What do you think?
Rate this book
The Battle for Spain: The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939
A fresh and acclaimed account of the Spanish Civil War by the bestselling author of Stalingrad and The Battle of Arnhem
To mark the 70th anniversary of the Spanish Civil War's outbreak, Antony Beevor has written a completely updated and revised account of one of the most bitter and hard-fought wars of the twentieth century. With new material gleaned from the Russian archives and numerous other sources, this brisk and accessible book (Spain's #1 bestseller for twelve weeks), provides a balanced and penetrating perspective, explaining the tensions that led to this terrible overture to World War II and affording new insights into the war-its causes, course, and consequences.
To mark the 70th anniversary of the Spanish Civil War's outbreak, Antony Beevor has written a completely updated and revised account of one of the most bitter and hard-fought wars of the twentieth century. With new material gleaned from the Russian archives and numerous other sources, this brisk and accessible book (Spain's #1 bestseller for twelve weeks), provides a balanced and penetrating perspective, explaining the tensions that led to this terrible overture to World War II and affording new insights into the war-its causes, course, and consequences.
526 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 2006
1079 people are currently reading
10328 people want to read
About the author
Antony Beevor
44 books2,628 followersSir Antony James Beevor is a British military historian. He has published several popular historical works, mainly on the Second World War, the Spanish Civil War, and most recently the Russian Revolution and Civil War.
Educated at Abberley Hall School, Winchester College, and the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, Beevor commanded a troop of tanks in the 11th Hussars in Germany before deciding in 1970 to leave the army and become a writer. He was a visiting professor at Birkbeck, University of London, and the University of Kent. His best-selling books, Stalingrad (1998) and Berlin: The Downfall 1945 (2002), have been acclaimed for their detailed coverage of the battles between the Soviet Union and Germany, and their focus on the experiences of ordinary people. Berlin proved very controversial in Russia because of the information it contained from former Soviet archives about the mass rapes carried out by the Red Army in 1945.
Beevor's works have been translated into many languages and have sold millions of copies. He has lectured at numerous military headquarters, staff colleges and establishments in Britain, the US, Europe, and Australia. He has also written for many major newspapers.
Educated at Abberley Hall School, Winchester College, and the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, Beevor commanded a troop of tanks in the 11th Hussars in Germany before deciding in 1970 to leave the army and become a writer. He was a visiting professor at Birkbeck, University of London, and the University of Kent. His best-selling books, Stalingrad (1998) and Berlin: The Downfall 1945 (2002), have been acclaimed for their detailed coverage of the battles between the Soviet Union and Germany, and their focus on the experiences of ordinary people. Berlin proved very controversial in Russia because of the information it contained from former Soviet archives about the mass rapes carried out by the Red Army in 1945.
Beevor's works have been translated into many languages and have sold millions of copies. He has lectured at numerous military headquarters, staff colleges and establishments in Britain, the US, Europe, and Australia. He has also written for many major newspapers.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 534 reviews
September 22, 2018
[He puesto una traducción española abajo, en el spoiler.]
Anthony Beevor is a military historian; and his book is mainly a record of armies and battles. The forces that destabilized the government and created so much tension within the country are quickly summarized; and the aftermath of the war—its legacy, its lingering effects in Spanish political life, its wider significance in 20th century political history—all this is hinted at, but not delved into. Like any historian, Beevor needs to set limits to his material. He focuses on the Iberian peninsula in the years between 1936-39.
Beevor is an excellent writer. His paragraphs are mines of information; he summarizes, offers statistics, gives striking examples. He surveys the battlefield like an aerial observer; he reports power struggles like an investigative journalist. He never lets the material run away from him, but compresses complex events into well-turned sentences. His focus is more on large-scale movements than on individual stories. The narration seldom pauses to analyze a person’s character, or to relate a telling anecdote, but instead maintains the perspective of a general examining his troops.
Beevor’s considerable powers of narration notwithstanding, he can’t help the fact that this war is complicated. So many actors are involved, all with different motives—communists, anarchists, republicans, trade unionists, conservatives, falangists, carlists, monarchists, Basques, Catalans, Germans, Italians, Soviets, Americans, British, French—that presenting the war as a clean story is impossible. Beevor breaks the material into 38 short chapters, focusing his gaze on one aspect, in an effort to do justice to the war’s complexity without overwhelming the reader. This is an effective strategy, but it comes at the price of a certain unpleasant fragmentation. The grand sweep of the narrative is obscured.
Nevertheless, this book does what I hoped it would: provide an overview of the conflict, the immediate causes, the principal actors, and the course of the war. Having said this, I must admit that the military history of the conflict—the battles, the strategies, the armaments—is only of passing interest to me.
What I really want to know is—Why? Why did a country decide to tear itself apart? Why did countrymen, neighbors, relatives decide to kill each other in mass numbers? Why did radicalism triumph on both the left and the right? Why did a democracy fail and a repressive regime seize power? These are big questions, which this book admittedly doesn’t address. To understand the historical background and the instability that led up to the war, I plan to read Gerald Brenan’s book, The Spanish Labyrinth.
In the meantime, I am left with little more than a picture of moral collapse. At the outbreak of the military coup, there are spontaneous slaughters of clergymen, monks, bishops, in the hundreds and thousands; and the Spanish Church, for its part, was too often complicit in repression and tyranny. Mass murders and executions were perpetrated on each side. To pick one example, when the republican side was in control of Málaga, 1,005 people were executed or murdered. In the first week after its conquest by the nationalists, over 3,000 people were killed; and by 1944, another 16,000 had been put to death.
On the republican side, important military decisions were made for political reasons; political propaganda was so pervasive that leaders felt blindly sure they would win, and tried to act to justify their boastful predictions. Useless offensives were carried out—in Segovia, Teruel, and the Ebro—costing thousands of lives and wasting the Republic’s resources, to capture targets of no strategic importance. Blindly trusting in high morale, anarchists refused to regulate the economy and discipline their troops, providing an “ideological excuse for inefficiency.” Stalinist factions eventually seized power on the “republican” side, violently suppressing other parties.
Brave volunteers from all over the world rushed into Spain, most to fight against the fascists; and yet their zeal was squandered by careless leadership. Meanwhile, France, England, and the United States maintained a policy of “non-intervention,” while Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and Soviet Russia poured troops and military equipment into the country, testing out weapons and strategies that they would later use in the Second World War.
Eventually, of course, Franco won. Those on the losing side had few options. Many fled to France, where they were imprisoned in what amounted to concentration camps, in which they were forced to live on insufficient food, in unhygienic housing, and in freezing temperatures. In Saint-Cyprien, there were 50 to 100 deaths daily, and the other camps weren’t much better. After initial outrage, the French press promptly forgot the plight of these Spanish refugees. Those who remained in Franco’s Spain faced a gulag of imprisonment, forced labor, and death. Some escaped to the hills to hide out, and others fought in scattered bands of guerilla fighters; but these usually didn’t last long.
One thing that repeatedly struck me as I read through this book was the contrast in efficiency between the nationalists and the republicans. While Franco regulated his wartime economy and made effective military decisions, the republican side was awash in dozens of local currencies, busy worrying about forming syndicates, and preparing for the imminent proletariat “revolution.” On the same day as Málaga fell, when so many were put to death by Franco’s forces, in Barcelona the government was worrying about the collectivization of cows.
This seems to show us a persistent feature of both the left and the right. Equality and authority are two ideals at odds with one another; and most governments concern themselves with finding a balance between these two values. When the right becomes extreme, it gravitates towards extreme authority at the expense of equality; and when the left is radicalized, the reverse happens, and equality is fetishized. Thus we see the nationalist army consolidating itself under Franco, while the republican side devolved into warring factions, more concerned with their utopian schemes than with winning the war.
Equality without authority produces justice without power. Authority without equality, power without justice. The first is morally preferable in its ends and totally inadequate in its means; while the latter uses brutally efficient means to achieve brutally unjust ends. In practice, this means that, in direct contests, the extreme right will most often triumph over the extreme left, at least in the short-term; and yet in the long-term their emphasis on authority, obedience, and discipline produces unfair societies and unhappy populaces. The extreme left, for its part, after collapsing into mutually squabbling factions, sometimes devolves into the authoritarian pattern as one party emerges as the most powerful and as they lose patience with discussion (which doesn’t take long in a crisis).
Some middle-path is needed to navigate between these two ideals. But what’s the right balance? I suppose this is one of the oldest questions of human societies. In any case, as I put down this book, I am left with a dark picture lightened by very few bright patches.
As the Spanish Civil War proved, the first casualty of war is not truth, but its source: the conscience and integrity of the individual.
Anthony Beevor is a military historian; and his book is mainly a record of armies and battles. The forces that destabilized the government and created so much tension within the country are quickly summarized; and the aftermath of the war—its legacy, its lingering effects in Spanish political life, its wider significance in 20th century political history—all this is hinted at, but not delved into. Like any historian, Beevor needs to set limits to his material. He focuses on the Iberian peninsula in the years between 1936-39.
Beevor is an excellent writer. His paragraphs are mines of information; he summarizes, offers statistics, gives striking examples. He surveys the battlefield like an aerial observer; he reports power struggles like an investigative journalist. He never lets the material run away from him, but compresses complex events into well-turned sentences. His focus is more on large-scale movements than on individual stories. The narration seldom pauses to analyze a person’s character, or to relate a telling anecdote, but instead maintains the perspective of a general examining his troops.
Beevor’s considerable powers of narration notwithstanding, he can’t help the fact that this war is complicated. So many actors are involved, all with different motives—communists, anarchists, republicans, trade unionists, conservatives, falangists, carlists, monarchists, Basques, Catalans, Germans, Italians, Soviets, Americans, British, French—that presenting the war as a clean story is impossible. Beevor breaks the material into 38 short chapters, focusing his gaze on one aspect, in an effort to do justice to the war’s complexity without overwhelming the reader. This is an effective strategy, but it comes at the price of a certain unpleasant fragmentation. The grand sweep of the narrative is obscured.
Nevertheless, this book does what I hoped it would: provide an overview of the conflict, the immediate causes, the principal actors, and the course of the war. Having said this, I must admit that the military history of the conflict—the battles, the strategies, the armaments—is only of passing interest to me.
What I really want to know is—Why? Why did a country decide to tear itself apart? Why did countrymen, neighbors, relatives decide to kill each other in mass numbers? Why did radicalism triumph on both the left and the right? Why did a democracy fail and a repressive regime seize power? These are big questions, which this book admittedly doesn’t address. To understand the historical background and the instability that led up to the war, I plan to read Gerald Brenan’s book, The Spanish Labyrinth.
In the meantime, I am left with little more than a picture of moral collapse. At the outbreak of the military coup, there are spontaneous slaughters of clergymen, monks, bishops, in the hundreds and thousands; and the Spanish Church, for its part, was too often complicit in repression and tyranny. Mass murders and executions were perpetrated on each side. To pick one example, when the republican side was in control of Málaga, 1,005 people were executed or murdered. In the first week after its conquest by the nationalists, over 3,000 people were killed; and by 1944, another 16,000 had been put to death.
On the republican side, important military decisions were made for political reasons; political propaganda was so pervasive that leaders felt blindly sure they would win, and tried to act to justify their boastful predictions. Useless offensives were carried out—in Segovia, Teruel, and the Ebro—costing thousands of lives and wasting the Republic’s resources, to capture targets of no strategic importance. Blindly trusting in high morale, anarchists refused to regulate the economy and discipline their troops, providing an “ideological excuse for inefficiency.” Stalinist factions eventually seized power on the “republican” side, violently suppressing other parties.
Brave volunteers from all over the world rushed into Spain, most to fight against the fascists; and yet their zeal was squandered by careless leadership. Meanwhile, France, England, and the United States maintained a policy of “non-intervention,” while Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and Soviet Russia poured troops and military equipment into the country, testing out weapons and strategies that they would later use in the Second World War.
Eventually, of course, Franco won. Those on the losing side had few options. Many fled to France, where they were imprisoned in what amounted to concentration camps, in which they were forced to live on insufficient food, in unhygienic housing, and in freezing temperatures. In Saint-Cyprien, there were 50 to 100 deaths daily, and the other camps weren’t much better. After initial outrage, the French press promptly forgot the plight of these Spanish refugees. Those who remained in Franco’s Spain faced a gulag of imprisonment, forced labor, and death. Some escaped to the hills to hide out, and others fought in scattered bands of guerilla fighters; but these usually didn’t last long.
One thing that repeatedly struck me as I read through this book was the contrast in efficiency between the nationalists and the republicans. While Franco regulated his wartime economy and made effective military decisions, the republican side was awash in dozens of local currencies, busy worrying about forming syndicates, and preparing for the imminent proletariat “revolution.” On the same day as Málaga fell, when so many were put to death by Franco’s forces, in Barcelona the government was worrying about the collectivization of cows.
This seems to show us a persistent feature of both the left and the right. Equality and authority are two ideals at odds with one another; and most governments concern themselves with finding a balance between these two values. When the right becomes extreme, it gravitates towards extreme authority at the expense of equality; and when the left is radicalized, the reverse happens, and equality is fetishized. Thus we see the nationalist army consolidating itself under Franco, while the republican side devolved into warring factions, more concerned with their utopian schemes than with winning the war.
Equality without authority produces justice without power. Authority without equality, power without justice. The first is morally preferable in its ends and totally inadequate in its means; while the latter uses brutally efficient means to achieve brutally unjust ends. In practice, this means that, in direct contests, the extreme right will most often triumph over the extreme left, at least in the short-term; and yet in the long-term their emphasis on authority, obedience, and discipline produces unfair societies and unhappy populaces. The extreme left, for its part, after collapsing into mutually squabbling factions, sometimes devolves into the authoritarian pattern as one party emerges as the most powerful and as they lose patience with discussion (which doesn’t take long in a crisis).
Some middle-path is needed to navigate between these two ideals. But what’s the right balance? I suppose this is one of the oldest questions of human societies. In any case, as I put down this book, I am left with a dark picture lightened by very few bright patches.
February 15, 2026
Good but not Great
The Battle for Spain is solid book by the great historian Antony Beevor. I would say that this book is not his best work, but it is still a decent history and I have learnt a lot about a topic I knew nothing about. Due to my unfamiliarity with the subject it has been impossible for me to come away with a full understanding of the war and a further read or another book on the topic is required. However, all the main points are addressed, starting with foundations of Spain’s decline from the ‘bread basket of the Roman Empire’ to a poor state in the early 19th century.
A lot of attention has been given to why the Republicans lost, their inferior troops and equipment, internal fighting between factions and lack of support from foreign powers. The reasons why are all discussed. Franco also plays his part as a talented general who fronted the Army of Africa, Spain’s best fighting force at the time. The realpolitik of Europe at the time is decisive on the outcome, as WWII loomed ever closer and the focus shifted to events in Central Europe. Eventually for the allies, a weakened neutral state, republican or nationalist was what was the best outcome. The major engagements are also a focus along with the atrocities committed. Especially those after the Nationalist victory, such as the purges and settling up of the concentration camps for dissidents. As Beevor explains though, most civil wars cause this outcome and if the republicans won, the same is certain.
Guernica, Badajoz, the siege of Madrid and Barcelona are all there. Along with the curious support of other nations (such as the sale of weapons from Nazi Germany to both sides), the Condor Legion’s testing of blitzkrieg warfare and the celebrities who became embroiled in the fighting and reporting. Furthermore, I felt like the accession of King Juan Carlos I and Spain’s march to democracy was only touched on in the conclusion, which I always thought was an important long term end to the war.
For me The Battle for Spain falls somewhere in the middle of Beevor’s other works and is not a bad book. It is not an authoritative account of the conflict, but a good introduction.
The Battle for Spain is solid book by the great historian Antony Beevor. I would say that this book is not his best work, but it is still a decent history and I have learnt a lot about a topic I knew nothing about. Due to my unfamiliarity with the subject it has been impossible for me to come away with a full understanding of the war and a further read or another book on the topic is required. However, all the main points are addressed, starting with foundations of Spain’s decline from the ‘bread basket of the Roman Empire’ to a poor state in the early 19th century.
A lot of attention has been given to why the Republicans lost, their inferior troops and equipment, internal fighting between factions and lack of support from foreign powers. The reasons why are all discussed. Franco also plays his part as a talented general who fronted the Army of Africa, Spain’s best fighting force at the time. The realpolitik of Europe at the time is decisive on the outcome, as WWII loomed ever closer and the focus shifted to events in Central Europe. Eventually for the allies, a weakened neutral state, republican or nationalist was what was the best outcome. The major engagements are also a focus along with the atrocities committed. Especially those after the Nationalist victory, such as the purges and settling up of the concentration camps for dissidents. As Beevor explains though, most civil wars cause this outcome and if the republicans won, the same is certain.
