnrchst (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, Grnrchst, thanks for your thoughts.


 * It is perhaps funny, but following one month I got even more restrictive and am leaning towards leaving also Prieto, Casado and Companys out.


 * As to your comments.


 * Aguirre: well, I am sort of incoherent when claiming that Companys should be in but Aguirre out, if we consider that technically, both were leading autonomous governments throughout the entire war (well, Aguirre almost, except the period Jul-Oct 1936). I agree that Aguirre was “a pretty big figure in the Basque country’s efforts”, but my point is that this “Basque country’s efforts” were of little relevance. During 24% of the war duration (8 months out of 33) he was governing public life in 2% of Spanish provinces (1 out of 50); during this period the autonomous political unit he led fielded some 9% of all Republican troops (45,000 men out of 500,000). And afterwards his role was mostly for the propaganda window-dressing: the Republicans needed him to demonstrate to western powers their own diversity and that they were not a wild, revolutionary bunch, as some in the West did believe.


 * Durruti. All right, he might have been and probably was “absolutely vital” when it comes to thwarting the military coup in Barcelona, he “led the militia” and so son. This is why he is a must in an article on the July coup. But we are talking about the inbox, which should provide extremely brief basics about the 33-month-long period. If you say that a man who led some 3,000 people during 4 months needs a place in infobox because he was vital for military operations in Catalonia or Madrid, then we should have also Yague, the man who led even more troops during 3-month breakthrough operation across 5 provinces, which was realy vital for tides of the war, as it connected southern and northern parts and brought army of Africa from the Andalusian coastline to the gates of Madrid. And what about Alfonso Beorlegui, the man who during 2 months led few thousand men from Navarre to the Atlantic coast, seized Guipúscoa and cut off the entire Northern Enclave from France, not a minor thing given strategic perspective of war developments. Or Rudolf Freiherr von Moreau, the Nazi officer who was the brain behind German part of the 1936 airlift from Africa to Andalusia. Given Luftwaffe was the key component of the airforce involved and transported most troops, if there is a single man to be credited for this massive operation – which in opinion of the many turned a failed coup into a civil war – it is him. If someone really wants to go bold, he might claim that Yague, Beorlegui or Freiherr changed the course of the war. Also on the Republican side there are men who, in my humble opinion, had more impact than Durruti. What about Ildefonso Puigdendolas, the man who commanded troops which in July 1936 pushed the rebels out of the Guadalajara province, at some points from locations 30 kilometres away from Puerta del Sol in Madrid! And there is José Balibrea Vera, who commanded troops which in late July 1936 seized the entire Albacete province, controlled by the rebels, and this was the largest Republican territorial gain throughout the entire war (forhet the Ebro, Belchite or Brunete offensives, their territorial gains pale in comparison).


 * All right, I am aware that Aguirre and Durruti are sort of iconic figures for certain sections of the Spanish society. Apart from their actual contribution to the war, I believe this is mostly the result of decade-long Basque-nationalist and Anarchist propaganda.


 * Anyway, nice to talk to you. Let's see whether there is anyone else interested. Rgds, --Hh1718 (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Concern re: use of Payne & Palacios
I just went through the article and found that we have a fair amount of information cited to Franco: A Personal and Political Biography, a hagiography written by the American historian Stanley G. Payne and Spanish neo-Nazi Jesús Palacios Tapias. While I am not the biggest fan of Payne, I don't doubt the scholarly integrity of his earlier work and think it could contribute to a well-balanced article that gives due weight to different perspectives. But I don't extend the same assumption of good faith to his work with Palacios, which I think is a rather questionable source, to say the least.

The introduction of information from this source has brought in some very dubious claims: i.e. that the Republican Left tried to annul the 1933 election; that Mola had no role in the White Terror; and that Republicans "conducted more indiscriminate air raids on cities and civilian targets than the Nationalists". I have not seen such claims supported in any other source I have available to me, so I worry this amounts to flat-out historical revisionism. I can say for certain that Mola was a chief proponent of the White Terror (see Preston 2006); and I find the suggestion that the Republicans had the capacity to out-do the nationalists on air raids laughable, given the infamously terrible capabilities of the Spanish Republican Air Force (see Beevor 1982).

