Talk:Spanish Civil War/Archive 6

Spanish Civil War/Archive 6
Date	July 17, 1936 - April 1, 1939
Location	Continental Spain, Spanish Morocco, Spanish Sahara, Canary Islands, Spanish Guinea, Mediterranean Sea.
Result	Nationalist victory
Belligerents
Spanish Republic;	Spanish Nationalists; Fascist Italy; Nazi Germany
Commanders and leaders
Manuel Azaña; Francisco Largo Caballero; Juan Negrín	Francisco Franco
Casualties and losses
	Civilians killed/wounded = hundreds of thousands

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

→

The combatants list and the places where the war was fought is wrong...

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 Ca ta lan 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 [1]. 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)

Spanish Civil War/Archive 6 removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

"inspired by" ?

See Talk:Spanish Civil War/Archive 1 for a 2006 reply to this 2004 thread.

"On all sides, brutality was common."

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)

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)

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)

Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because Biased in places,inaccurate in places, messy, badly written, incomplete.I've started improving it but much more work is needed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvador Allende (talk • contribs)

Little flags

I miss among the little flags of the infobox, the ikurriña and the senyera. I remember having seen the ikurriña at least along the leftist flags in some republican poster about unity. Any reason not to include them? --Error 18:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There's apparently been a trend against including flags in these boxes. I'm neutral on this. - Jmabel | Talk 05:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, the whole combatant box is chaotic, mixing foreing involvment -incomplete (where are Portugal and the Irish Volunteers ?)-, and some political parties and unions (why are PSOE and PCE not present, and the POUM is?...). Error's proposal would only aggravate the problem. Before adding eye-candy, why not better agree in what should really come into the box ?

Anyhow, i would not recommend to include the regional governments flags, as it could obscure --Wllacer 23:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)the fact that it was an ideological and not a territorial civil war Wllacer 07:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Didn't at least the Euzko Gudarostea (including Socialists and PNVers) operate fairly independently of other Republican troops? Not that I have an opinion on combatant boxes, but if we have it, we should have it right. --Error 23:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't throw that red herring in front of me ;-). For now just say that Indalecio Prieto(Defense minister) and "Napoleonchu Aguirre" had very different views, and in no other front the word treason is so often heard. Are you sure that socialist and PNV militias in Biscay operated under an efective unified command ? They didn't surrender together ...Wllacer 08:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I found one of those posters Todas las milicias unidas en el Ejército Popular (CNT, ikurriña, hammer and sickle, Republic, Castile/Madrid?, senyera+Valencia, Andalusia, white star) and another for the Republican ABC (CNT, Galicia, Valencia, Castile?, ikurriña, senyera, Republic, hammer and sickle, star?, Andalusia). There is no flag for the internationalists and I am not sure about the Socialists. --Error 00:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I get a 403 on your first link. IIRC The PSOE/UGT used a red flag too. Usually surmounted with the old party symbol (book,anvil,...), the party/union name or even the "UHP" sign. The IB used as symbol a tree pointed star. I've seen it a couple of times surmounting the republican flag.Wllacer 08:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably the site is checking the referer header. Either change it (such us using Privoxy) or go through the posters by Melendreras. --Error 03:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

{{Derefer|http://www.sbhac.net/Republica/Carteles/Melendreras/GCE_1097_Melendreras_Cartel10.jpg Wikipedia has dereferrers}}

.--Error 03:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I got it. The poster is an old friend. I remember it reused during the late 70's ... The violet flag is undubitabily Madrid's. Concerning the white star it ought to be the flag of the socialist milita (is the only one meaningful organization missing in the poster). I just enjoied the poster collection at that site, but i can't positively identify this flag. Another curious vexilological find in this collection is that it seems that the the original IB flag was red with the three-pointed star (also red) on a white circle (f.i. [2] or [3]) but i can imagine why it has been sanitized (too similar to the nazi flag) --Wllacer 23:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem I see with this is that we're discussing adding flags where there's no combatant yet specified. The concern should be whether these factions can be justified as political combatants. I also share Wllacer's concerns that adding the Basque and Catalan flags would tend to portray the conflict as a territorial one. Of course, I'm neither Spanish nor an expert, so I'll let others thrash out the fine points. If there's a good case for adding, say, Euzko Gudarostea, I won't really object. Albrecht 14:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is that what a combatant was varied during the war. For the first months we had a regular army supported by party militias (the nationalist side) against a rather caothic joint of party militias, police force units, and remains of military units (the republicans). From October 1936 onward the republican side started to created a real army: the Ejercito Popular Republicano (republican popular army), and in both parties the militias were more and more integrated (but never fully on the republican side). It was also when foreing forces started to appear on the ground. The case in [[Biscay] became more complex due to the "peculiarites" of the basque nationalists. A good first approach (in spanish) to this particular area can be found at [4] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wllacer (talk • contribs) 18 September 2006.