Guernica, Badajoz, the siege of Madrid and Barcelona are all there. Along with the curious support of other nations (such as the sale of weapons from Nazi Germany to both sides), the Condor Legion’s testing of blitzkrieg warfare and the celebrities who became embroiled in the fighting and reporting. Furthermore, I felt like the accession of King Juan Carlos I and Spain’s march to democracy was only touched on in the conclusion, which I always thought was an important long term end to the war.
For me The Battle for Spain falls somewhere in the middle of Beevor’s other works and is not a bad book. It is not an authoritative account of the conflict, but a good introduction.
October 30, 2012
I found this book nearly unreadable and gave up on it within the first 100 pages. As such, take this review with that in mind since I didn't gut through it.
I had heard great things about Beevor's "Stalingrad" and may still read it someday. "The Battle for Spain", however, suffers from a few serious problems: its choice to be a straight political history and Beevor's writing style.
I am not a fan of this kind of history writing. It is top-down narrative history at its worst. It is no doubt invaluable as a reference tool as to what the myriad of factions were doing at any time, but truth is never so neat in practice. History is not merely the retelling of official actions by heads of various parties and factions. But here, an already questionable historical writing approach is executed poorly. Beevor assumes far too much reader knowledge. He throws into the text seemingly dozens of new names and parties and movements a page without giving the reader much of a sense of who these people are, who they really represent, and what forces are actually driving their decisions. It would be like trying to understand US history only through headlines in a newspaper and official political announcements by the government and political parties.
Second, Beevor's style of writing is poor. He jumbles and inverts sentences and uses commas in ways that render his writing a total mess. It gums up any narrative momentum and makes reading dramatic events as dry as reading an outdated chemistry textbook.
I would recommend it only as a reference book for those with a deep love of straight up political history writing.
I had heard great things about Beevor's "Stalingrad" and may still read it someday. "The Battle for Spain", however, suffers from a few serious problems: its choice to be a straight political history and Beevor's writing style.
I am not a fan of this kind of history writing. It is top-down narrative history at its worst. It is no doubt invaluable as a reference tool as to what the myriad of factions were doing at any time, but truth is never so neat in practice. History is not merely the retelling of official actions by heads of various parties and factions. But here, an already questionable historical writing approach is executed poorly. Beevor assumes far too much reader knowledge. He throws into the text seemingly dozens of new names and parties and movements a page without giving the reader much of a sense of who these people are, who they really represent, and what forces are actually driving their decisions. It would be like trying to understand US history only through headlines in a newspaper and official political announcements by the government and political parties.
Second, Beevor's style of writing is poor. He jumbles and inverts sentences and uses commas in ways that render his writing a total mess. It gums up any narrative momentum and makes reading dramatic events as dry as reading an outdated chemistry textbook.
I would recommend it only as a reference book for those with a deep love of straight up political history writing.
December 13, 2021
A book I’ve had on the shelf for a coupla years now & as winter descends this will become part of my day time reading!
As I do with History book reviews I’ll give a shorter review at the start giving my overall thoughts/feelings on the writing & style whilst following that I’ll give a more in depth overview of what the book/chapters consisted of. Which is in essence the notes Ive made along the way.
The beginning of the book has a series of maps (to refer to later) as well as the main parties in the conflict, all intended to get the reader familiarised with the subject matter.
The parts are well thought out as are the chapters therein which give detail to each process/activity or area of the civil war making it an easy read to follow & understand how the war developed. It’s not overtly detailed which some historical books are which would bog a reader down but gives more than enough insight & eyewitness accounts to allow you the reader to piece together events & actions. I found the detail spot on which made the narrative very engaging. There is a wealth of source information which is referenced along the way whilst others are noted & indexed in a bibliography at the end.
I have to say I came into this read with really a scant knowledge of the Spanish Civil War as it’s not really been covered in many books until fairly recently, a fresh scar in many folks minds perhaps? I have seen films which cover the topic & read some h/f books set in the era/region but never taken on a historical narrative before.
I have to say I chose well as this flows perfectly & I feel ive picked up a real feel for the Spanish Civil War & why it occurred & the course of the actions throughout. To best sum it up Ive copied the last paragraph from the book which I feel is succinct….
The Spanish Civil war is however, best remembered in entirely human terms: The clash of beliefs, the ferocity, the generosity and selfishness, the hypocrisy of diplomats & ministers, the betrayal of ideals & political manoeuvres and, above all, the bravery & self-sacrifice of those who fought on both sides.
A clear 5 stars for me & highly recommended.
For a more detailed review……..
The Text starts with the Moors & the Reconquista under Isabella & Ferdinand, as good a place to start as any, for us non-Spanish who appreciate a history lesson.
After the introduction which takes us through to the mid/late 1800’s, Part 1 is then devoted to an overview of the history of Spain leading upto the civil war giving many an insight into the why. In the first chapters it focuses mainly on the royal family & it’s role with the army/generals who assume control for the most part whilst those on the left start to form groups & rise in popularity with rebellions & uprisings a plenty throughout the late 1800’s & into the pre first WW era. The later chapters tell the story of the second republic which imploded further dividing Spain sending those who were centralist into the arms of either the far left or far right come the fateful election of 1936. Even during the second republic the far left are triggering the uprisings rather than the right which you would perhaps expect? Which only succeeds in pushing more people to the right. I had no idea that Spain was that unstable for so long but reading the overview it’s a very fractural state throughout this period & despite it not being involved in WWI, internal conflict was always occurring… I already knew about the church influence & the lack of agrarian advancement compared to other European powers of the era which is also covered as part of the reasoning for the shift to the left by the peoples. It’s a tinderbox ready to explode, being stoked over a period of decades which ever increases after the election of 1936 as both sides ramp up the anti until the inevitable…..
Onto Part 2 The war of Two Spain’s – The actual Civil War itself starts off as a complete mess in some regions, with the republic in denial & not issuing arms to its supporters amongst the workers/population whilst the army deserts to the Nationalists or turns against it’s officers & supports the republicans…… one thing is for sure though, no real quarter is given & executions of the opposition are readily carried out from the outset on both sides. It’s quiet a shambolic start to the civil war which isn’t really what I’d expected but on reflection having read the intro it does follow that a civil war in Spain would be thus due to it’s nature & peoples. The text is awash with examples, eye witness accounts/reports of the uprising of the generals across Spain & it’s colonies. I also didn’t realise that the Germans got involved so early, it was actually they that helped ensure the African army got across to the mainland via Ju52 transport planes or screening the few transport ships that the Nationalists had with German Battleships keeping the mostly Republican Navy at bay which the Nationalists thought would be in their pocket (the Navy) & make the crossing easy…. The lower deck sailors overthrowing their officers at the start of the coup & securing most of the Navy for the republic. Atrocities were common place, executions rife, battles sporadic & chaotic as the situation developed from a revolt to a civil war, one which perhaps the republicans could have put down if they had reacted quicker & took the threat seriously from the start, not allowing the nationalists footholds on the mainland. There are chapters on the “red terror” & the “white terror” which detail some of the major atrocities which mostly occurred in the early part of the war in ’36 & the thing that stands out is that the reds was mostly reactive/vengeful whilst the whites was systematic area by area, almost a cleansing of the red machine/governance. Further chapters detail the “nationalist region” & the “republican region” which goes into the political machinations of both factions with the nationalists being the most simplistic…. Get the war won & decide the constitution thereafter, whilst the republicans put a lot of effort into their collaborations across all their factions in order to maintain their solidarity & continued efforts. The final chapter in this part details the two armies & what a contrast they were, one professional, the other for the most part a shambolic collective would be the description, although acts of courage were common place on the republican side they had no discipline or any real leadership, that was until the communists started to organise them into columns which came in the later part of the summer.
Part 3 – The civil war becomes international – I think most of us who have read in part about the Spanish civil war know of the German, Italian & Russia involvement which was in evidence in the early text but to read of American & British intervention on the side of the Nationalists was a first for me & a quote from Franco stood out, saying at the end of the war they couldn’t have won without the supply of oil, trucks & arms from American companies! Also that British battleships stopped republican naval bombardments of Nationalist positions early in the war by placing themselves In the line of fire & blockading their navy! It’s reputed that both the Yanks & the Brits had one eye on keeping international communism from spreading & although didn’t directly involve themselves in the war as the aforementioned countries did, they did take actions which had quite an effect on the outcome. They also persuaded France not to supply the republicans with arms after an agreement had been struck, merely giving them a few planes without weaponry. Whilst on the republican side it seemed that Russian basically “stole” all their gold & supplied them with at first out of date equipment, charging heavily for their “advisors” & blatantly fixing the exchange rate. The formation of the Nationalist & Republican hierarchies has a chapter where we see Franco attain power with relative ease giving the Nationalists stability whereas the Republicans was finally managed only after much discussion between all the factions, again the difference in the two sides creates a more favourable impression of the Nationalists (from external nations) which for me as a reader decades later illustrates the fear of communism by democracies of the era. The international brigades have a chapter which again distils myth’s, this one that they were made up by mostly middle-class lefties from western nations where in fact many came from Eastern Europe to escape the right-wing dictatorships of their own nations whilst from Britain it was mainly the unemployed working class. It would appear the reason this illusion was created was that the international press was drawn to certain well-known people who took the attention creating a false impression of the make-up of the international brigades ie they were made up of middle class intelligentsia which is what ive often read about. The final chapter details the battle for Madrid.
Part 4 – World War by Proxy – starts with the metamorphosis of the war, which after the chapter on the battle for Madrid details how the war has changed into one more of attrition than easy victories/walk overs as the republicans become more organised & better armed/supplied to enable them to resist the better trained nationalist army. The focus is on a lot of the soviet influence & how the communists start to take control of the forces & form them into Brigades. As the soviets become more influential on one side so do the fascists on the other where the “condor brigade” comes into existence as does various Italian brigades. With the battle for Madrid locked in a stalemate, Franco directs his forces Northwards towards the Basque region knowing that if successful in this region it’ll release more troops for attacks elsewhere, a whole chapter “battle for the North” is utilised for this front. The chapter details the overall campaign, the politics, as well as details from the individual battles via eye witness accounts as well as outside observers & participants although the propaganda of the time gave, to say the least, conflicting reports on the atrocities carried out e.g., the bombing of Guernica was disputed hotly. With superior air power & the Basques focused entirely on defence it wasn’t long before the North was conquered. “The propaganda war & the intellectuals” rounds off this part & at times it reads like a whose who on the republican side but despite their perceived being “intellectuals” it’s mostly the Nationalists who win the propaganda war in terms of foreign government approval despite the fact that many polls had the Republicans as favoured by the masses. In America for instance up to 70% supported the republicans as being the legitimate government but it was big business & government that were swayed by the anti-communist propaganda but out by Franco’s “boys”. It’s a well delivered part & illustrates how the war evolved into a battle of ideologies rather than a localised civil war which is further evidenced in the next part.
Part 5 – Internal Tensions – We start with “The Struggle for Power” & as evidenced in the prior topics there is much disparity between the two sides which certainly effected (for me) the final outcome. Franco’s move appears seamless, with opposition moved aside, isolated or simply imprisoned overnight with his position secure come spring 1937 after he started his manoeuvres within months of the start of the war, allowing the Nationalists to simply focus on winning the war. Whilst on the centre left / liberaltarians / anarchists / communists plus many other smaller factions it’s a far more complex tale where they are set against each other with the communists slowly swallowing up the resistance often with the soviets threatening to withdraw from Spain entirely or else not giving equipment/supplies to those unless they were in the Spanish communist party. As the communist party grew in strength, denouncements came to the fore & dissenters were arrested. If you were soviet & didn’t follow the NKVD line you would find yourself “repatriated” & summarily executed as part of Stalin’s purge of the army in the late 30’s. This happened to quite a few of the top Brass who dared to fall foul of the NKVD whose influence grew as the communists ranks amassed. Although this growth of communism did solidify Spain internally (to a degree… with the join or die mindset!) it did work against the republic in the outside world in terms of support. The next chapter takes us one step further with “a civil war within a civil war” & focuses on the uprising/dispute in Barcelona in the spring of 37 where the republican government basically divides into the communists vs the rest where it’s the communists who finally win out by virtue of the statement “if you don’t support us, aid will be cut from Moscow”. Some of those against are found guilty of treason & colluding with the fascists & “disappeared”, the POUM movement is disbanded entirely whilst other groups leaders are rounded up & imprisoned en masse which puts an end to any resistance to the communist takeover in Spain of the republican side. We cover the Battle of Brunete which was to be the grand offensive by the republicans (communists) meant to relieve the siege of Madrid utilising over 70,000 men along with expected air superiority (in terms of numbers at least) as well as tank & artillery support…… However, as we read it’s an unmitigated disaster & costs thousands of lives….. accounts are included from the chief of staff’s, as well as testimony from those on the ground with regards to the battle, it’s an enthralling chapter & relays well the fog of war that can occur although it’s fair to say it’s the incompetence of the newly appointed communist officers that are behind the reason for the failure, that & the real air superiority that the Nationalist forces enjoyed as the soviets air attack was mostly MIA. A lot of detail is used in evidence & a map is included. The communists as is the way of totalitarianism outfits blame everybody else for their failures on the battlefield & begin to purge the military & government with the anarchist stronghold of Aragon “attacked” by numerous divisions under communist control arresting hundreds & disbanding organisations & infrastructure replacing it with their own…. You can start to understand the disparity between the two sides already. Meanwhile on the international front the Germans & Italians are ignoring the non-intervention policies with the Italian submarine fleet even sinking merchant shipping (British/French ships included) attempting to supply Spain.
Onto part 6 – The Route to disaster – We start with the “Battle for Terueal” which sees the republicans go on a pre-emptive offence after intelligence reveals a planned nationalist attack on Madrid. Franco against advice from his German masters counters the offensive as he’s not willing to give the government any morale victories at all. The battle sees early success for the republicans as expected as they take the nationalists by surprise but its short lived as once Franco has moved his forces to counter it’s jus about all over… the aftermath & stories of the fighting make for grim reading, because of the conditions (Blizzards with temp’s plummeting to -20 degrees at times) & street to street fighting it’s likened to the Stalingrad of the Spanish Civil War. Again we hear tales of in fighting between communist & non-communist forces, in particular, a lack of supply or support in combat from communist led divisions to their “allies”. At leadership level, the communists blame treason & fascist spies spreading dissent as the real reason for the failure of their plan & battle incompetence….. The morale plummets amongst the government’s forces by the end of 1937 when this battle was fought. Reading on through the chapters you can see that this failure was the catalyst to the final defeat, moral plummets, the in-fighting increases, supplies to the population worsen, industry jus about collapses…… “Viva Espana” is a chapter which sees us explore the Nationalist side which I must admit for most of the book has played second fiddle…. It relays stories of issues with the Italians who it would appear spend more time in the rear areas visiting brothels & shows than actually fighting in the front line! It’s the political move by Franco though that sets most of the tone for the chapter where he forms a cabinet for the post war period (so he says) which is still headed by generals with him at the top responsible for everything, he merely has replaced the monarchy with himself rather than paving a way for a more democratic form of government, the fear being that a democracy will lean more to the left…. We learn a little of Franco’s cautious nature where instead of striking for Barcelona when the republican army is in full flight, he heads South towards the entrenched forces around Valencia as he fears a strike at Catalonia will see the French pulled into the war & annex the region for themselves….. the other reason given is that he wants a long war where he will then have a total victory as opposed to one when terms are negotiable…. It is the later game I think he played reading the text. It makes a change to read of the Nationalist foibles than the continued shambles that is the republican government. The Battle of the Ebro is the next chapter which is yet again another spectacular gamble made by the republic (communist army leaders) to gain a victory which only succeeds in smashing their forces who could have defended the terrain by employing a better strategy. It also sees Franco halt his attack on Valencia to throw 8 divisions at this attack much to the despair of his Italian & German allies when victory was at their mercy….. it’s a senseless slaughter of men with the sides loosing 75,000 & 60,000 respectively over nothing more than a scrap of desert terrain with zero strategic purpose. The next chapters update us on the “European factor” which has jus seen the Czech Sudetenland handed to Hitler followed swiftly by the “fall of Catalonia” which sees the armies of the republic cross into France as refugees along with hundreds of thousands of civilians. Its not long before the factions of the republicans fall upon each other & there is a coup based around Madrid which eventually signals the end of resistance as they try desperately to broker a peace deal with franco’s forces, who though is having none of it & when the final assault on Madrid happens the republican forces either melt away or throw up the white flag immediately signalling that the war is in effect over.