I have already provided in-text attribution to these claims, but I don't think this goes far enough. Given this would be a bold move, I wanted to bring it up in the talk page to seek consensus first: I think we should remove this source from the article altogether. I don't think it's a remotely reliable source and think this article actively suffers from its inclusion. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The claim that the Republican Left tried to annul the 1933 election is from Payne, not from Palacios, Payne has made this claim in several of his books. See for example "Alcala Zamora and the failure of the Spanish Republic, 1931-1936" . There are other historians making the same claim. Example: Enrique Aguilar Gavilán says that the socialists went even further in their desire to change the election results. Juan Negrín, on behalf of his parliamentary group, urged Mr. Niceto Alcala Zamora, the President, to immediately cancel the election results and form a new government led by left-wing republicans, which would prepare a new electoral law. . Aguilar Gavilan uses the book "Alcalá Zamora, Niceto: Memorias, Barcelona 1977, pp. 258-259" as the primary source. J Pratas (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into that! I have now removed the dubious tag on that claim, but dubious tags are still in place for the other two claims I mentioned. I'm still inclined towards removing the Payne & Palacios source from the article. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Payne's books are major scholarly studies. You can disagree with his often-favorable views of Franco--but that comes from the political viewpoint of bias of the observer. SO let's not call a major book "questionable" because it takes sides in scholarly arguments.  Rjensen (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm only questioning the reliability of one specific book, not his entire oeuvre (as I said in my original comment, I think most of his works are valuable). And I'm calling this book questionable because it has introduced some claims I think are dubious into the article. If someone can address these remaining claims, my mind may change. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

July 1936 military uprising in Seville sub-article
I recently left the following note on the talk page of the “July 1936 military uprising in Seville” article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_1936_military_uprising_in_Seville

Why "low importance?"

"Why is this article rated of “low importance”? Aside from being thorough and well-written (I made no contribution), as I pointed out years ago on the main Spanish Civil War article, the rebels taking Seville was of critical importance without which the coup might well have failed. Without Seville and its nearby air force base, Franco would have not been able to get his Moroccan army to the mainland as the sea routes were defended by elements of the Spanish Republican Navy which did not join the coup. Originally, the main article stated that at the outset of the coup attempt the rebels seized no major cities (Seville was within the five largest cities in Spain) and I corrected this by writing “with the critical exception of Seville...”

I find this article to be superb, both well written and researched and replete with relevant images. (As stated in my note above, I made no contribution to the article so I’m not patting myself on the back!) The rebels taking Seville was absolutely critical to their ultimate success in the civil war, yet this article is rated as of “low importance” and B-. The first is absurd and the latter unworthy of the effort by editors, to all of whom I would like to express my appreciation for your time and work.

The article gets few views and its talk page virtually none, which is why I am bringing this up here. I’d have to wait until Hades freezes over to expect a response there. Would editors interested in this tragic internecine conflict please consider gathering together to rectify what I consider to be and hope to be an oversight? If any disagree with my assessment of the article, please indicate why. Thanks to all for your consideration.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The war's start date
Hi there. I've been trying to educate myself on this war's history but I have a problem. The dates of the war do not match between articles. Here are a few examples:


 * The article here states it began July 18, 1936.
 * The Battle of Badajoz, says it began on July 19, 1936.
 * The Badajoz massacre says it began on July 17, 1936.

So which article has the right one and what are the rules for dates? That is to say, which article should be the authority of these dates? The Badajoz articles should fall under the article here, right?