'Nationalist' to 'Francoist'

I'd like to change the nomenclature for Franco supporters from Nationalist/Fascist to Francoist. Nationalist is a word with too many different meanings. In each country, it refers to a different group. Were the Loyalists less nationalistic than the Nationalists? In print, the capital 'N' narrows the meaning, but even then there's also the Chinese Nationalists. (And what if small 'n' "nationalist" is the first word in the sentance?) It strikes me as a confusing situation for those unfamilar with the topic. As for Fascist, it creates a negative emotional response and is obviously POV. Francoist is the term used by Paul Preston, a leading historian in this field.Kauffner 16:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Nationalist is fine. It's by far the most common descriptor in English (and I'd argue that Hugh Thomas is the field's leading historian); moreover, it's what Franco's forces called themselves. And I think you're exaggerating the potential for confusion. No one's going to stumble into this article and freak out because they can't find Chiang Kai-shek. Albrecht 16:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that "Nationalist" is a term well-accepted and used by historians in this case. "Nationalist/Fascist" suggests to me that all nationalists were fascists which is not the case. "Francoist" personifies the movement and gives the impression that the rebellion was primarily catalyzed by the personality and/or politics of Franco -- again this is at best misleading, and, in my opinion, is actually false. I don't think that the distinction is between "Nationalist" and "Loyalist", as you put it, but between "nationalists" and "republicans"; these are the terms commonly used by historians and I think they should be used in this article. Discussion of "Loyalists", again in my opinion, is better contrasted with "Rebels" and should be used when discussing the early days/weeks of the war before, 1) the rebels had secured a contiguous territory and were recognized by Germany and Italy, and 2) the loyalists had been driven out of Madrid and the levers of political and military power had been effectively assumed by anarchists and Stalinist communists, hence raising questions as to what exactly was left to be loyal to. Anyhow, my two cents... Dasondas 16:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Your two cents pay the bill! The competing sides were known at the time-and ever after-as the Nationalists and Republicans; and so it should remain. I have read Paul Preston's biography of Franco-some time ago admittedly-but I cannot recollect the use of the word 'Francoist' to describe the anti-Republican forces. In any case, this would be a highly inaccurate usage because, amongst other reasons, it would not incorporate the Carlists. White Guard 22:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The Nationalist/nationalist issue might not be confusing in print, but IMO we should use a word that can be used in speech without unnecessary confusion. I don't think "Nationalist" really is established usage. Hemingway's For Whom the Bell Tolls is by far the most widely read book on the war -- and he calls them capital "F" "Fascist." (For many years, I assumed this was a proper name.) Capital "R" "Rebel" is also common. Both of those are obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia, but I think they show the issue isn't settled.Kauffner 02:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't say anything about the way Wikipedia works on your computer, Kauffner, but on mine it is a print medium not a speech medium -- although to be fair I don't think my opinion on proper nomenclature would be different if we were speaking to each other rather than writing. As for Hemingway´s For Whom the Bell Tolls, it is a novel not a history. Hemingway was a partisan participant in the war and as far as I know never pretended to be objective about his tendencies. All this is to say that while his views may well be important and might even deserve recognition within the article, it would most definitely be a violation of WP:NPOV to resort to his characterizations of the participants as the normative descriptions for this article. As for my take on "Fascist" and "Rebel", please re-read my first comment above. There is no doubt that issues like this will never be "settled" in the minds of 100% of the observers, but so far you've got three people with well-considered views on this subject different than your own. There is strong historical precedent for using "nationalist" and "republican" as the normative descriptions, and so far you haven't come close to convincing me that your suggestion would do anything other than make the issue more confusing rather than more clarifying. Dasondas 03:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hemingway was writing a political novel. Of course the republicans called the nationalists "fascists" and the nationalist called the republicans "reds" and worse. And in both cases there was some justification. But these are not the terms historians use in writing about the period.