Part 7 wraps up the aftermath of the war & continues forward into the world war & beyond.
As I do with History book reviews I’ll give a shorter review at the start giving my overall thoughts/feelings on the writing & style whilst following that I’ll give a more in depth overview of what the book/chapters consisted of. Which is in essence the notes Ive made along the way.
The beginning of the book has a series of maps (to refer to later) as well as the main parties in the conflict, all intended to get the reader familiarised with the subject matter.
The parts are well thought out as are the chapters therein which give detail to each process/activity or area of the civil war making it an easy read to follow & understand how the war developed. It’s not overtly detailed which some historical books are which would bog a reader down but gives more than enough insight & eyewitness accounts to allow you the reader to piece together events & actions. I found the detail spot on which made the narrative very engaging. There is a wealth of source information which is referenced along the way whilst others are noted & indexed in a bibliography at the end.
I have to say I came into this read with really a scant knowledge of the Spanish Civil War as it’s not really been covered in many books until fairly recently, a fresh scar in many folks minds perhaps? I have seen films which cover the topic & read some h/f books set in the era/region but never taken on a historical narrative before.
I have to say I chose well as this flows perfectly & I feel ive picked up a real feel for the Spanish Civil War & why it occurred & the course of the actions throughout. To best sum it up Ive copied the last paragraph from the book which I feel is succinct….
The Spanish Civil war is however, best remembered in entirely human terms: The clash of beliefs, the ferocity, the generosity and selfishness, the hypocrisy of diplomats & ministers, the betrayal of ideals & political manoeuvres and, above all, the bravery & self-sacrifice of those who fought on both sides.
A clear 5 stars for me & highly recommended.
For a more detailed review……..
The Text starts with the Moors & the Reconquista under Isabella & Ferdinand, as good a place to start as any, for us non-Spanish who appreciate a history lesson.
After the introduction which takes us through to the mid/late 1800’s, Part 1 is then devoted to an overview of the history of Spain leading upto the civil war giving many an insight into the why. In the first chapters it focuses mainly on the royal family & it’s role with the army/generals who assume control for the most part whilst those on the left start to form groups & rise in popularity with rebellions & uprisings a plenty throughout the late 1800’s & into the pre first WW era. The later chapters tell the story of the second republic which imploded further dividing Spain sending those who were centralist into the arms of either the far left or far right come the fateful election of 1936. Even during the second republic the far left are triggering the uprisings rather than the right which you would perhaps expect? Which only succeeds in pushing more people to the right. I had no idea that Spain was that unstable for so long but reading the overview it’s a very fractural state throughout this period & despite it not being involved in WWI, internal conflict was always occurring… I already knew about the church influence & the lack of agrarian advancement compared to other European powers of the era which is also covered as part of the reasoning for the shift to the left by the peoples. It’s a tinderbox ready to explode, being stoked over a period of decades which ever increases after the election of 1936 as both sides ramp up the anti until the inevitable…..
Onto Part 2 The war of Two Spain’s – The actual Civil War itself starts off as a complete mess in some regions, with the republic in denial & not issuing arms to its supporters amongst the workers/population whilst the army deserts to the Nationalists or turns against it’s officers & supports the republicans…… one thing is for sure though, no real quarter is given & executions of the opposition are readily carried out from the outset on both sides. It’s quiet a shambolic start to the civil war which isn’t really what I’d expected but on reflection having read the intro it does follow that a civil war in Spain would be thus due to it’s nature & peoples. The text is awash with examples, eye witness accounts/reports of the uprising of the generals across Spain & it’s colonies. I also didn’t realise that the Germans got involved so early, it was actually they that helped ensure the African army got across to the mainland via Ju52 transport planes or screening the few transport ships that the Nationalists had with German Battleships keeping the mostly Republican Navy at bay which the Nationalists thought would be in their pocket (the Navy) & make the crossing easy…. The lower deck sailors overthrowing their officers at the start of the coup & securing most of the Navy for the republic. Atrocities were common place, executions rife, battles sporadic & chaotic as the situation developed from a revolt to a civil war, one which perhaps the republicans could have put down if they had reacted quicker & took the threat seriously from the start, not allowing the nationalists footholds on the mainland. There are chapters on the “red terror” & the “white terror” which detail some of the major atrocities which mostly occurred in the early part of the war in ’36 & the thing that stands out is that the reds was mostly reactive/vengeful whilst the whites was systematic area by area, almost a cleansing of the red machine/governance. Further chapters detail the “nationalist region” & the “republican region” which goes into the political machinations of both factions with the nationalists being the most simplistic…. Get the war won & decide the constitution thereafter, whilst the republicans put a lot of effort into their collaborations across all their factions in order to maintain their solidarity & continued efforts. The final chapter in this part details the two armies & what a contrast they were, one professional, the other for the most part a shambolic collective would be the description, although acts of courage were common place on the republican side they had no discipline or any real leadership, that was until the communists started to organise them into columns which came in the later part of the summer.
Part 3 – The civil war becomes international – I think most of us who have read in part about the Spanish civil war know of the German, Italian & Russia involvement which was in evidence in the early text but to read of American & British intervention on the side of the Nationalists was a first for me & a quote from Franco stood out, saying at the end of the war they couldn’t have won without the supply of oil, trucks & arms from American companies! Also that British battleships stopped republican naval bombardments of Nationalist positions early in the war by placing themselves In the line of fire & blockading their navy! It’s reputed that both the Yanks & the Brits had one eye on keeping international communism from spreading & although didn’t directly involve themselves in the war as the aforementioned countries did, they did take actions which had quite an effect on the outcome. They also persuaded France not to supply the republicans with arms after an agreement had been struck, merely giving them a few planes without weaponry. Whilst on the republican side it seemed that Russian basically “stole” all their gold & supplied them with at first out of date equipment, charging heavily for their “advisors” & blatantly fixing the exchange rate. The formation of the Nationalist & Republican hierarchies has a chapter where we see Franco attain power with relative ease giving the Nationalists stability whereas the Republicans was finally managed only after much discussion between all the factions, again the difference in the two sides creates a more favourable impression of the Nationalists (from external nations) which for me as a reader decades later illustrates the fear of communism by democracies of the era. The international brigades have a chapter which again distils myth’s, this one that they were made up by mostly middle-class lefties from western nations where in fact many came from Eastern Europe to escape the right-wing dictatorships of their own nations whilst from Britain it was mainly the unemployed working class. It would appear the reason this illusion was created was that the international press was drawn to certain well-known people who took the attention creating a false impression of the make-up of the international brigades ie they were made up of middle class intelligentsia which is what ive often read about. The final chapter details the battle for Madrid.
Part 4 – World War by Proxy – starts with the metamorphosis of the war, which after the chapter on the battle for Madrid details how the war has changed into one more of attrition than easy victories/walk overs as the republicans become more organised & better armed/supplied to enable them to resist the better trained nationalist army. The focus is on a lot of the soviet influence & how the communists start to take control of the forces & form them into Brigades. As the soviets become more influential on one side so do the fascists on the other where the “condor brigade” comes into existence as does various Italian brigades. With the battle for Madrid locked in a stalemate, Franco directs his forces Northwards towards the Basque region knowing that if successful in this region it’ll release more troops for attacks elsewhere, a whole chapter “battle for the North” is utilised for this front. The chapter details the overall campaign, the politics, as well as details from the individual battles via eye witness accounts as well as outside observers & participants although the propaganda of the time gave, to say the least, conflicting reports on the atrocities carried out e.g., the bombing of Guernica was disputed hotly. With superior air power & the Basques focused entirely on defence it wasn’t long before the North was conquered. “The propaganda war & the intellectuals” rounds off this part & at times it reads like a whose who on the republican side but despite their perceived being “intellectuals” it’s mostly the Nationalists who win the propaganda war in terms of foreign government approval despite the fact that many polls had the Republicans as favoured by the masses. In America for instance up to 70% supported the republicans as being the legitimate government but it was big business & government that were swayed by the anti-communist propaganda but out by Franco’s “boys”. It’s a well delivered part & illustrates how the war evolved into a battle of ideologies rather than a localised civil war which is further evidenced in the next part.
Part 5 – Internal Tensions – We start with “The Struggle for Power” & as evidenced in the prior topics there is much disparity between the two sides which certainly effected (for me) the final outcome. Franco’s move appears seamless, with opposition moved aside, isolated or simply imprisoned overnight with his position secure come spring 1937 after he started his manoeuvres within months of the start of the war, allowing the Nationalists to simply focus on winning the war. Whilst on the centre left / liberaltarians / anarchists / communists plus many other smaller factions it’s a far more complex tale where they are set against each other with the communists slowly swallowing up the resistance often with the soviets threatening to withdraw from Spain entirely or else not giving equipment/supplies to those unless they were in the Spanish communist party. As the communist party grew in strength, denouncements came to the fore & dissenters were arrested. If you were soviet & didn’t follow the NKVD line you would find yourself “repatriated” & summarily executed as part of Stalin’s purge of the army in the late 30’s. This happened to quite a few of the top Brass who dared to fall foul of the NKVD whose influence grew as the communists ranks amassed. Although this growth of communism did solidify Spain internally (to a degree… with the join or die mindset!) it did work against the republic in the outside world in terms of support. The next chapter takes us one step further with “a civil war within a civil war” & focuses on the uprising/dispute in Barcelona in the spring of 37 where the republican government basically divides into the communists vs the rest where it’s the communists who finally win out by virtue of the statement “if you don’t support us, aid will be cut from Moscow”. Some of those against are found guilty of treason & colluding with the fascists & “disappeared”, the POUM movement is disbanded entirely whilst other groups leaders are rounded up & imprisoned en masse which puts an end to any resistance to the communist takeover in Spain of the republican side. We cover the Battle of Brunete which was to be the grand offensive by the republicans (communists) meant to relieve the siege of Madrid utilising over 70,000 men along with expected air superiority (in terms of numbers at least) as well as tank & artillery support…… However, as we read it’s an unmitigated disaster & costs thousands of lives….. accounts are included from the chief of staff’s, as well as testimony from those on the ground with regards to the battle, it’s an enthralling chapter & relays well the fog of war that can occur although it’s fair to say it’s the incompetence of the newly appointed communist officers that are behind the reason for the failure, that & the real air superiority that the Nationalist forces enjoyed as the soviets air attack was mostly MIA. A lot of detail is used in evidence & a map is included. The communists as is the way of totalitarianism outfits blame everybody else for their failures on the battlefield & begin to purge the military & government with the anarchist stronghold of Aragon “attacked” by numerous divisions under communist control arresting hundreds & disbanding organisations & infrastructure replacing it with their own…. You can start to understand the disparity between the two sides already. Meanwhile on the international front the Germans & Italians are ignoring the non-intervention policies with the Italian submarine fleet even sinking merchant shipping (British/French ships included) attempting to supply Spain.
Onto part 6 – The Route to disaster – We start with the “Battle for Terueal” which sees the republicans go on a pre-emptive offence after intelligence reveals a planned nationalist attack on Madrid. Franco against advice from his German masters counters the offensive as he’s not willing to give the government any morale victories at all. The battle sees early success for the republicans as expected as they take the nationalists by surprise but its short lived as once Franco has moved his forces to counter it’s jus about all over… the aftermath & stories of the fighting make for grim reading, because of the conditions (Blizzards with temp’s plummeting to -20 degrees at times) & street to street fighting it’s likened to the Stalingrad of the Spanish Civil War. Again we hear tales of in fighting between communist & non-communist forces, in particular, a lack of supply or support in combat from communist led divisions to their “allies”. At leadership level, the communists blame treason & fascist spies spreading dissent as the real reason for the failure of their plan & battle incompetence….. The morale plummets amongst the government’s forces by the end of 1937 when this battle was fought. Reading on through the chapters you can see that this failure was the catalyst to the final defeat, moral plummets, the in-fighting increases, supplies to the population worsen, industry jus about collapses…… “Viva Espana” is a chapter which sees us explore the Nationalist side which I must admit for most of the book has played second fiddle…. It relays stories of issues with the Italians who it would appear spend more time in the rear areas visiting brothels & shows than actually fighting in the front line! It’s the political move by Franco though that sets most of the tone for the chapter where he forms a cabinet for the post war period (so he says) which is still headed by generals with him at the top responsible for everything, he merely has replaced the monarchy with himself rather than paving a way for a more democratic form of government, the fear being that a democracy will lean more to the left…. We learn a little of Franco’s cautious nature where instead of striking for Barcelona when the republican army is in full flight, he heads South towards the entrenched forces around Valencia as he fears a strike at Catalonia will see the French pulled into the war & annex the region for themselves….. the other reason given is that he wants a long war where he will then have a total victory as opposed to one when terms are negotiable…. It is the later game I think he played reading the text. It makes a change to read of the Nationalist foibles than the continued shambles that is the republican government. The Battle of the Ebro is the next chapter which is yet again another spectacular gamble made by the republic (communist army leaders) to gain a victory which only succeeds in smashing their forces who could have defended the terrain by employing a better strategy. It also sees Franco halt his attack on Valencia to throw 8 divisions at this attack much to the despair of his Italian & German allies when victory was at their mercy….. it’s a senseless slaughter of men with the sides loosing 75,000 & 60,000 respectively over nothing more than a scrap of desert terrain with zero strategic purpose. The next chapters update us on the “European factor” which has jus seen the Czech Sudetenland handed to Hitler followed swiftly by the “fall of Catalonia” which sees the armies of the republic cross into France as refugees along with hundreds of thousands of civilians. Its not long before the factions of the republicans fall upon each other & there is a coup based around Madrid which eventually signals the end of resistance as they try desperately to broker a peace deal with franco’s forces, who though is having none of it & when the final assault on Madrid happens the republican forces either melt away or throw up the white flag immediately signalling that the war is in effect over.
Part 7 wraps up the aftermath of the war & continues forward into the world war & beyond.
April 1, 2023
الان که چند سال از خوندن این کتاب میگذره، هنوز به فارسی ترجمه نشده. الان تصویر بهتری دارم که چرا جمهوری دوم سقوط کرد و چرا اصلا جنگ داخلی اسپانیا شروع شد. الان متوجه هستم که جمهوری دوم بی گناه صرف نبود و ژنرال فرانکو هم به اون بدی که تصور میکردم نبود. وقتی وقایع این کتاب رو در کنار شرایط جهان در دهه سی میلادی قرن قبل میسنجید، تازه متوجه میشید که چرا شوروی و مکزیک به جمهوری دوم اسپانیا کمک می کردند.
موضوع دیدن تاریخ با دید بازتر و فراتر از خواندن ترتیب سیر اتفاقاته، الان متوجه شدم که فهم وقایع مهم تر از سیر وقایع هست. جنگ داخلی اسپانیا مقدمه ی جنگ جهانی دوم بود و همزمان با جنگ چین و ژاپن در آسیا انجام میشد.
دلایل شروع جنگ قابل درک تر هست، خشونت افسار گسیخته ای که داشت بهتر فهم میشه و الان میتونم بگم هیچکدوم حق نداشتن!
اگه با جنگ داخلی اسپانیا با کتاب "شهادتنامه اسپانیا: گفتگو با مرگ" از آرتور کستلر آشنا شدین، خوندن این کتاب خیلی مهم، زاوایای دیگه ای از جنگ رو بهتون نشون میده.
آنتونی بیور مورخ بزرگیه، چند کتاب دیگه اش به فارسی ترجمه شدند و این کتابش یکی از معدود منابع مهم به زبان انگلیسیه، طبیعتا سایر کتاب های قابل اتکا از جنگ داخلی اسپانیا به زبان اسپانیایی هستند و خیلیاشون نسخه ی انگلیسی هم ندارند.
موضوع دیدن تاریخ با دید بازتر و فراتر از خواندن ترتیب سیر اتفاقاته، الان متوجه شدم که فهم وقایع مهم تر از سیر وقایع هست. جنگ داخلی اسپانیا مقدمه ی جنگ جهانی دوم بود و همزمان با جنگ چین و ژاپن در آسیا انجام میشد.
دلایل شروع جنگ قابل درک تر هست، خشونت افسار گسیخته ای که داشت بهتر فهم میشه و الان میتونم بگم هیچکدوم حق نداشتن!
اگه با جنگ داخلی اسپانیا با کتاب "شهادتنامه اسپانیا: گفتگو با مرگ" از آرتور کستلر آشنا شدین، خوندن این کتاب خیلی مهم، زاوایای دیگه ای از جنگ رو بهتون نشون میده.