I'm so confused! How do we check all articles related to this war for accuracy? MagnoliaSouth talk) 09:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate to represent the Viriatos with the Portuguese flag next to the Condor Legion
While Portugal was openly and officially pro-Franco during the Spanish Civil War, it should not be classified as a belligerent country alongside Germany and Italy. Unlike the Condor Legion and the Italian Corpo Truppe Volontarie, which were official military units sent by their respective governments with full state support, the Portuguese involvement was more indirect. The Viriatos, a group of Portuguese volunteers who fought for Franco, were not officially sanctioned or equipped by the Portuguese government. They were motivated by personal and ideological commitments rather than state directives. It is also inappropriate to represent the Viriatos with the Portuguese flag next to the Condor Legion, as the latter was a formal and state-supported military intervention. If we were to include the Portuguese flag for the Nationalists due to the Viriatos, consistency would require the inclusion of flags for various other international volunteer groups on both sides. This would include the German flag for the Republicans because of the Thaelmann Battalion, the American flag for the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, the Italian flag for the Garibaldi Brigade, and the French flag for the Commune de Paris Battalion, etc. Additionally, there were Irish volunteers (the Irish Brigade led by Eoin O'Duffy) and Russian volunteers on Franco's side. These battalions, driven by individual ideological motivations without state sponsorship, fundamentally differ from officially supported military units, and this distinction should be clearly maintained in historical representations. J Pratas (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi . While you can discuss about the "official" status of the Portuguese volunteers (Viriatos was a generic name indeed), Salazar support to Franco is undeniable as a well-established fact, so the flag of Portugal should remain in the infobox as a key contributor to Nationalist victory, as per sources.
 * Regarding the volunteers, there is no Portuguese flag representing them in the current version of the article, just like there are neither Italian nor German flags for the CTV or the Condor Legion.
 * I want to make clear that all the foreing combatants in the Spanish war were volunteers; it's basically true that the so called Viriatos were not Portuguese regular forces, but you can say the same of the Germans and the Italians, since both the CTV and the Condor Legion were ad hoc military groups with no direct involvement of the Wermacht or the Regio Esercito.
 * On the other hand, sources report that "A Portuguese Military Observation Mission with members drawn from all three branches of the Portuguese military was present in Spain from 1937 onwards, with the dual objectives of protecting the interests of Portuguese foreign volunteers and collating information on the lessons learned during the civil war (...) its air force contingent took part in combat missions.. Therefore, it's pretty valid to claim an official Portuguese intervention on the battlefield, even if minimal. Darius (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Portugal's support for Franco is well-documented and indeed undeniable. However, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy are widely considered belligerents due to their direct and significant military interventions. The Condor Legion, a unit of the German air force (Luftwaffe) detailed by Hermann Göring, was sent to Franco’s Nationalist forces with the stipulation that it remain under German command. Similarly, the Corpo Truppe Volontarie (CTV) was an official military unit from Italy. These forces, equipped and coordinated by their respective governments, involved significant numbers of personnel and extensive military resources, and were integrated into the Nationalist military operations in a way that the Viriatos, Portuguese volunteers, were not. Placing the Portuguese flag alongside Germany and Italy as a belligerent nation is misleading, as there are no reputable sources classifying Portugal as a belligerent. The claims made by Alejandro Quesada are fringe and unsourced. Esteemed works by historians such as Hugh Thomas, Stanley G. Payne, Paul Preston, Antony Beevor, and Burnett Bolloten do not classify Portugal as a belligerent, underscoring the distinction between indirect support and active military intervention.For the integrity of Wikipedia, it is crucial to rely on reputed academic sources and avoid forcing fringe points of view by quoting minor works. Let's ensure our content is based on well-supported, scholarly research to maintain the highest standards of accuracy and reliability.J Pratas (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Since Portuguese support to the Nationalist is, as you said, undisputable as per reliable sources, then further discussion about the flag issue is irrelevant, at least if you want to also take out France and Mexico flags from the infobox for the sake of consistency (both countries supported the Republic and volunteers from both countries fought for the Frente Popular). The infobox in its current status also makes clear the the Portuguese volunteers fought on their own.
 * The Portuguese Military Observation or Mission or Missão Militar Portuguesa de Observação em Espanha (M.M.P.O.E.E.), composed of regular soldiers and on the ground since March 1937, is mentioned in English primarly by historian Christopher Othen and also by Portuguese and Spanish authors like Buades and Ëmilio Herrera Alonso. Alonso details some combat missions flown by Portuguese pilots. It´s also worth to mention that most of the Viriatos were members of the state-sponsored Legiao Portuguesa (see Luis Nuno Rodrigues and Manuel Loff). Darius (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Darius. I appreciate the sources you have added to this discussion. However, after carefully reviewing these sources, I believe they do not support the claim that the Portuguese flag should be placed as a belligerent in the same way as Germany's and Italy's flag.