"Francoist"/"franquista" is anachronistic. The insurgency did not begin on Franco's behalf. "Francoist"/"franquista" are perfectly appropriate for talking about 1956, but they are really not right for 1936. Franco eventually, during and after the war, forged the falangists, royalists, etc. into some semblance of a party, with himself as its leader, but they certainly did not start out that way. - Jmabel | Talk 07:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

And what might be the height of irony in the labelling of partisans occurred during the spring of 1937 after Franco succeeded in getting political control of the falangists by putting down the Nazi-leaning falangist leader Manuel Hedilla. Those falangists who rallied in support of Hedilla were arrested as "Reds". So when the Francoists imprisoned the anti-Francoist rebel fascists as "Reds", with the Carlists upset with everybody at the time, I think that process of elimination leaves "Nationalist" as the only thing left to call the collective group :) Dasondas 23:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"The Nationalists on the contrary opposed these separatist movements"? The nationalists were not drawn to war so much by the separatist antics of the Basques and Catalonians, but the fear that the unique ruleing class present in Spain at the time was going to loose power to the peasents. Note the frequency that the reconquistora appears in Nationalist propaganda, the were hopeing to take the nation back from the popular front that won elections in 1935. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.96.26 (talk • contribs) 9 November 2006.

Hi,

Nationalists is the word that is most commonly used in English to define the fascists of Spain during the Spanish Civil War. But that's a wrong translation. They called themselves Los Nacionales, which means The Nationals. The Nationalists (in Spanish Los Nacionalistas) refers to the Separatist movements (Basque, Catalan and Galician, mainly). The guys who were fighting for the unity of Spain couldn't call themselves Nationalists, so they called themselves Nationals: they weren't nationalists of any region of Spain. They were nationalists of Spain itself, so they were the Nationals, the people of the Nation, of Spain.

Anyway as in English it has always been used Nationalist... I guess it's fine to leave it so. But it's a wrong translation of the term and it may lead to confusion with the separatists.

Onofre Bouvila 01:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I think Francoist is actually a little misleading as Franco became the leader of the nationalist movement after the civil war began [5]. The term Francoist suggest that those in the movement were following him - i.e. that it was a personality cult - whereas in fact he became leader after Jose Sanjurjo died. --Kick the cat 00:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not declaring my support for either "Francoist" or "Nationalist" but I'd like to point out that "Franquist" is also used to describe supporters of Franco. The double-vowel looks akward in English. Soviet Canuckistan 04:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"logistic" vs. "logistical"

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)

Thanks, I'm sure I'll have occasion to return the favor. - Jmabel | Talk 23:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Dasondas on this one. "Logistic" just...sounds better.--Pewpewlazers 20:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Date the war began

According to Chapter 14 of Thomas, the rising began in Melilla in Spanish Morocco in the early morning of July 17th. The uprising had been planned for the 18th, but one of the plotters in Melilla was a traitor to the rebellion and betrayed the plans to the Republicans who in turn alerted the local military commander to be on the lookout for suspicious activity. While in the midst of an early-morning meeting on the 17th at Melilla's military headquarters, the rebellious plotters were surprised by a group of troops and police, and they were forced to take immediate action -- which involved the capitulation and subsequent execution of the military commander, the government delegate and the mayor. Hence, the war began in the early morning of the 17th. According to Thomas, Colonel Juan Seguí told his confederates the exact hour of the rising -- five o´clock in the morning. Dasondas 01:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Presumably accurate. Thomas is probably an utterly reliable source on basic facts like that. - Jmabel | Talk 23:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, by some strange coincidence, the date I entered in the Battlebox about a month ago is, in fact, July 17. What exactly's the problem? Albrecht 00:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

A couple of days ago a new editor Bellywiki change the date to the 18th. I didn't want to discourage him/her with an abrupt revert since it appeared to be the first edit made by that editor. So I took the time to write the paragraph above. I only realized after the fact that the edit history would quickly fade from view, and my talk page note would look to be non-sequitir -- but now that there's been some further comment I think it should all be clear from this point forward. Dasondas 00:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That the Melilla Garrison rose the 17th it's a well known fact, since ever -only the details why it did it varies-. But also that is customary (and almost universal) to put the starting date of the war at 18th. It was the set date, but the truth is not only Melilla was too early, but some units did it only the 19th and the 20th, and others (Valencia and Madrid) doubted till it was too late.