آنتونی بیور مورخ بزرگیه، چند کتاب دیگه اش به فارسی ترجمه شدند و این کتابش یکی از معدود منابع مهم به زبان انگلیسیه، طبیعتا سایر کتاب های قابل اتکا از جنگ داخلی اسپانیا به زبان اسپانیایی هستند و خیلیاشون نسخه ی انگلیسی هم ندارند.
January 31, 2021
“Сякаш две съвсем отделни нации са във война”
Война между хора или идеологии?
Причините за Гражданската война в Испания са толкова сложни, колкото и проследяването на нейния тригодишен ход. Затова Антъни Бийвър тръгва отдалече – тя (или по-скоро единият лагер) черпи идеологическата си обосновка от католиците Исабела и Фернандо и тяхната Реконкиста, минава през триумфа на католицизма и изграждането на Империята, либералните вълнения от 19 век и мътната международната обстановка след Първата световна война.
Това, което имаме като Испания от 30-те години на миналия век е силно фрагментирана страна, с многобройни враждуващи помежду си групи. Докато в други “размирни” държави от периода – СССР, Италия, Германия – противопоставянето е предимно бинарно (демократи/умерени социалисти срещу фашисти/комунисти), в Испания се намесват и ултракатолическият монархизъм и анархосиндикализмът. Щипка национален колорит – латинска страст, безумие и дързост, и се получава амалгама, която прави събитията не само по-интересни за външния наблюдател, но и много по-кървави.
Симпатиите в популярната култура безспорно са на страната републиканската кауза срещу фашистките и националистически орди на Франко. С оглед събитията след 1939 г. този сантимент е безполезен и ужасно закъснял. А както се вижда от фактите и тяхната оценка, нито един от двата лагера не притежава монопол върху раздаването на морални присъди, нито един от тях не успява да оправдае и освети каузата, за която се бори. Може би защото някои каузи са отживелица, а други се налагат с типичния инструмент на епохата – принуда и насилие.
Книгата на Антъни Бийвър е поредната негова, която ме потапя напълно в атмосферата на дадено историческо събитие. Всичко е разглобено до най-малката съставна част, до последния детайл. Не липсват и така необходимите изводи и обобщения, а финалът е особено силен. За разлика от “Сталинград” и “Падането на Берлин” обаче, тук Бийвър ми се стори малко повече от нужното подробен. Вероятно самият характер на събитията не му е оставил избор – действащите играчи и групировки са многобройни, с твърде разностранна мотивация и преплетени интереси. Въпреки това, усилието, което тази обемна книга изисква от читателя, не е напразно – не се сещам за друга издадена у нас книга, която да третира темата толкова цялостно и самостоятелно.
Война между хора или идеологии?
Причините за Гражданската война в Испания са толкова сложни, колкото и проследяването на нейния тригодишен ход. Затова Антъни Бийвър тръгва отдалече – тя (или по-скоро единият лагер) черпи идеологическата си обосновка от католиците Исабела и Фернандо и тяхната Реконкиста, минава през триумфа на католицизма и изграждането на Империята, либералните вълнения от 19 век и мътната международната обстановка след Първата световна война.
Това, което имаме като Испания от 30-те години на миналия век е силно фрагментирана страна, с многобройни враждуващи помежду си групи. Докато в други “размирни” държави от периода – СССР, Италия, Германия – противопоставянето е предимно бинарно (демократи/умерени социалисти срещу фашисти/комунисти), в Испания се намесват и ултракатолическият монархизъм и анархосиндикализмът. Щипка национален колорит – латинска страст, безумие и дързост, и се получава амалгама, която прави събитията не само по-интересни за външния наблюдател, но и много по-кървави.
Симпатиите в популярната култура безспорно са на страната републиканската кауза срещу фашистките и националистически орди на Франко. С оглед събитията след 1939 г. този сантимент е безполезен и ужасно закъснял. А както се вижда от фактите и тяхната оценка, нито един от двата лагера не притежава монопол върху раздаването на морални присъди, нито един от тях не успява да оправдае и освети каузата, за която се бори. Може би защото някои каузи са отживелица, а други се налагат с типичния инструмент на епохата – принуда и насилие.
Книгата на Антъни Бийвър е поредната негова, която ме потапя напълно в атмосферата на дадено историческо събитие. Всичко е разглобено до най-малката съставна част, до последния детайл. Не липсват и така необходимите изводи и обобщения, а финалът е особено силен. За разлика от “Сталинград” и “Падането на Берлин” обаче, тук Бийвър ми се стори малко повече от нужното подробен. Вероятно самият характер на събитията не му е оставил избор – действащите играчи и групировки са многобройни, с твърде разностранна мотивация и преплетени интереси. Въпреки това, усилието, което тази обемна книга изисква от читателя, не е напразно – не се сещам за друга издадена у нас книга, която да третира темата толкова цялостно и самостоятелно.
January 16, 2012
I didn't know anything about the Spanish Civil War until I read this book. And what an eye-opener it is.
Spain in the 1930s was a country in transition. It had just come out of the departure of King Alfonso XIII and a new republic was trying to get itself established. But forces from across the political spectrum took turns weakening the Republic to further their own agenda: the political and social conservatives who wanted to retain the status quo of monopoly of power and privilege; the socialists, the anarchists, and the communists who were intent on destroying the old order and to usher in their own brand of social experimentation, however violent. The moderates who wanted reform and stability through peaceful, parliamentary means were caught in the middle. The virulent and often violent clash of ideologies and personalities eventually consumed Spain in civil war.
A number of people who are ignorant of the Spanish Civil War might be tempted to view it in just black and white: the Republic, under a mix of socialists, communists, and liberals, were the good guys, fighting for a dignified Spain of secularism, human rights, and democracy; and the Nationalist rebels under Franco were the bad guys, remnants of the old order who wanted their privileges retained. But history is often not just black and white.
Both sides committed numerous atrocities against their enemies, real and perceived. (Hundreds of Catholic priests were murdered by both parties.) The Nationalist rebels were aided by Hitler and Mussolini, but the Republic was also aided (and eventually controlled) by another dictatorship, Stalin. And the Republic did not always abide to democratic niceties, as was shown in the latter part of the war when the Republic was hijacked by the communists and by the lumpen dictator Juan Negrin. No wonder Eric Blair (George Orwell) and some others were disillusioned by their experience as volunteers during the war. Orwell, in particular, was so troubled by the communist excesses he saw in Spain that the experience inspired him to write his masterpieces, "Animal Farm" and "1984"
The war can really be said to be a dress rehearsal for the more terrible Second World War, as Spain became a bloody battlefield not just between ideologies, but also among technologies, especially air power, which the Nationalists and their German allies used so devastatingly and decisively. Although quite dense and somewhat difficult to read because of the diversity of characters and groups, the narrative of the story almost makes it like a suspense novel. An important event of the twentieth century that should be understood.
Spain in the 1930s was a country in transition. It had just come out of the departure of King Alfonso XIII and a new republic was trying to get itself established. But forces from across the political spectrum took turns weakening the Republic to further their own agenda: the political and social conservatives who wanted to retain the status quo of monopoly of power and privilege; the socialists, the anarchists, and the communists who were intent on destroying the old order and to usher in their own brand of social experimentation, however violent. The moderates who wanted reform and stability through peaceful, parliamentary means were caught in the middle. The virulent and often violent clash of ideologies and personalities eventually consumed Spain in civil war.
A number of people who are ignorant of the Spanish Civil War might be tempted to view it in just black and white: the Republic, under a mix of socialists, communists, and liberals, were the good guys, fighting for a dignified Spain of secularism, human rights, and democracy; and the Nationalist rebels under Franco were the bad guys, remnants of the old order who wanted their privileges retained. But history is often not just black and white.
Both sides committed numerous atrocities against their enemies, real and perceived. (Hundreds of Catholic priests were murdered by both parties.) The Nationalist rebels were aided by Hitler and Mussolini, but the Republic was also aided (and eventually controlled) by another dictatorship, Stalin. And the Republic did not always abide to democratic niceties, as was shown in the latter part of the war when the Republic was hijacked by the communists and by the lumpen dictator Juan Negrin. No wonder Eric Blair (George Orwell) and some others were disillusioned by their experience as volunteers during the war. Orwell, in particular, was so troubled by the communist excesses he saw in Spain that the experience inspired him to write his masterpieces, "Animal Farm" and "1984"
The war can really be said to be a dress rehearsal for the more terrible Second World War, as Spain became a bloody battlefield not just between ideologies, but also among technologies, especially air power, which the Nationalists and their German allies used so devastatingly and decisively. Although quite dense and somewhat difficult to read because of the diversity of characters and groups, the narrative of the story almost makes it like a suspense novel. An important event of the twentieth century that should be understood.
July 17, 2018
Spoilers: the good guys win.
September 1, 2011
Even Antony Beevor Can't Simplify Such a Complicated Topic ...
The Spanish Civil War is a significant 20th century historical event that is logically obscured by the enormity of the Second World War. My rudimentary knowledge of the conflict led me to simplify it as a war between the Nazi supported Nationalists vs. the Soviet supported Republicans ... oh how wrong I was. My search to expand my knowledge of the Spanish Civil War both started and ended with the discovery Antony Beevor's THE BATTLE FOR SPAIN.
Beevor is an author that captured my devotion with STALINGRAD and THE FALL OF BERLIN 1945. With these books, Beevor exhibited an amazing knack of detailing large-scale events in a captivating manner that somehow doesn't lose the reader in the minutia. THE BATTLE FOR SPAIN, however, proved to be a different beast for me to conquer as I found myself continuously lost in a sea of details that required me to take a few long breaks from reading in order to regenerate interest in completing the book.
THE BATTLE FOR SPAIN is pretty much a straight-forward chronological account of the Spanish Civil War, including the period that precedes the war and the post-war period concluding with the death Francisco Franco in 1975. From the book's onset it is quite evident that the war was arguably a much more convoluted affair than World War II, where the combatants and front lines were more clearly defined. The myriad of allegiances, factions, groups and political parties quickly envelope the reader in a morass of acronyms and Spanish names that required frequent visits to the acronym list graciously provided by Beevor in the beginning of the book. Additionally, the war was not a logical series of sequential events, but a conglomeration of simultaneous events over three years that lead to an uneasy conclusion. It is this combination of multiple factions and events that made Beevor's trademark detailing more of a curse than a pleasurable read for me. While, overall, the book is well-organized, I found the colorful and interesting minutia distracting throughout.
On the other hand, as distracting as it may be at times, THE BATTLE FOR SPAIN is very thorough (in a "no stone left unturned" manner) and fairly neutral in its delivery. I consider the author to be a proven scholar on the subjects he writes about ... the research and sources attributed to each of his books are impressive. While Beevor's popularity as an author will no doubt create detractors, he is arguably one of the more trusted modern historians of the World War II era and THE BATTLE FOR SPAIN only bolsters his reputation in my opinion. The book provides a rich detail of the war and gives the reader a more thorough understanding of the vicious political nature that ruptured Spain in the 1930s. While it is often stated that the Spanish Civil War was a "proving ground" or a "pre-cursor" to World War II, Beevor clearly supports his belief that it was a world war by proxy. While Nazi Germany's influence is historically popularized by its implementation of the Condor Legion, Beevor documents the equally prominent influence of the Soviet Union, France, Great Britain and future World War II allies as well. Every facet of the conflict is approached, from propaganda to the bumbling meddling from Mussolini. It was quite astonishing to discover that Herman Goring supplied arms to the Republicans that were used to fight German soldiers on the Nationalist side. Equally interesting was the detail of modernized use of tanks on the battlefield and the effectiveness of air power via air-ground attack. Ironically, the iconic bombing of Guernica (which only consumes a paragraph or two) is referred to more as historic propaganda than a devastating terror bombing as recent findings show the casualties were significantly inflated at the time. As stated earlier, Beevor takes an all-encompassing approach to the subject with this book, and this should provide insight to most anyone wanting to learn more about the conflict. There are maps to highlight the various major battles in the war, but they are (unfortunately) all displayed at the beginning of the book and not with their appropriate chapters.
Overall, the BATTLE FOR SPAIN provides a wealth of information that should be enlightening to anyone with an interest in the subject matter. While I personally found the book to be a challenging read, I finished it with a degree of satisfaction in that I learned more about the Spanish Civil War than I had ever anticipated. While THE BATTLE FOR SPAIN does present itself as an authority on the subject by answering many questions and thoroughly illustrating events, it clearly proves the Spanish Civil War was complex and messy affair that even Antony Beevor cannot simplify.
The Spanish Civil War is a significant 20th century historical event that is logically obscured by the enormity of the Second World War. My rudimentary knowledge of the conflict led me to simplify it as a war between the Nazi supported Nationalists vs. the Soviet supported Republicans ... oh how wrong I was. My search to expand my knowledge of the Spanish Civil War both started and ended with the discovery Antony Beevor's THE BATTLE FOR SPAIN.
Beevor is an author that captured my devotion with STALINGRAD and THE FALL OF BERLIN 1945. With these books, Beevor exhibited an amazing knack of detailing large-scale events in a captivating manner that somehow doesn't lose the reader in the minutia. THE BATTLE FOR SPAIN, however, proved to be a different beast for me to conquer as I found myself continuously lost in a sea of details that required me to take a few long breaks from reading in order to regenerate interest in completing the book.
THE BATTLE FOR SPAIN is pretty much a straight-forward chronological account of the Spanish Civil War, including the period that precedes the war and the post-war period concluding with the death Francisco Franco in 1975. From the book's onset it is quite evident that the war was arguably a much more convoluted affair than World War II, where the combatants and front lines were more clearly defined. The myriad of allegiances, factions, groups and political parties quickly envelope the reader in a morass of acronyms and Spanish names that required frequent visits to the acronym list graciously provided by Beevor in the beginning of the book. Additionally, the war was not a logical series of sequential events, but a conglomeration of simultaneous events over three years that lead to an uneasy conclusion. It is this combination of multiple factions and events that made Beevor's trademark detailing more of a curse than a pleasurable read for me. While, overall, the book is well-organized, I found the colorful and interesting minutia distracting throughout.
On the other hand, as distracting as it may be at times, THE BATTLE FOR SPAIN is very thorough (in a "no stone left unturned" manner) and fairly neutral in its delivery. I consider the author to be a proven scholar on the subjects he writes about ... the research and sources attributed to each of his books are impressive. While Beevor's popularity as an author will no doubt create detractors, he is arguably one of the more trusted modern historians of the World War II era and THE BATTLE FOR SPAIN only bolsters his reputation in my opinion. The book provides a rich detail of the war and gives the reader a more thorough understanding of the vicious political nature that ruptured Spain in the 1930s. While it is often stated that the Spanish Civil War was a "proving ground" or a "pre-cursor" to World War II, Beevor clearly supports his belief that it was a world war by proxy. While Nazi Germany's influence is historically popularized by its implementation of the Condor Legion, Beevor documents the equally prominent influence of the Soviet Union, France, Great Britain and future World War II allies as well. Every facet of the conflict is approached, from propaganda to the bumbling meddling from Mussolini. It was quite astonishing to discover that Herman Goring supplied arms to the Republicans that were used to fight German soldiers on the Nationalist side. Equally interesting was the detail of modernized use of tanks on the battlefield and the effectiveness of air power via air-ground attack. Ironically, the iconic bombing of Guernica (which only consumes a paragraph or two) is referred to more as historic propaganda than a devastating terror bombing as recent findings show the casualties were significantly inflated at the time. As stated earlier, Beevor takes an all-encompassing approach to the subject with this book, and this should provide insight to most anyone wanting to learn more about the conflict. There are maps to highlight the various major battles in the war, but they are (unfortunately) all displayed at the beginning of the book and not with their appropriate chapters.
Overall, the BATTLE FOR SPAIN provides a wealth of information that should be enlightening to anyone with an interest in the subject matter. While I personally found the book to be a challenging read, I finished it with a degree of satisfaction in that I learned more about the Spanish Civil War than I had ever anticipated. While THE BATTLE FOR SPAIN does present itself as an authority on the subject by answering many questions and thoroughly illustrating events, it clearly proves the Spanish Civil War was complex and messy affair that even Antony Beevor cannot simplify.
November 6, 2020
Братоубийствената битка за Испания: http://knigolandia.info/book-review/b...
