You mean, that the German an Italian neighbors helped support a failed fascist coup in neighboring Spain while the rest of the world watched? At least some brave men like Orwell had the presence of mind to be on the right side.
If this is not what you mind by "neighbors", I find your interpretation of the events extremely offensive. Like saying that jews and nazis were "neighbors" that sadly hated each other.
SPANIARDS. I mean Spaniards killing each other. I don’t care who supported what. It was brothers killing brothers.
And a kind reminder of how terribly wrong you are about bravery at war: it does not distinguish armies or colors, it’s an individual attribute of the soldier. It’s never an attribute of the army or a faction. Talk to any professional military if you have any doubt.
This is not really what happened. My city was bombed continuously during three years by the Italian navy and air force. No "spaniards" bombed my city. My grandmother was 10 and she was wounded and half her schoolmates killed by an Italian bomb. Through her life she had a huge scar on half her body and many pieces of shrapnel deep inside her. She considered all humans her brothers, as well, not only the ones that had the same passport as her. Yes, including the italian guy who killed her friends.
My grandmother was almost raped and killed by Italian comunist/partisans in the Spanish Civil war.
Both sides reached out for allies and got resources, men and machineary from them. National military front got in bed with Nacional-Socialsm and Fascism, and Republican with URSS.
The Second Spanish Republic was a failed try to make a modern country whithoug having some kind of agreement between different political parties. All political parties were extremely polarized, the first coup failed (1934), and the second one (1936) succeeded.
The civil war started 40 years of iron-fist totalitarian right-leaning regime (allied to USA). Fortunately it's been 50 years since that ended, although some politicians (soem in PSOE and almost all in Podemos) like to bring the topic up again, and again, and again... Only for divisive reasons and electoral motives.
Spaniard here. There was reactionary right wing military coup d'etat that try to take control of the country, and failed. So, we had endured a bloody civil war. On the one side, the nationalists, there was mix of right wing factions... Carlists, monarchic, right wing republicans, falangists (Spanish version of nazis). On the other side, there was a mix of force loyal to the republic and far left wing factions... socialists, communist and anarchists.
Both sides, did some awful and unmoral things, but the nationalists did a lot more awful things. Like bombing fleeing refugees. Also, the nationalists ended consolidating around the falangists and pro-nazis ideologies, and getting military help from fascists Italy and Nazis. When we ended the civil war, we had to endure a fascist regime to the end of 70's. And we endure yet some sequels of this.
So, please, don't reduce the civil war as "hate and violence between neighbors in the name of extreme political ideas". It's was an bloody military uprising against the legit government that the people elected, that ended with fascists on power.
Edit: However, fighting because of what faction was worse in a conflict that ended more than 80 years ago is nonsense. This comment was made only to remind all that both factions made war crimes.
Franco supporters' oppression aginst the losers side ("Republicans" and Communists) was worse after the war, from what I know.
One of the factions can be worse without the other being perfect.
All my grandparents were pro-Franco (some more openly than others). I have done my own research and I have concluded that no, they were the baddies. Of course the other side were not all angels. They never are.
> ended more than 80 years ago
The problem is that that conflict from 80 years ago had ramifications that continue to exist today, even present in our Constitution.
I don't know, but for anarchists and for POUM [1], Franco could be part of "the baddies" (things are never so simple like good and bad), but "Republican" (with support for the URSS) members were the ones that killed them.
The simple idea of “the political faction I don’t like did more unmoral things” completely disqualifies your argument.
In the case of Barcelona and Levante the lack of a strong Spanish State during the war and the prevalence of anarchists had as a result a lot of “experiments” around governance. These “experiments” lasted from a few months to years, and ranged from forbidding private property to killing the land owners and businessmen. It was not the land of freedom and peace described by some Anglo journalist and writers. It was a hell on earth because it was a Civil War.
This discourse supporting and whitewashing fascism should not be supported. There was a democratic government running composed by differente parties, and military and fascists prepared and achieved a coup d'etat. Government had to take a decission as mandated by their voters in democratic election so a war started.
Just saying both parts where opposite extremes is a plain lie like saying police at the congress detaining Trump/Qanon fans at this winter riot was just a crash between two "extreme political ideas".
They failed and the next two years were a sequence of minor scale violent events that ended in a war in 1936. Of course, the coup by the military forces is not justified, but the caotic situation made them choose what they thought was the "lesser of two evils".
I’m not justifying the coup. Once the war started both political extremes believed they had the mission to prevail whatever it took. That’s why it became a Civil War and the end of the Republican Spanish State as the way to keep law and order. That’s when the butchery began.
The Civil War atrocities came when the Republican Spanish State collapsed and a plethora of “experiments” started to pop up around the country driven by local communist, socialist and specially anarchist leaders trying to do the revolution on their own. The atrocities from the National (rebel) faction started from day one of the coup and they were driven by a centralized and unified alternative “national state” that prevailed because it was better applying law and order, even having very low support from the Spaniards.
The Anglo journalists and writers saw how some of these “experiments” worked. It’s not strange to see how they enthusiastically supported it at the beginning and how they changed their mind of even became critic with socialist mindset.
Painting both sides as equal, when one was democratically elected, and the other a military coup is extremely inaccurate, to the point where it suggests some strong biases. My guess is this is why it comes accross as you justifying the coup.
Edit: quote