As we are dealing with an encyclopedia, it's hard to say which date should be prefered. Just for reasons of general coherence I'd rather choose the 18th with a note (or something equivalent) explaining the fact of this early rising.--Wllacer 07:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

But by the end of the 17th the entirety of Spanish Morocco, with the exception of Larache -- including all military and civil executive and administrative institutions -- was under the control of an organized group of rebel soldiers with a desginated leadership and acting according to a national war plan . In the process of the uprising on this date there was much violence and associated arrests and executions of military and governmental officials. These are historic facts that are well-documented in the sources cited by the artilce. How can this date **not** be considered the start of the war? Dasondas 12:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't ask me. I only point to the fact that there is a 70 year long and almost undisputed tradition to fix the start of the war the 18th. War -specially civil ones- start dates are usually conventionally (rather than actually) fixed. Did the American Civil War really started with the Fort Sumter incident ? For instance, in our case, there could be equally valid arguments to fix the start of the war the 12th (the date Jose Calvo Sotelo was assasinated, as it marked -in retrospect- the point of no return, the 19th or 20th because it was when the republican militias were armed and transformed the scope of what till then was a rather conventional putch attempt, the 20th when IIRC the first batch of general were outlawed by the republican government, ...--Wllacer 09:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

An assassination is not a war, even if, in retrospect, it leads to one (besides, if one regresses far enough one finds these "points of no return" are awfully common). A levée en masse is not a war. Domestic legislation is not war. A war was started, as previously stated, the day the rebel army sprung into action and conquered a protectorate of the Spanish Republic. This would seem obvious. It shouldn't be complicated to explain in the article that the fighting started on the 17th and that historians sometimes mark the start of the conflict as the 18th (although I think Hugh Thomas would agree with the earlier date). If it matters so much, a footnote can be added to explain these distinctions. Albrecht 15:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I have been really tempted for the past several days to just let this sleeping dog lie, but I finally decided that I needed to set the record straight on one minor point. Nothing I'm about to write changes anything about my opinion of the start date of the war (July 17th, as discussed above), however I want to mention that the excerpt from Thomas I provided above regarding Colonel Seguí is misleading. What was quoted was what he was telling his co-plotters on the morning of the 17th. The reference to the exact hour of the rising being at 5:00 a.m. was a reference to the precise time that the uprising was **supposed** to have begun on the 18th according to the plan. Thomas was describing the conversations that were taking place in the early morning meeting on the 17th to make the point that the plot was betrayed by someone in that meeting who passed the information along, and it was when the plotters reconvened after lunch on the 17th that they were surprised by forces sent by Romerales. At that point the uprising began a day earlier than planned. Anyhow, I apologize for any confusion, but the basic point that the war started on the 17th is the same as previously discussed. I agree with everything Albrecht wrote in the post prior to this one. Dasondas 05:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Just an anecdotary evidence i can't refrain to add, but the republican government used in some instances July 15th as the threshold date . For instance the partial amnesty from January, 22th 1937. [6]. I have no idea of the rationale for that date Wllacer 08:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC).

A last anecdotary contribution. I was recently browsing some objects from one of my greatparents. There I found a beautifully boxed exemplar of the II Republic constitution and a (nationalist) Campaign Medal (rearguard). In that medal there is the date 17 Julio 1936 engraved. So unlike latter usage, it indicates that also July 17th was for a time the "official" war start date. Why it was changed to the 18th could be an interesting study on propaganda. So I give myself definitively beaten on that one.

I mentioned the constitution exemplar (kept unhidden during many apparently dangerous years), which is fully off-topic, to hint at how complex individual motivations are in a civil war. The rearguard qualifier of the medal meant really, at least on my grandparent's case, fifth column --Wllacer 10:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Bridge at Ronda

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)

Foreign invovlement section

This section is highly repetitive and convoluted. Almost every other paragraph has a sentence saying the Nationalists recieved help from Italy and Germany, while the Rupublicans only recieved help from the Soviets. There are a number of other things as well. I believe that this section needs to be rewritten. I don't feel a flow in the section either, it seems to have just been stuck together in a random order. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Say1988 (talk • contribs) 24 October 2006.