Веднага трябва да се каже, че четенето на книга, която задълбава в изключителни подробности в тема, в която нямах почти никакви общи познания (както с предишните две, където основните действащи лица са доволно познати от стотици други книги), не е никак леко, на моменти е направо мъчително. Но това е нужно, за да може да се хвърли светлина върху едно крайно сложно противопоставяне, в което един народ е жестоко идеологически разделен, няма никаква възможност за компромис, а ненавистта между двата лагера е огромна и стига до абсолютни крайности. През цялата книга една нишка пронизва текста - безумни и систематични политически убийства и зверства, истинско братоубийство, което човек би си казал, че е без аналог, ако няма добра представа от събитията у нас след идването на власт на комунистите през 1944 г.
Издателство "Изток-Запад"
http://knigolandia.info/book-review/b...
Веднага трябва да се каже, че четенето на книга, която задълбава в изключителни подробности в тема, в която нямах почти никакви общи познания (както с предишните две, където основните действащи лица са доволно познати от стотици други книги), не е никак леко, на моменти е направо мъчително. Но това е нужно, за да може да се хвърли светлина върху едно крайно сложно противопоставяне, в което един народ е жестоко идеологически разделен, няма никаква възможност за компромис, а ненавистта между двата лагера е огромна и стига до абсолютни крайности. През цялата книга една нишка пронизва текста - безумни и систематични политически убийства и зверства, истинско братоубийство, което човек би си казал, че е без аналог, ако няма добра представа от събитията у нас след идването на власт на комунистите през 1944 г.
Издателство "Изток-Запад"
http://knigolandia.info/book-review/b...
March 20, 2023
Following my reading of the authors ‘Stalingrad’ I sought this book out as my knowledge of the Spanish Civil War appeared limited to the destruction of Guernica.
The book covers …’the clash of beliefs, the ferocity, the generosity and selfishness, the hypocrisy of diplomats and ministers, the betrayal of ideals and political manoeuvres and, above all, the bravery and self-sacrifice of those who fought on both sides.’
Detailed exposition handled in nice chapter chunks. Very sad reading however. ‘A civil war is not a war but a sickness. The enemy is within. One fights almost against oneself. (Antoine de Saint-Exupery).
Interesting to note that many of the Russians who fought in Spain, as well as some key Spaniards, also ended up at the siege of Stalingrad.
I enjoy reading this author and the return to non fiction. I know more now than I did.
The book covers …’the clash of beliefs, the ferocity, the generosity and selfishness, the hypocrisy of diplomats and ministers, the betrayal of ideals and political manoeuvres and, above all, the bravery and self-sacrifice of those who fought on both sides.’
Detailed exposition handled in nice chapter chunks. Very sad reading however. ‘A civil war is not a war but a sickness. The enemy is within. One fights almost against oneself. (Antoine de Saint-Exupery).
Interesting to note that many of the Russians who fought in Spain, as well as some key Spaniards, also ended up at the siege of Stalingrad.
I enjoy reading this author and the return to non fiction. I know more now than I did.
November 11, 2020
Много е страшно, когато една държава всъщност обхваща няколко враждуващи народа. Испания в началото на 20-то век негласно подслонява няколко взаимноизключващи се Испании.
Испания на трите свещени чудовища: Църква на суеверието и бяса, Аристокрация на тлъстите трапези за сметка на пълно безразличие към каквато и да е икономическа ефективност, и Армия, завладяла и успяла да изгуби цяла империя, без обаче да успее да забележи, че вече не е 16-ти век.
Испания на безвластните, идеалистите, разярените, прогресивните, любопитните и уви, често некомпетентните, тъй като никой от тези категории няма реален опит с държавните механизми. И понякога на фанатиците...
В един кратък момент през 1936 г. изглежда, че новото републиканско, легитимно и либерално правителство ще вкара Испания в 20-ти век. Но трите свещени чудовища не са готови да отстъпят, а младата република е наистина млада - и нерешителна. Логично съвсем решителните генерали и не по-малко решителната църква бързо грабват инициативата на своята реконкиста - да върнат Испания в 15-ти век.
Следвайки старата поговорка, че идиотите обикновено са крайно убедени, а умните все се колебаят, анархисти, социалисти, центристи, баски и каталунски сепаратисти, социалдемократи и комунисти не успяват да намерят общ език. Не само помежду си, но и с уж обединяващото ги правителство. И се стига до парадокса Републиката да оцелее в първите дни на военния бунт, защото анархисти и социалисти, т. е. работниците, грабват каквото имат подръка, за да се защитят сами и както могат срещу редовната армия. Докато правителството отказва да повярва, че е нападнато от армията си и стои в кротка парализа.
Републиката е легитимна. Но всички тези (а те са порядъчно разнопосочни) либерални идеи звучат подозрително на компании като Форд и Тексако, които редовно доставят техника и петрол на Франко. Англия пък е възмутена от неподчинението на матроси и войници към досегашните им командири - накъде ще иде този свят с такива подривни елементи? Франция се оглежда каква е правилната демократична реакция и се оказва, че това е бездействието. Точно онова бездействие на Великобритания и Франция, което ще доведе до Мюнхен от 1938 г., до аншлуса на Австрия, прегазването на Чехословакия и разкъсването на Полша. Задаващата се втора световна война назрява в съвсем демократични международни условия...
Възможността за Хитлер и Мусолини да тестват нови стратегии и оръжия е неустоима и не среща никакви реални международни пречки. Немският легион “Кондор” обръща хода във втората част на гражданската война, като същевременно добросъвестно заснема резултатите от всяка въздушна бомбардировка за бъдеща оптимизация. Сталин получава неочаквано силен карт бланш за експерименти с военни съветници в Испания именно защото Републиката е в пълна международна изолация и са и отказани каквито и да е по-нормални опции. За нея мигът, в който приема тази протегната ръка е началото на края. Сталинисткият ботуш за съжаление върви с пълна некомпетентност и липса на военна и политическа инициатива, а накрая с пълно изоставяне в полза на други геополитически интереси на Изток. С такива приятели не са нужни врагове.
Испания няма да успее да преброи убитите от франкисткия режим и досега, неизследваните масови гробове все още са доста. Франко е конкистадор от старите времена. След като целува кръста, той прочиства с огън и кръв душите, умовете и телата на испанците. Горко на победените.
А защо Каталуня наскоро през 21-ви век отново поиска отделяне от Мадрид и защо баските и до днес отказват да се нарекат испанци... Бийвър хвърля обилна светлина по въпроса.
Бийвър си е свършил работата в детайли откъм фактология. Проблемът е, че понякога фактите са в едно изречение и не дават добра представа за значението си. Тенденциите се губят или размиват на моменти. Част от участниците остават абсолютно неясни за читателя. Дори фигурата на самия Франко ми остана доста неясна и размита, а за заобикалящите го генерали да не говоря. За личности като Асаня, например, се наложи да се обърна към Уикипедия, тъй като Бийвър изобщо не си беше дал труда да го представи. Димитров като шеф на Коминтерна го знам от други източници - ако трябваше да разчитам на Бийвър, щях да съм много озадачена.
Друг проблем ми беше диспропорцията. На хунтата на Франко бе обърнато доста по-малко внимание. Втората част от книгата натежа откъм накъсани факти. Войната, разбира се, е сбор от хаос и кръв. Лошото е, че хаосът беше към края неинформативен - или свръхинтформативен за дребни детайли, имащи значение само за тесни специалисти, което е същото.
Като цяло бих препоръчала книгата - в нея има много интересни факти и много хронология, както и достатъчно цитирани документи. Но синтезът просто не е силната страна на Бийвър.
Испания на трите свещени чудовища: Църква на суеверието и бяса, Аристокрация на тлъстите трапези за сметка на пълно безразличие към каквато и да е икономическа ефективност, и Армия, завладяла и успяла да изгуби цяла империя, без обаче да успее да забележи, че вече не е 16-ти век.
Испания на безвластните, идеалистите, разярените, прогресивните, любопитните и уви, често некомпетентните, тъй като никой от тези категории няма реален опит с държавните механизми. И понякога на фанатиците...
В един кратък момент през 1936 г. изглежда, че новото републиканско, легитимно и либерално правителство ще вкара Испания в 20-ти век. Но трите свещени чудовища не са готови да отстъпят, а младата република е наистина млада - и нерешителна. Логично съвсем решителните генерали и не по-малко решителната църква бързо грабват инициативата на своята реконкиста - да върнат Испания в 15-ти век.
Следвайки старата поговорка, че идиотите обикновено са крайно убедени, а умните все се колебаят, анархисти, социалисти, центристи, баски и каталунски сепаратисти, социалдемократи и комунисти не успяват да намерят общ език. Не само помежду си, но и с уж обединяващото ги правителство. И се стига до парадокса Републиката да оцелее в първите дни на военния бунт, защото анархисти и социалисти, т. е. работниците, грабват каквото имат подръка, за да се защитят сами и както могат срещу редовната армия. Докато правителството отказва да повярва, че е нападнато от армията си и стои в кротка парализа.
Републиката е легитимна. Но всички тези (а те са порядъчно разнопосочни) либерални идеи звучат подозрително на компании като Форд и Тексако, които редовно доставят техника и петрол на Франко. Англия пък е възмутена от неподчинението на матроси и войници към досегашните им командири - накъде ще иде този свят с такива подривни елементи? Франция се оглежда каква е правилната демократична реакция и се оказва, че това е бездействието. Точно онова бездействие на Великобритания и Франция, което ще доведе до Мюнхен от 1938 г., до аншлуса на Австрия, прегазването на Чехословакия и разкъсването на Полша. Задаващата се втора световна война назрява в съвсем демократични международни условия...
Възможността за Хитлер и Мусолини да тестват нови стратегии и оръжия е неустоима и не среща никакви реални международни пречки. Немският легион “Кондор” обръща хода във втората част на гражданската война, като същевременно добросъвестно заснема резултатите от всяка въздушна бомбардировка за бъдеща оптимизация. Сталин получава неочаквано силен карт бланш за експерименти с военни съветници в Испания именно защото Републиката е в пълна международна изолация и са и отказани каквито и да е по-нормални опции. За нея мигът, в който приема тази протегната ръка е началото на края. Сталинисткият ботуш за съжаление върви с пълна некомпетентност и липса на военна и политическа инициатива, а накрая с пълно изоставяне в полза на други геополитически интереси на Изток. С такива приятели не са нужни врагове.
Испания няма да успее да преброи убитите от франкисткия режим и досега, неизследваните масови гробове все още са доста. Франко е конкистадор от старите времена. След като целува кръста, той прочиства с огън и кръв душите, умовете и телата на испанците. Горко на победените.
А защо Каталуня наскоро през 21-ви век отново поиска отделяне от Мадрид и защо баските и до днес отказват да се нарекат испанци... Бийвър хвърля обилна светлина по въпроса.
Бийвър си е свършил работата в детайли откъм фактология. Проблемът е, че понякога фактите са в едно изречение и не дават добра представа за значението си. Тенденциите се губят или размиват на моменти. Част от участниците остават абсолютно неясни за читателя. Дори фигурата на самия Франко ми остана доста неясна и размита, а за заобикалящите го генерали да не говоря. За личности като Асаня, например, се наложи да се обърна към Уикипедия, тъй като Бийвър изобщо не си беше дал труда да го представи. Димитров като шеф на Коминтерна го знам от други източници - ако трябваше да разчитам на Бийвър, щях да съм много озадачена.
Друг проблем ми беше диспропорцията. На хунтата на Франко бе обърнато доста по-малко внимание. Втората част от книгата натежа откъм накъсани факти. Войната, разбира се, е сбор от хаос и кръв. Лошото е, че хаосът беше към края неинформативен - или свръхинтформативен за дребни детайли, имащи значение само за тесни специалисти, което е същото.
Като цяло бих препоръчала книгата - в нея има много интересни факти и много хронология, както и достатъчно цитирани документи. Но синтезът просто не е силната страна на Бийвър.
January 11, 2021
I've read quite a few of Antony Beevor's history books and all are characterised by his thoroughness, detail and authority. Despite all being detailed they are always absorbing accounts.
Despite reading a lot of fiction about set during the Spanish Civil War, and of course Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell, I'd never read a proper account.
The Battle for Spain: The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939 helped me understand just how much I didn't know, and contextualise what I did know. Antony Beevor gives plenty of detail but keeps the narrative flowing. He's magnificent at this kind of book. He's especially good at illuminating the complex political and regional forces that played such an important part in the origins and history of the war.
Long, thorough and authoritative yet always absorbing and interesting.
4/5
Despite reading a lot of fiction about set during the Spanish Civil War, and of course Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell, I'd never read a proper account.
The Battle for Spain: The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939 helped me understand just how much I didn't know, and contextualise what I did know. Antony Beevor gives plenty of detail but keeps the narrative flowing. He's magnificent at this kind of book. He's especially good at illuminating the complex political and regional forces that played such an important part in the origins and history of the war.
Long, thorough and authoritative yet always absorbing and interesting.
4/5
February 24, 2020
This is simply the worst written history book it has ever been my misfortune to attempt to read. I can only assume the many people who rate it highly went into it with an already good knowledge of the people and events of the Spanish Civil War. For a beginner, it's appalling.
Beevor simply lists names and events with absolutely no analysis of them. Even the major players get no description - physical or biographical. Franco, as just one example, appears as an already existing leader - no background information as to where he came from, how he rose to be a general, why he formed the views he held. Half the time I can't tell if he's talking about a Republican or a Nationalist. He'll say something along the lines of "X went into town Y and shot up the casas del pueblo but then A gave guns to B and X retreated." Fascinating! And the constant use of untranslated Spanish terms is driving this monoglot insane. How hard would it have been to put the translation in brackets after the word or phrase, or at the very least to include a glossary of terms? Any book that makes me resort to Google three times in one paragraph isn't doing its job right.
I'd throw this one on the fire except that it's on my Kindle, so I shall have to satisfy myself with pressing the delete button in a marked manner.
Beevor simply lists names and events with absolutely no analysis of them. Even the major players get no description - physical or biographical. Franco, as just one example, appears as an already existing leader - no background information as to where he came from, how he rose to be a general, why he formed the views he held. Half the time I can't tell if he's talking about a Republican or a Nationalist. He'll say something along the lines of "X went into town Y and shot up the casas del pueblo but then A gave guns to B and X retreated." Fascinating! And the constant use of untranslated Spanish terms is driving this monoglot insane. How hard would it have been to put the translation in brackets after the word or phrase, or at the very least to include a glossary of terms? Any book that makes me resort to Google three times in one paragraph isn't doing its job right.
I'd throw this one on the fire except that it's on my Kindle, so I shall have to satisfy myself with pressing the delete button in a marked manner.
January 22, 2025
Antony Beevor does a excellent job of describing one of the most complex civil wars ever fought. I'm ashamed to admit I didn't really know how Byzantine the war was until I read this book. A few key events had to be reread, but everything was laid out in a logical order that made it easy to follow. Imagine a Game of Thrones set in Europe in the 1930's and that's how it went down. With multiple factions struggling for control on each side, and foreign powers intruding as well.
The author is very objective and outlines the atrocities commited by the various parties and gives a fair accounting of historical events.
The author is very objective and outlines the atrocities commited by the various parties and gives a fair accounting of historical events.
April 8, 2019
Ne verujem da je ijedan rat vredan velikog gubitka života, ali kao prva linija odbrane od fašizma, ukoliko je postojao rat u kom se vredelo boriti, to je bio ovaj.
Bilo je većih nepravdi i zla u 20. veku, ali na španski građanski rat sam uvek gledao kao na pravi "sukob dobra i zla". Prvi užasi fašizma, puč i nemilosrdna vojna sila protiv demokratski izabrane republike, nemilosrdno nasilje, uz stotine hiljada streljanih civila i nepravda naočigled tada još slobodne Evrope. Bivor je i ovaj sukob ideologija sjajno opisao, u svom stilu. Detaljno proučena istorija, prožeta anekdotama, citatima i pričama, donosi istoriju koja se čita poput dobro napisane fikcije. Jednostavno ti ne daje da staneš, 500+ strana prođe brže nego što bi to očekivao, bez obzira što mi je ovo bila jedna od težih istorijskih knjiga za čitanje. Depresivna i teška, na trenutke kao da mi Bivor drži veliki teg na plućima.
Stradanje civila
Ovaj sukob je bio preteča svetskog rata i u nasilju prema civilima. Primeri kad desničarski vlasnik zemlje poređa svoje radnike i ubije šestoricu, kako bi obeshrabrio ostale, ili čuveni slučajevi fašističke propagande o paljenju živih sveštenika su deo anekdota. Jedan od citata fašističkih Falangi govori za sebe: "Poput hirurga, potrebno je iseći oboleli deo društva, pogotovo kada pacijent nije svestan šta je najbolje za njega. Nacionalno ozdravljenje može da se postigne samo kroz bol. Živela smrt!"