Portuguese Support and the Viriatos:

It is undisputed that Salazar supported Franco, but it is important to clarify that the "Viriatos" were not an official military unit. According to Rui Aballe Vieira in "Tomar o Pulso ao Tigre: Missões Militares Portuguesas em Espanha, entre a vigilância e a cooperação (1934 – 1939)," the Viriatos were Portuguese volunteers integrated into various Nationalist units (such as the Spanish Legion, Falange militias, requetés, rebel aviation, or regular army brigades), without forming a specific Portuguese unit. Vieira emphasizes that Salazar and the military leadership did not look favorably upon any direct intervention that would be difficult to distance from in front of the International Non-Intervention Committee. This is fundamentally different from the Condor Legion, which was a formal, state-supported military intervention by Germany.

Portuguese Military Observation Mission (MMPOE):

The MMPOE, created in March 1937, primarily served an observational role rather than engaging in combat. The mission's objectives were to gain knowledge of new weapons and military techniques, ensure a privileged position for Portugal in the new European scenario, and provide assistance to Portuguese combatants.The support provided by the MMPOE was more humanitarian, akin to what an embassy would offer, rather than direct military engagement.

Decree Prohibiting Volunteer Enlistment:

In February 1937, under pressure from the London Committee, the Salazar government published a decree prohibiting the enlistment of volunteers on either side of the conflict. This further reinforces Portugal's official stance of non-intervention.

Comparative Representation in the Infobox:

Placing the Portuguese flag alongside those of Germany and Italy as belligerents is misleading. The Condor Legion and the Italian Corpo Truppe Volontarie (CTV) were official military units sent with full state support, involving significant personnel, resources and military equipment, under the command of German and Italian high rank officials. In contrast, the Portuguese involvement was indirect and did not constitute an official military intervention. If we include the Portuguese flag due to the Viriatos, consistency would require including the flags of other countries with volunteer groups, such as the German flag for the Thaelmann Battalion, the American flag for the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, and the French flag for the Commune de Paris Battalion. Additionally, there were Portuguese militiamen fighting for the Republic, which are not represented with a flag in the infobox. In summary, while Salazar’s support for Franco is undeniable, the nature of Portuguese involvement through the Viriatos and the MMPOE does not equate to the direct military interventions by Germany and Italy. It is important to rely on reputable academic sources and avoid misrepresenting the historical context. Thank you for considering these points.J Pratas (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Ideology of the initial Nationalist uprising
In the background section about the military coup, the revolt was said to have been devoid of ideology, the goal was to put an end to anarchical disorder [sic]. Other than the potential grammatical error there, this claim is immediately contradicted with plans about the politics of a new Spanish government.

If I remember correctly, a semi-pluralist authoritarian government has an ideology. As Mola planned for such a government, and had emerged as the leader of the resistance, it is obvious that the revolt was not devoid of ideology.

I do not intend to say that having an ideology is wrong; what I intend to say is that these two pieces of information conflict. Thus, the revolt should not be said to have had no ideology.

AEagleLionThing (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The statement "the revolt was said to have been devoid of ideology, the goal was to put an end to anarchical disorder" originates from Carlton Hayes, p103. Hayes aimed to convey that the initial motivation of the military coup was to restore order rather than to implement a specific ideological agenda. This perspective explains why various individuals, including intellectuals like Miguel de Unamuno, initially supported the coup, hoping it would end the prevailing anarchy. Even Franco, in his initial manifesto, emphasized the restoration of peace, fraternity, and justice, rather than outlining a specific ideological framework. Franco's manifesto does not present a clear ideology, supporting the view that the initial revolt was not ideologically driven. Although Emilio Mola had plans for a semi-pluralist authoritarian government, according to Stanley Payne, Mola's program was vague and only a rough sketch, and there were disagreements among coupists and his ideological vision was not universally shared among the rebels. Therefore, the statement from Hayes accurately reflects the initial stage of the revolt, where the focus was on restoring order rather than pursuing a specific ideological agenda. Franco himself is often regarded as a military leader without a clear ideological orientation at the outset and whose ideology was always flexible in order to keep himself in power. But I agree that the paragraph needs to be reworded. The sequence is not coherent. J Pratas (talk) 05:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If it were intended to highlight the main focus of the revolt, then there might be no point in putting such a statement that is contradicted by the surrounding text; the following statement makes that perfectly clear.
 * One could maybe associate that statement with Hayes, which might allow for it to stay. And if he made it clear that it was to make a point, maybe one could add that? These are just suggestions; I don't have access to the source.
 * AEagleLionThing (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)