Užasa je bilo sa obe strane, ali su nacionalisti to radili efikasnije i sa više strasti. Procenjuje se da su hladnokrvno pobili oko 200,000 ljudi, četiri puta više od republikanaca. Da li samo zato što u građanskim ratovima, pobednik obično ubije više ljudi, ili zato što su imali efikasnije oružje? Gernika je ostala simbol nemilosrđa fašizma, ali je bilo i gorih zločina - u bombardovanju Gernike je poginulo 250-300 ljudi, dok je samu u Malagi nakon zauzeća grada streljano 3,000 ljudi, a ukupno oko 16,000 do kraja 1944-te.
Svetski rat preko posrednika
Sukob ideologija - sa jedne strane socijalizam i tada još demokratija (kasnije komunizam), sa druge fašizam, i to pre nego što je spoznan za onakvog kakvim ga vidimo danas. Impotencija diplomatija Engleske, Francuske i SAD vodi ka politici nemešanja, pa čak i toliko daleko da se legitimno izabranoj vladi jedne zemlje zabranjuje kupovina oružja za odbranu. U to vreme, na zapadu nije bilo simpatija prema levičarima, ali nisu želeli ni kontrolu nacističke Nemačke ili fašističke Italije. Postojao je i strah da će Španija postati Sarajevo iz 1914-te, jedna varnica koja će zapaliti Evropu. Sve to je dovelo do toga, da je Španija žrtvovana brutalnije i ranije nego Čehoslovačka 1938.
Nemačka i Italija su, s druge strane, reagovale odmah. Najpre pomogle u transportu nacionalističkih snaga iz Afrike, a kasnije slanjem najmodernijih aviona, pilota i tenkova, koji su desničarima doneli najverovatnije odlučujuću vojnu prednost, a pogotovo Nemcima idealan poligon za testiranje novih taktika i oružja (Ju 87 Štuka i lovac Fw109, taktika vazdušnih dvoboja u parovima, pa i Blitzkrieg je dokazan na tlu Španije). Sovjetski Savez se Republici pokazao kao jedini saveznik - pomogli su dostavom tenkova, kao i u odbrani Madrida 1937., ali avioni su bili nemoćni u borbi sa nemačkim modelima, a Republika je zauzvrat u Moskvu na samom početku rata poslala svoje celokupne zlatne rezerve (skoro 500 tona), što je Staljin kasnije oportunistički koristio i zloupotrebljavao.
Internacionalne brigade
"They gave up everything — their loves, their countries, home and fortune, fathers, mothers, wives, brothers, sisters and children — and they came and said to us: “We are here. Your cause, Spain’s cause, is ours. It is the cause of all advanced and progressive mankind.” Mothers! Women! When the years pass by and the wounds of war are stanched; speak to your children. Tell them of these men of the International Brigades."
Deo govora La Pasionarije prilikom odlaska Internacionalnih Brigada iz Barselone, oslikava ono što bi nas danas zapanjilo. Ko bi danas bili ljudi koji bi iz ideala napustili svoje domove, da bi se borili za tuđu zemlju, za tuđu slobodu? Da li su to bili avanturisti ili ljudi koji su verovali u nešto i šta bi trebalo da se desi danas, da se ovo ponovi? U vremenu post-idealizma, ovako nešto je verovatno nemoguće, ali pokušaj zaustavljanja fašizma je verovatno bio vraški dobar razlog za putovanje u Španiju.
Građanski rat u građanskom ratu
Dok je Franko imao jasnu taktiku i vojničku disciplinu, levica je bila podeljena. Izbore je dobio Narodni front, koalicija socijalista, komunista, anarhista i internacionalista. Pokazalo se da ovde mora doći do političkih, a kasnije i oružanih sukoba, posebno nakon Staljinovog pritiska na vladu, na osnovu izdobava oružja i španskog zlata koje bilo u Moskvi. Borba protiv internacionalista ('trockistički fašisti', kako su ih nazivali) i anarhista u ideji da se ujedini vlast, preuzme centralna kontrola možda nije bila na nivou Staljinovih čistki 1937., ali su metode bile iste, pošto su ih vodili kadrovi NKVD.
Republika je borbu počela formiranjem narodnih milicija, ljudi koji su se okupili da odbrane živote i slobodu. Kasnije je bilo potrebno da se reorganizuju u Narodnu armiju, ali iako su na taj način dobili na organizovanosti, zbog internih sukoba su izgubili na moralu. Čak su i volonteri internacionalnih brigada, neretko bivali osuđeni za izdaju (izraz "peta kolona" proizizlazi iz španskog rata i navodne pete kolone nacionalista koji su u Madridu spremno čekali ulazak Franka) i streljani bez suđenja. Vojna taktika je bila zastarela, do kraja se insistiralo na zastarelim taktikama iz prvog svetskog rata, na velikim frontovima i ofanzivama, koje su se pretvarale u smrtonosne pokušaje za republikanske najbolje jedinice. Vera u "jak revolucionarni moral" vodila je do samobilačkih napada, od kojih se nije odustajalo ni kada je sve bilo iygubljeno, zarad sujete političara i propagandne mašinerije koja je pokretana na počecima tih ofanziva.
Posledice
Broj stradalih je ogroman, ali jedna od posledica je i fašistički režim u Evropi do Frankove smrti 1975. Osetljive teme masovnih ubistava, još uvek više desetina hiljada nepronađenih grobnica, kao i različitih pogleda na religiju i njenu ulogu u ratu, razlog su što u Španiji ni dan danas nije došlo do pomirenja.
Šta bi se desilo u slučaju pobede levičara, pa ma koliko malo verovatna ista bila? Izbori 1936. doveli su do pobede levog fronta, ali pitanje je kakva bi bila vlast u Španiji u slučaju pobede Republike. Koliki bi bio uticaj Staljina na tu vladu - da li bi dobili diktaturu poput one u Sovjetskom savezu, ili ipak državu koja bi bila začetnik nečeg boljeg, "evrokomunizma", kako su ga kasnije nazvali vođe španske komunističke partije u egzilu, nakon što su raskrstili sa Sovjetima?
Kao najbolje istorijske knjige, i ova otvara bar toliko pitanja koliko daje odgovora. Što se mene tiče, ove godine mi na ovu temu slede još Orvelova Kataloniji u čast, Hemingvejova Za koga zvono zvoni, a verovatno i neki od memoara naših španskih boraca. Španija moje mladosti Lazara Udovičkog, na primer, ako je negde pronađem.
Bilo je većih nepravdi i zla u 20. veku, ali na španski građanski rat sam uvek gledao kao na pravi "sukob dobra i zla". Prvi užasi fašizma, puč i nemilosrdna vojna sila protiv demokratski izabrane republike, nemilosrdno nasilje, uz stotine hiljada streljanih civila i nepravda naočigled tada još slobodne Evrope. Bivor je i ovaj sukob ideologija sjajno opisao, u svom stilu. Detaljno proučena istorija, prožeta anekdotama, citatima i pričama, donosi istoriju koja se čita poput dobro napisane fikcije. Jednostavno ti ne daje da staneš, 500+ strana prođe brže nego što bi to očekivao, bez obzira što mi je ovo bila jedna od težih istorijskih knjiga za čitanje. Depresivna i teška, na trenutke kao da mi Bivor drži veliki teg na plućima.
Stradanje civila
Ovaj sukob je bio preteča svetskog rata i u nasilju prema civilima. Primeri kad desničarski vlasnik zemlje poređa svoje radnike i ubije šestoricu, kako bi obeshrabrio ostale, ili čuveni slučajevi fašističke propagande o paljenju živih sveštenika su deo anekdota. Jedan od citata fašističkih Falangi govori za sebe: "Poput hirurga, potrebno je iseći oboleli deo društva, pogotovo kada pacijent nije svestan šta je najbolje za njega. Nacionalno ozdravljenje može da se postigne samo kroz bol. Živela smrt!"
Užasa je bilo sa obe strane, ali su nacionalisti to radili efikasnije i sa više strasti. Procenjuje se da su hladnokrvno pobili oko 200,000 ljudi, četiri puta više od republikanaca. Da li samo zato što u građanskim ratovima, pobednik obično ubije više ljudi, ili zato što su imali efikasnije oružje? Gernika je ostala simbol nemilosrđa fašizma, ali je bilo i gorih zločina - u bombardovanju Gernike je poginulo 250-300 ljudi, dok je samu u Malagi nakon zauzeća grada streljano 3,000 ljudi, a ukupno oko 16,000 do kraja 1944-te.
Svetski rat preko posrednika
Sukob ideologija - sa jedne strane socijalizam i tada još demokratija (kasnije komunizam), sa druge fašizam, i to pre nego što je spoznan za onakvog kakvim ga vidimo danas. Impotencija diplomatija Engleske, Francuske i SAD vodi ka politici nemešanja, pa čak i toliko daleko da se legitimno izabranoj vladi jedne zemlje zabranjuje kupovina oružja za odbranu. U to vreme, na zapadu nije bilo simpatija prema levičarima, ali nisu želeli ni kontrolu nacističke Nemačke ili fašističke Italije. Postojao je i strah da će Španija postati Sarajevo iz 1914-te, jedna varnica koja će zapaliti Evropu. Sve to je dovelo do toga, da je Španija žrtvovana brutalnije i ranije nego Čehoslovačka 1938.
Nemačka i Italija su, s druge strane, reagovale odmah. Najpre pomogle u transportu nacionalističkih snaga iz Afrike, a kasnije slanjem najmodernijih aviona, pilota i tenkova, koji su desničarima doneli najverovatnije odlučujuću vojnu prednost, a pogotovo Nemcima idealan poligon za testiranje novih taktika i oružja (Ju 87 Štuka i lovac Fw109, taktika vazdušnih dvoboja u parovima, pa i Blitzkrieg je dokazan na tlu Španije). Sovjetski Savez se Republici pokazao kao jedini saveznik - pomogli su dostavom tenkova, kao i u odbrani Madrida 1937., ali avioni su bili nemoćni u borbi sa nemačkim modelima, a Republika je zauzvrat u Moskvu na samom početku rata poslala svoje celokupne zlatne rezerve (skoro 500 tona), što je Staljin kasnije oportunistički koristio i zloupotrebljavao.
Internacionalne brigade
"They gave up everything — their loves, their countries, home and fortune, fathers, mothers, wives, brothers, sisters and children — and they came and said to us: “We are here. Your cause, Spain’s cause, is ours. It is the cause of all advanced and progressive mankind.” Mothers! Women! When the years pass by and the wounds of war are stanched; speak to your children. Tell them of these men of the International Brigades."
Deo govora La Pasionarije prilikom odlaska Internacionalnih Brigada iz Barselone, oslikava ono što bi nas danas zapanjilo. Ko bi danas bili ljudi koji bi iz ideala napustili svoje domove, da bi se borili za tuđu zemlju, za tuđu slobodu? Da li su to bili avanturisti ili ljudi koji su verovali u nešto i šta bi trebalo da se desi danas, da se ovo ponovi? U vremenu post-idealizma, ovako nešto je verovatno nemoguće, ali pokušaj zaustavljanja fašizma je verovatno bio vraški dobar razlog za putovanje u Španiju.
Građanski rat u građanskom ratu
Dok je Franko imao jasnu taktiku i vojničku disciplinu, levica je bila podeljena. Izbore je dobio Narodni front, koalicija socijalista, komunista, anarhista i internacionalista. Pokazalo se da ovde mora doći do političkih, a kasnije i oružanih sukoba, posebno nakon Staljinovog pritiska na vladu, na osnovu izdobava oružja i španskog zlata koje bilo u Moskvi. Borba protiv internacionalista ('trockistički fašisti', kako su ih nazivali) i anarhista u ideji da se ujedini vlast, preuzme centralna kontrola možda nije bila na nivou Staljinovih čistki 1937., ali su metode bile iste, pošto su ih vodili kadrovi NKVD.
Republika je borbu počela formiranjem narodnih milicija, ljudi koji su se okupili da odbrane živote i slobodu. Kasnije je bilo potrebno da se reorganizuju u Narodnu armiju, ali iako su na taj način dobili na organizovanosti, zbog internih sukoba su izgubili na moralu. Čak su i volonteri internacionalnih brigada, neretko bivali osuđeni za izdaju (izraz "peta kolona" proizizlazi iz španskog rata i navodne pete kolone nacionalista koji su u Madridu spremno čekali ulazak Franka) i streljani bez suđenja. Vojna taktika je bila zastarela, do kraja se insistiralo na zastarelim taktikama iz prvog svetskog rata, na velikim frontovima i ofanzivama, koje su se pretvarale u smrtonosne pokušaje za republikanske najbolje jedinice. Vera u "jak revolucionarni moral" vodila je do samobilačkih napada, od kojih se nije odustajalo ni kada je sve bilo iygubljeno, zarad sujete političara i propagandne mašinerije koja je pokretana na počecima tih ofanziva.
Posledice
Broj stradalih je ogroman, ali jedna od posledica je i fašistički režim u Evropi do Frankove smrti 1975. Osetljive teme masovnih ubistava, još uvek više desetina hiljada nepronađenih grobnica, kao i različitih pogleda na religiju i njenu ulogu u ratu, razlog su što u Španiji ni dan danas nije došlo do pomirenja.
Šta bi se desilo u slučaju pobede levičara, pa ma koliko malo verovatna ista bila? Izbori 1936. doveli su do pobede levog fronta, ali pitanje je kakva bi bila vlast u Španiji u slučaju pobede Republike. Koliki bi bio uticaj Staljina na tu vladu - da li bi dobili diktaturu poput one u Sovjetskom savezu, ili ipak državu koja bi bila začetnik nečeg boljeg, "evrokomunizma", kako su ga kasnije nazvali vođe španske komunističke partije u egzilu, nakon što su raskrstili sa Sovjetima?
Kao najbolje istorijske knjige, i ova otvara bar toliko pitanja koliko daje odgovora. Što se mene tiče, ove godine mi na ovu temu slede još Orvelova Kataloniji u čast, Hemingvejova Za koga zvono zvoni, a verovatno i neki od memoara naših španskih boraca. Španija moje mladosti Lazara Udovičkog, na primer, ako je negde pronađem.
July 18, 2019
Can you hear the drums Fernando?
This is a great book - also, very sad.
I've always been fascinated with the story of the Spanish Civil War, and what it signified. In many ways, it was the precusor to WW2, and the fight between the Axis-backed nationalist forces and Soviet-backed republicans offers an insight into what will transpire in Europe over the next several years. It also dispels the easy myths around the black-and-white truth of what the Spanish Civil War is in popular media.
The author goes into great detail giving the background to the war, the imperialistic delusions, the strong religious influence in the society, the military scheming, the bickering. Fascism as we know it wasn't really the defining force of 1920-30s Spain, it was something that Spain grew into over the following decades. Likewise, its approach to communism was different from the Soviet model in many ways.
It is very interesting - and disheartening - to see that even when there's a terrible war at stake, selfish politicians will do their far share of backstabbing regardless of the cost. Among the nationalist, the intrigue between the monarchists and the Falanghe. On the left, the hatred between the anarchists and the communists.
You'd think they'd be unified in their goal to fight the enemy. Well, not as much as NKVD was interested in setting up rehabilitation camps, blaming every defeat on Trotskyist-fascists fifth column, with Stalin making sure he didn't antagonize Franco too much lest Hitler gets upsets. Let's not forget the right side of the spectrum, with their hatred for the Basque, or the fascination with butchering people after every victory.
Then, the international charade. The Americans sending weapons to Franco. The British secretly admiring him and playing the non-interventionists. Mussolini with his obsession of creating an empire. Hitler's disdain for his allies. The French wanting to be against the Germans but not really wanting to upset the equation. The naive and foolish International Brigades of criminals, naive poets and authors, and a rare diehard ideologist.
Antony Beevor does a splendid job of making you detest all of them. This is such an ugly war, and therefore, this is such an ugly book. You're left with a profound sense of loss and sadness, even though things have happened so long ago. A futile tragedy, this is what it is. And I think it still resonates quite loudly, 70 years later. The Spanish people are still caught in the vacuum of something horrible that divided their society, and it still lingers.
Extremely recommended!
Igor
This is a great book - also, very sad.
I've always been fascinated with the story of the Spanish Civil War, and what it signified. In many ways, it was the precusor to WW2, and the fight between the Axis-backed nationalist forces and Soviet-backed republicans offers an insight into what will transpire in Europe over the next several years. It also dispels the easy myths around the black-and-white truth of what the Spanish Civil War is in popular media.
The author goes into great detail giving the background to the war, the imperialistic delusions, the strong religious influence in the society, the military scheming, the bickering. Fascism as we know it wasn't really the defining force of 1920-30s Spain, it was something that Spain grew into over the following decades. Likewise, its approach to communism was different from the Soviet model in many ways.
It is very interesting - and disheartening - to see that even when there's a terrible war at stake, selfish politicians will do their far share of backstabbing regardless of the cost. Among the nationalist, the intrigue between the monarchists and the Falanghe. On the left, the hatred between the anarchists and the communists.
You'd think they'd be unified in their goal to fight the enemy. Well, not as much as NKVD was interested in setting up rehabilitation camps, blaming every defeat on Trotskyist-fascists fifth column, with Stalin making sure he didn't antagonize Franco too much lest Hitler gets upsets. Let's not forget the right side of the spectrum, with their hatred for the Basque, or the fascination with butchering people after every victory.
Then, the international charade. The Americans sending weapons to Franco. The British secretly admiring him and playing the non-interventionists. Mussolini with his obsession of creating an empire. Hitler's disdain for his allies. The French wanting to be against the Germans but not really wanting to upset the equation. The naive and foolish International Brigades of criminals, naive poets and authors, and a rare diehard ideologist.
Antony Beevor does a splendid job of making you detest all of them. This is such an ugly war, and therefore, this is such an ugly book. You're left with a profound sense of loss and sadness, even though things have happened so long ago. A futile tragedy, this is what it is. And I think it still resonates quite loudly, 70 years later. The Spanish people are still caught in the vacuum of something horrible that divided their society, and it still lingers.
Extremely recommended!
Igor
March 25, 2012
Histories of wars, particularly ones involving contested political domains, tend to focus either on the battles, the personalities, the international struggles, or other specific aspects. While Beevor's 'Battle for Spain' isn't perfect, I give this book five stars because the mix is just right. And for one of the most disputed wars in modern history, that is a major accomplishment.
We can find any number of anarchist or Trotskyist reviews of the Spanish Civil War that heap blame on the Russians and the Comintern, and such blame is properly placed. But Beevor gives us the proper context by letting us know how everyone contributed to Spain's dissolution. He clearly is sympathetic to the anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist cause, yet he raises some interesting issues of the CNT and FAI in Catalonia. Even when anarchists are handed responsibility on a silver platter, they shy away from it because it means recognizing authority. So one can give anarchists a proper chiding, as well.
Nevertheless, Beevor shows us just how despicable Stalin's Russia was, and the global Comintern movement, as represented by the NKVD and other agencies. Even the International Brigades, which were often considered in a romantic light as a way for radicals around the world to help Spain, come in for some deserved criticism - though in many instances, members of the International Brigades were thrown into prison camps run by the NKVD!
Beevor shows how fascist Italy and Nazi Germany used the Spanish Civil War to test out new weapons like the Stuka fighter plane. He also shows the duplicity of Hermann Goring and other Nazis, selling weapons to the Republicans while wiping them out with the Luftwaffe. And he also mentions how U.S. officials like John Foster Dulles came to Franco's aid - no surprise there.
If there was one suggestion I'd make to Beevor, it would be to add a few pages to talk about the declining years of Franco leading to his death in 1975. Even if the book's main focus is 1937-39, it would be useful to see how the Spanish Catholic-fascists served NATO and CIA interests through the Cold War, only to be undone by the cultural trends of modern secular life. But that's a minor quibble. Beevor has done a fine job.
We can find any number of anarchist or Trotskyist reviews of the Spanish Civil War that heap blame on the Russians and the Comintern, and such blame is properly placed. But Beevor gives us the proper context by letting us know how everyone contributed to Spain's dissolution. He clearly is sympathetic to the anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist cause, yet he raises some interesting issues of the CNT and FAI in Catalonia. Even when anarchists are handed responsibility on a silver platter, they shy away from it because it means recognizing authority. So one can give anarchists a proper chiding, as well.
Nevertheless, Beevor shows us just how despicable Stalin's Russia was, and the global Comintern movement, as represented by the NKVD and other agencies. Even the International Brigades, which were often considered in a romantic light as a way for radicals around the world to help Spain, come in for some deserved criticism - though in many instances, members of the International Brigades were thrown into prison camps run by the NKVD!
Beevor shows how fascist Italy and Nazi Germany used the Spanish Civil War to test out new weapons like the Stuka fighter plane. He also shows the duplicity of Hermann Goring and other Nazis, selling weapons to the Republicans while wiping them out with the Luftwaffe. And he also mentions how U.S. officials like John Foster Dulles came to Franco's aid - no surprise there.
If there was one suggestion I'd make to Beevor, it would be to add a few pages to talk about the declining years of Franco leading to his death in 1975. Even if the book's main focus is 1937-39, it would be useful to see how the Spanish Catholic-fascists served NATO and CIA interests through the Cold War, only to be undone by the cultural trends of modern secular life. But that's a minor quibble. Beevor has done a fine job.
October 31, 2009
An excellent analysis of a conflict in which the Spanish people are the filling in a sandwich, the slices comprising a fight between the extreme right and extreme left. To make matters worse, as is well known, the conflict became the testing ground for Hitler and Stalin to play with their toys of war. The book is well constructed, and very readable, suffering only from the author's mild tendency to repeat the lessons he wishes the reader to retain, in a schoolmasterish fashion. Although the book is harrowing, given the human tragedy, the fact that Juan Carlos, hand-picked by Franco to rule as a royal dictator, moved the country rapidly towards full democracy, provides a profoundly satisfying conclusion. Today Spain is a great success, and to this I can only say Viva Espana!
February 24, 2022
A long serious read about an era in European history that I knew but in a limited way. This book by historian Antony Beevor sets out in a readable fashion to cover the whole was, its causes and aftermath. A mammoth task. The account starts well with the rising of the generals and the nationalist advance across Spain. The main battle areas are covered but the sheer amount of the various factions and unfamiliar names made it quite difficult to follow and at times it was difficult to know which side was being discussed. In the end, the sheer volume of the losses on both sides and the indiscriminate executions on both sides was difficult to comprehend. It seems that Republican resistance continued for many years after the formal ending of the war.
A good book for anyone who is interested in learning more about this period. 3.5 to 4 stars
A good book for anyone who is interested in learning more about this period. 3.5 to 4 stars
November 12, 2019
Antony Beevor is probably best-known today for his lengthy histories of the battles of Stalingrad and Berlin, but this earlier narrative of the Spanish Civil War matches both of these later works for grim and gripping detail. While one might expect a historian of the Second World War to treat the Spanish conflict as a prologue to that larger and deadlier global struggle, Beevor sees that the civil war had great significance in its own right. It was a struggle between ideologies, in which both the left-wing Spanish government and the right-wing insurgents committed atrocities on behalf of their opposing visions; a struggle between politicos and propagandists abroad, who invested the civil war with ideological meaning and cast it as either a last-ditch defense of Christian civilization or a first stand against Fascism; and finally a bloody struggle between armies and civilians, which killed 600,000 people and ravaged Spain's landscape and economy. Foreign ideologues of the left and right still argue about the meaning of the Spanish Civil War, but Spaniards themselves have only just begun to confront its bitterly-divisive history.
Beevor, to his credit, provides a balanced account of the conflict, which damns both sides for their excesses while carefully chronicling the enormous costs of Francisco Franco's victory. After briefly describing the fall of Spain's reactionary monarchy and the turbulent, anarchic history of its Second Republic, Beevor turns to the Army's attempted coup of July 1936, a right-wing response to the election of a socialist-communist government earlier that year. While the plotters succeeded in capturing western Andalusia and driving north to Madrid, the Spanish government retained the loyalty of its navy, which made it difficult for Franco and his colleagues to bring in their troops from North Africa. Spanish workers and anarchists also quickly organized pro-government militias, which allowed the loyalists to retain control of the capital and most of Spain's outlying provinces. By the end of 1936 the country had settled into a civil war between Franco's Nationalists and the Republicans.
The term “civil war” is something of a misnomer, since the conflict served as a proxy war and military proving-ground for several of Europe's totalitarian dictatorships: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and the Soviet Union. The first two of these provided substantial assistance to the Nationalists. Germany airlifted Franco's troops from Africa to Spain in 1936, and later provided the insurgents with combat aircraft, artillery, and light tanks. Italy provided additional planes, pilots, and about 80,000 soldiers. The Nationalists' air superiority ultimately proved decisive: it helped them capture the Basque region in 1937 (after a campaign in which German planes fire-bombed Guernica, killing 1,600 people), overrun Aragon by mid-1938, and crush a Republican army at the Ebro in August 1938. Surprisingly, the Nationalists also enjoyed ample support from Anglo-American politicians and businessmen, who opposed the Spanish Republic's left-wing government and Spanish anarchists' collectivization of farms and factories. Britain's press supported Franco, and its government tried to prevent British ships from delivering aid to the Republicans. American businesses like Texaco and Dupont, meanwhile, supplied the Nationalists with 12,000 trucks, 3.5 million tons of oil, and 40,000 bombs. George Orwell, who fought for the Republic, characterized Franco's victory as one he shared with big business. True enough.
The Republic, for its part, received a small amount of aid from Mexico, and about 35,000 foreign volunteers for its International Brigades. Most of its foreign support, however, came from the Soviet Union, and came with a great deal of political baggage. Both Soviet advisers and Spanish communists pressured the government to suppress its own left-wing allies, which the Republic, dependent on the Soviet Union for tanks and aircraft, duly did in 1937. The Republicans disbanded the left-wing POUM militia, arrested thousands of anarchists, and with Soviet aid set up their own secret police, totrure chambers, and labor camps (“re-education centers”). They may have brought greater unity and efficiency to their government and its armed forces, but they also cost themselves the support of those who wanted to fight a revolutionary war, and whose high morale would have been invaluable. Orwell argued that the communist counter-revolution essentially turned the civil war into a conventional war, which the more poorly-supplied Republic could not win.
The Spanish Civil War still inspires considerable passion because of the popular foreign support that both sides garnered, and the volume of propaganda that they put out. Foreign artists and writers like Picasso, Orwell, and Hemingway lent their talents to the Republican cause, and tens of thousands of leftists came to Spain to fight Franco. The Nationalists, for their part, enjoyed the support of the Western European establishment, including much of the intelligentsia (as late as the 1960s, some British dons still publicly celebrated Franco's birthday) and of conservative Catholics, who recoiled from some Republicans' sacking of churches and killing of priests. Both sides accused one another of lurid atrocities, and it is clear that by 1937 both the government and the Nationalists had adopted policies of political terror, including mass arrests and large-scale executions of their political opponents. Beevor notes, however, that the Nationalists adopted a systematic terror policy from the very beginning of the war, and that they enjoyed far more success at liquidating their opponents, of whom they executed 100-200,000 during the war and another 200,000 between the fall of Madrid and 1943. At least one Nationalist boasted that his side killed ten leftists for every Nationalist killed by the Republicans (p. 74), and the author considers this a fair estimate. While I think Beevor would like to say “a plague on both your houses” to the Republicans and Nationalists, one must instead conclude from his narrative of the Spanish war, as Timothy Snyder concluded in his study of Eastern Europe in the 1930s and '40s, “Better Stalin than Hitler.” What a terrible century it was, though, to have presented so many people with that choice!
Beevor, to his credit, provides a balanced account of the conflict, which damns both sides for their excesses while carefully chronicling the enormous costs of Francisco Franco's victory. After briefly describing the fall of Spain's reactionary monarchy and the turbulent, anarchic history of its Second Republic, Beevor turns to the Army's attempted coup of July 1936, a right-wing response to the election of a socialist-communist government earlier that year. While the plotters succeeded in capturing western Andalusia and driving north to Madrid, the Spanish government retained the loyalty of its navy, which made it difficult for Franco and his colleagues to bring in their troops from North Africa. Spanish workers and anarchists also quickly organized pro-government militias, which allowed the loyalists to retain control of the capital and most of Spain's outlying provinces. By the end of 1936 the country had settled into a civil war between Franco's Nationalists and the Republicans.
The term “civil war” is something of a misnomer, since the conflict served as a proxy war and military proving-ground for several of Europe's totalitarian dictatorships: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and the Soviet Union. The first two of these provided substantial assistance to the Nationalists. Germany airlifted Franco's troops from Africa to Spain in 1936, and later provided the insurgents with combat aircraft, artillery, and light tanks. Italy provided additional planes, pilots, and about 80,000 soldiers. The Nationalists' air superiority ultimately proved decisive: it helped them capture the Basque region in 1937 (after a campaign in which German planes fire-bombed Guernica, killing 1,600 people), overrun Aragon by mid-1938, and crush a Republican army at the Ebro in August 1938. Surprisingly, the Nationalists also enjoyed ample support from Anglo-American politicians and businessmen, who opposed the Spanish Republic's left-wing government and Spanish anarchists' collectivization of farms and factories. Britain's press supported Franco, and its government tried to prevent British ships from delivering aid to the Republicans. American businesses like Texaco and Dupont, meanwhile, supplied the Nationalists with 12,000 trucks, 3.5 million tons of oil, and 40,000 bombs. George Orwell, who fought for the Republic, characterized Franco's victory as one he shared with big business. True enough.
The Republic, for its part, received a small amount of aid from Mexico, and about 35,000 foreign volunteers for its International Brigades. Most of its foreign support, however, came from the Soviet Union, and came with a great deal of political baggage. Both Soviet advisers and Spanish communists pressured the government to suppress its own left-wing allies, which the Republic, dependent on the Soviet Union for tanks and aircraft, duly did in 1937. The Republicans disbanded the left-wing POUM militia, arrested thousands of anarchists, and with Soviet aid set up their own secret police, totrure chambers, and labor camps (“re-education centers”). They may have brought greater unity and efficiency to their government and its armed forces, but they also cost themselves the support of those who wanted to fight a revolutionary war, and whose high morale would have been invaluable. Orwell argued that the communist counter-revolution essentially turned the civil war into a conventional war, which the more poorly-supplied Republic could not win.
The Spanish Civil War still inspires considerable passion because of the popular foreign support that both sides garnered, and the volume of propaganda that they put out. Foreign artists and writers like Picasso, Orwell, and Hemingway lent their talents to the Republican cause, and tens of thousands of leftists came to Spain to fight Franco. The Nationalists, for their part, enjoyed the support of the Western European establishment, including much of the intelligentsia (as late as the 1960s, some British dons still publicly celebrated Franco's birthday) and of conservative Catholics, who recoiled from some Republicans' sacking of churches and killing of priests. Both sides accused one another of lurid atrocities, and it is clear that by 1937 both the government and the Nationalists had adopted policies of political terror, including mass arrests and large-scale executions of their political opponents. Beevor notes, however, that the Nationalists adopted a systematic terror policy from the very beginning of the war, and that they enjoyed far more success at liquidating their opponents, of whom they executed 100-200,000 during the war and another 200,000 between the fall of Madrid and 1943. At least one Nationalist boasted that his side killed ten leftists for every Nationalist killed by the Republicans (p. 74), and the author considers this a fair estimate. While I think Beevor would like to say “a plague on both your houses” to the Republicans and Nationalists, one must instead conclude from his narrative of the Spanish war, as Timothy Snyder concluded in his study of Eastern Europe in the 1930s and '40s, “Better Stalin than Hitler.” What a terrible century it was, though, to have presented so many people with that choice!
November 27, 2009
I've had this book 5 or 6 years. Because I was intimidated by the complexity of the political events in Spain during the 1930s I'd put off reading it. Many years ago--1967--I read the Hugh Thomas history of the Spanish Civil War and had gotten lost in the mazes and Babel of parties right, center, and left, each accompanied by its own acronym and ideology. Beevor does a good job in that regard. He does what he can in his account to keep the fog away, to keep the parties and acryoyms tidily arranged and compartmented in ranks and files for reader ease. And that cleared the way for his story of the war in Spain, what it meant for the Spanish and for the rest of Europe. The most interesting aspect of the war was as a competition between the right and left in European and global politics. I'd realized this in a general way and had always understood the war as a proving ground for the equipment and military doctrines being tested for use in the wider war all of Europe knew was coming. I hadn't realized the grip the Soviet Union had on the Republican (government) side during the war. It was a grip which brought the government to the brink of becoming a communist state. As it turned out, the competition between Fascism and Communism--the Nationalists and Republicans in Spain--wasn't even a very close thing. German and Italian equipment and organization and efficiency easily overcame the Republican opposition which displayed many of the same weaknesses the purge-weakened Soviet Union showed in its inability to adequately prepare for war. Beevor makes all this clear, and his account is comprehensive, full. this is the first of Beevor's books I've read, and it's a good one.
Read
November 13, 2008Well, seven chapters (80 pages) in, I have to acknowledge that I find Beevor's book pretty much unreadable. It's a combination of poor organization (it's hard to figure out at any given point where he is going with things - he makes detours from a purely chronological account for no apparent reason) and excessive, mind-numbing detail in places. A typical sentence:
Between 5 and 12 March he (Mola) had meetings with other key conspirators: Orgaz, Goded, Ponte, Kindelan, Saliquet, Franco, Galarza, Fanjul and Rodriguez del Barrio.
NO!!!! Please don't give me the names of all 9 key conspirators! This is not a level of detail I want, or need, to know. It just bogs down any hope of keeping up a readable narrative flow.
What I'm saying is that Beevor, perhaps in pursuit of "completeness" (whatever that might be), ends up providing a level of detail that I found simply indigestible.
Officially packing it in. Fortunately, the other book I'm reading, by Paul Preston, is far more readable.
Note: this is obviously not a judgement on the scholarship or content of the book. It just doesn't meet my needs.
Between 5 and 12 March he (Mola) had meetings with other key conspirators: Orgaz, Goded, Ponte, Kindelan, Saliquet, Franco, Galarza, Fanjul and Rodriguez del Barrio.
NO!!!! Please don't give me the names of all 9 key conspirators! This is not a level of detail I want, or need, to know. It just bogs down any hope of keeping up a readable narrative flow.
What I'm saying is that Beevor, perhaps in pursuit of "completeness" (whatever that might be), ends up providing a level of detail that I found simply indigestible.
Officially packing it in. Fortunately, the other book I'm reading, by Paul Preston, is far more readable.
Note: this is obviously not a judgement on the scholarship or content of the book. It just doesn't meet my needs.
May 24, 2016
while having some factual information, so 2 stars rather than the one star the book mostly deserves, this book reaffirmed my decision not to ever read books about Spain written by Englishmen and stick with books written by native Spanish people as the clear anti-Spanish bias that has been showing in pretty much all the English books featuring Spain or Spanish characters that I've been reading for 40+ years now shows very clearly here
just avoid
just avoid
July 12, 2013
The new edition of Beevor's classical account of the Spanish Civil War does not disappoint the author's many fans. His narrations of famous battles are outstanding, particularly in the cases of Teruel and Ebro. His characterizations remain spot-on. Franco is wily as he sacrifices thousands of his men for political gains. Azaña is decent but weak. Largo Caballero is a poor man's Kerensky, whereas Negrín is a would-be Stalin. Communist leaders Líster and El Campesino quarrel as the front collapses. Stalin steals Spain's gold reserves. Hitler gets paid for his help with mineral resources, whereas Mussolini gives his help for free (and wastes over 3 billion dollars in the process!). André Malraux is a louse, who gets rich selling sub-standard weapons to the Republic and then pretends to be a hero.
Everyone is in here: from the International Brigades to their sympathisers (including Hemingway and Capa), to the Carlists and Falangists and their allies abroad, leftish French catholics Mauriac and Bernanos, ebullient but unreliable Italians, cold-blooded and efficient Germans, murderous Communists and well-meaning anarchists, priests and nuns, novelists and poets (including García Lorca). Beevor's diagnosis can't be faulted: Franco won because he led a professional army, because the democracies did nothing to help the Republic, because the fascists and the communists helped their allies (but the fascists did a better job), because the Republic's defenders were divided between a liberal, social-democratic wing and a millenarian anarcho-soviet wing and they couldn't get their act together, and because the Republican leaders wasted their strenght in battles that couldn't be won, but in which they engaged for political purposes.
Beevor's characterization of the two sides is generally even-handed, but sometimes he allows his own sympathies to creep in. He describes the management of the economy by Franco in the post-war years as an Iberian version of Ceaucescu's regime in Romania. But if this was the case, how come Spain was quite prosperous in 1975, whereas Romania was bankrupt in 1989? He says that the economic opening of the 1960s was brought on by the crisis of self-sufficiency in the 1950s, and was not integral to Francoist thought. This may be the case, but then he would have to explain why Spain was able to correct its track in the 1960s, whereas the Soviet Union was unable to do so in the 1980s (If the Francoist economy was able to re-generate itself, it must have been because it was capable of re-generation). He downplays the awfulness of a Communist-led Spain assuming that a native form of communism might have developed, and points to the leadership of Santiago Carrillo (who in the 1960s would develop the tenets of Eurocommunism) as a positive sign. But in the 1930s and 1940s Spanish communists were among the most fervent Stalinists anywhere. There is no reason to assume that they wouldn't have behaved as their fellows did in North Korea or in Eastern Europe.
And if the Communists had been in power in Spain in 1939, it is hard to imagine that Portugal wouldn't have gone communist as well (it nearly did, in the 1970s). In this situation, in 1945 the Red Army probably wouldn't have stopped in Central Germany, but might have moved on to France, the Benelux Countries and Italy. In this situation, all of Europe might have been communist after WWII. Thus, most of Africa and Asia would have been run by communists prior to de-colonization (which might not have occurred). Without the help of Western Europe, it is not certain how the US might have behaved at torrid points of the Cold War. I think a nuclear conflict would have been much likelier.
Spain under Franco was surely not a democratic place. Linguistic minorities were oppressed, and former opponents were mistreated to a horrid degree. But there is no reason to assume that the other side would have behaved better.
Everyone is in here: from the International Brigades to their sympathisers (including Hemingway and Capa), to the Carlists and Falangists and their allies abroad, leftish French catholics Mauriac and Bernanos, ebullient but unreliable Italians, cold-blooded and efficient Germans, murderous Communists and well-meaning anarchists, priests and nuns, novelists and poets (including García Lorca). Beevor's diagnosis can't be faulted: Franco won because he led a professional army, because the democracies did nothing to help the Republic, because the fascists and the communists helped their allies (but the fascists did a better job), because the Republic's defenders were divided between a liberal, social-democratic wing and a millenarian anarcho-soviet wing and they couldn't get their act together, and because the Republican leaders wasted their strenght in battles that couldn't be won, but in which they engaged for political purposes.
Beevor's characterization of the two sides is generally even-handed, but sometimes he allows his own sympathies to creep in. He describes the management of the economy by Franco in the post-war years as an Iberian version of Ceaucescu's regime in Romania. But if this was the case, how come Spain was quite prosperous in 1975, whereas Romania was bankrupt in 1989? He says that the economic opening of the 1960s was brought on by the crisis of self-sufficiency in the 1950s, and was not integral to Francoist thought. This may be the case, but then he would have to explain why Spain was able to correct its track in the 1960s, whereas the Soviet Union was unable to do so in the 1980s (If the Francoist economy was able to re-generate itself, it must have been because it was capable of re-generation). He downplays the awfulness of a Communist-led Spain assuming that a native form of communism might have developed, and points to the leadership of Santiago Carrillo (who in the 1960s would develop the tenets of Eurocommunism) as a positive sign. But in the 1930s and 1940s Spanish communists were among the most fervent Stalinists anywhere. There is no reason to assume that they wouldn't have behaved as their fellows did in North Korea or in Eastern Europe.
And if the Communists had been in power in Spain in 1939, it is hard to imagine that Portugal wouldn't have gone communist as well (it nearly did, in the 1970s). In this situation, in 1945 the Red Army probably wouldn't have stopped in Central Germany, but might have moved on to France, the Benelux Countries and Italy. In this situation, all of Europe might have been communist after WWII. Thus, most of Africa and Asia would have been run by communists prior to de-colonization (which might not have occurred). Without the help of Western Europe, it is not certain how the US might have behaved at torrid points of the Cold War. I think a nuclear conflict would have been much likelier.
Spain under Franco was surely not a democratic place. Linguistic minorities were oppressed, and former opponents were mistreated to a horrid degree. But there is no reason to assume that the other side would have behaved better.
April 25, 2011
This "must be" the most balanced account of the Spanish Civil War ever published. I say "must be" because this is the first one that I have read in its entirety (up to now, I had only read the first volume of Hugh Thomas' book, which was good, but left me a bit cold, to be honest) so I don't think I would be fair if I said that it is the best and most balanced, in spite of having read reviews in the Spanish press that point in that direction.
I thoroughly enjoyed the first part of the book, which explains pretty accurately not just the events that led to the proclamation of the 2nd Republic in Spain (1931-1939), but also is, I dare say, a insightful description of the Spanish national psyche. The description is obviously focused on the time of the events, but, as a Spaniard, I can see a lot of points made in this description that still hold true today.
Beevor's explanation of the conflict is, as I said before, very balanced. He has a lot of stuff to say about both sides of the conflict. He seems to put a lot of the blame in the hands of the members of the Communist party (both Spanish and advisers sent from the Soviet Union) for trying to gain as much power as possible (stopping practically at nothing when eliminating political dissidence) within the Republican side. He is extremely critical of the attitude of the Communist politicians and the Popular Army's command, which in general terms are described as petty, jealous, individualistic and prone to blame others (mostly anarchists) for their (numerous) blunders in battle (especially illustrative of this are the battles of Brunete, Aragón and Ebro). He also has particularly interesting things to say about the European political figures of the time, particularly Chamberlain and his policy of appeasement (which is mentioned in the book several times) with the Axis, which were openly collaborating with Franco, in spite of, at least at the beginning of the conflict, being signatories of a non-intervention pact, together with the Allies. With respect to the Nationalist side, the author obviously considers Franco and the other rebel generals as part of an illegal movement against a democratically elected government, and he makes a good description of Franco's manouvering to end up as Generalísimo (pretty conceited little fellow that Franco was, if you ask me).
All in all, it is a pretty good read. If you want to know what the Spanish Civil War was, why it happened and how it was won and lost, this is the book. However, be warned, Beevor's style is somewhat dense. And he really enjoys giving a lot of details about battles (like what division was where and where did they move to and why that was a mistake). This, apparently, is something of a style feature of the author, according to what I have read elsewhere about some of his other books. It is not necessarily bad, but sometimes I think that if there were not so many details, it wouldn't have taken me so long to finish this book.
I thoroughly enjoyed the first part of the book, which explains pretty accurately not just the events that led to the proclamation of the 2nd Republic in Spain (1931-1939), but also is, I dare say, a insightful description of the Spanish national psyche. The description is obviously focused on the time of the events, but, as a Spaniard, I can see a lot of points made in this description that still hold true today.
Beevor's explanation of the conflict is, as I said before, very balanced. He has a lot of stuff to say about both sides of the conflict. He seems to put a lot of the blame in the hands of the members of the Communist party (both Spanish and advisers sent from the Soviet Union) for trying to gain as much power as possible (stopping practically at nothing when eliminating political dissidence) within the Republican side. He is extremely critical of the attitude of the Communist politicians and the Popular Army's command, which in general terms are described as petty, jealous, individualistic and prone to blame others (mostly anarchists) for their (numerous) blunders in battle (especially illustrative of this are the battles of Brunete, Aragón and Ebro). He also has particularly interesting things to say about the European political figures of the time, particularly Chamberlain and his policy of appeasement (which is mentioned in the book several times) with the Axis, which were openly collaborating with Franco, in spite of, at least at the beginning of the conflict, being signatories of a non-intervention pact, together with the Allies. With respect to the Nationalist side, the author obviously considers Franco and the other rebel generals as part of an illegal movement against a democratically elected government, and he makes a good description of Franco's manouvering to end up as Generalísimo (pretty conceited little fellow that Franco was, if you ask me).
All in all, it is a pretty good read. If you want to know what the Spanish Civil War was, why it happened and how it was won and lost, this is the book. However, be warned, Beevor's style is somewhat dense. And he really enjoys giving a lot of details about battles (like what division was where and where did they move to and why that was a mistake). This, apparently, is something of a style feature of the author, according to what I have read elsewhere about some of his other books. It is not necessarily bad, but sometimes I think that if there were not so many details, it wouldn't have taken me so long to finish this book.
March 9, 2021
Rather military-oriented. Clear sympathy for the Republican cause. Very detailed, but synthesis is missing.
December 30, 2022
"Las mujeres los niños tienen las mismas rosas
rojas
En los ojos
Cada uno muestra su sangre
El miedo y el coraje de vivir y de morir
La muerte tan difícil y tan fácil".
(Fragmento del poema Guernica, de Paul Eluard).
rojas
En los ojos
Cada uno muestra su sangre
El miedo y el coraje de vivir y de morir
La muerte tan difícil y tan fácil".
(Fragmento del poema Guernica, de Paul Eluard).
April 18, 2016
Awful, boring book. Just like his book about Stalingrad.
The introduction is nice, specially delineating the political context, but soon people and cities names are juggled around you, with no introduction, no explanation, no description, no flavour. This is specially the case when the civil war proper, with military conflicts, starts.
The narration is dry, just imagine "general xxx- never spoken before in the book- went to city yyy- never spoken before in the book, and you have no idea how the city is- and fought zzz leftist republican movement there". The battles per si are barely spoken about, you have no idea what kind of firearms, vehicles or tactics they were using. You have no idea how the leaders from both sides look like, think like or behave like. You have no idea how Spain is, at most Antony describes Madrid as some very centralist, conservative and poor place. He mentions Catalonia, Andalusia, Castilia, Valência, without ever saying where exactly they are, what are their cultural, political and religious characteristics. He juggle carlistas, franquistas and others without ever giving better information. One moment carlistas are described as paleo-rightists, in the other they are against the military coup, allied with leftists, without Beevor caring to explain why.
There are only some bland maps at the start of the book. Nothing more.
I don't know why Antony writes his books like that. He fails both at being someone who is only describing dry facts for reference (as a some kind of chronological compendium for historical research) and as a narrative historian which should entertain its readers. He doesn't "paint" a picture of the time, of the context.
The fact that he has such a big audience is only proof of how quality and quantity is lacking in military history.
The introduction is nice, specially delineating the political context, but soon people and cities names are juggled around you, with no introduction, no explanation, no description, no flavour. This is specially the case when the civil war proper, with military conflicts, starts.
The narration is dry, just imagine "general xxx- never spoken before in the book- went to city yyy- never spoken before in the book, and you have no idea how the city is- and fought zzz leftist republican movement there". The battles per si are barely spoken about, you have no idea what kind of firearms, vehicles or tactics they were using. You have no idea how the leaders from both sides look like, think like or behave like. You have no idea how Spain is, at most Antony describes Madrid as some very centralist, conservative and poor place. He mentions Catalonia, Andalusia, Castilia, Valência, without ever saying where exactly they are, what are their cultural, political and religious characteristics. He juggle carlistas, franquistas and others without ever giving better information. One moment carlistas are described as paleo-rightists, in the other they are against the military coup, allied with leftists, without Beevor caring to explain why.
There are only some bland maps at the start of the book. Nothing more.
I don't know why Antony writes his books like that. He fails both at being someone who is only describing dry facts for reference (as a some kind of chronological compendium for historical research) and as a narrative historian which should entertain its readers. He doesn't "paint" a picture of the time, of the context.
The fact that he has such a big audience is only proof of how quality and quantity is lacking in military history.
March 15, 2022
I've read (listened to) other books by Antony Beevor and have generally liked them. He seems to take a fact-based approach to war history and has tended to refrain from too much judgement and bias. That wasn't the case with "The Battle for Spain". He follows the same pro-communist direction that most take on the Spanish civil war and glorifies the socialist/communist/anarchist/republican side and grossly demonizes the nationalist/right-wing faction. He goes into great detail about atrocities committed by the nationalists including suspiciously specific numbers and oddly detailed conversations and minor actions while basically explaining the socialist side as "oh yea, they did some bad stuff too but....". He also cites post-war studies into mass killings without acknowledging that they were conducted by pro-communist groups and which have largely since been exposed as being exaggerated and sometimes totally incorrect. Yes, the Spanish civil war was conducted in an exceptionally bloody and brutal way and indeed, nobody was innocent going in. To overtly take a one-sided (leftist) approach to his documentary is unfortunately typical of writers when it comes to any conflict involving far-left players. In this case it also completely contradicts Spain's very progressive and positive change after the (right) won the war and basically proved that best (least worst?) side prevailed. Had the socialists (republicans) won, Spain would have looked like any other post WWII country that was conquered by the communists.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 534 reviews