The Spanish Civil War: A Microcosm of the Polarization of European Politics

Any student of history has come to recognize the fact that history is written by the victor and in lieu of this, research becomes essential to uncover where the truth lies. The True History of the Conquest of New Spain, so ironically named, is a personal account for historical events leading up to the conquest of New Spain, formerly known as the City of Mexico. The author, Bernal Diaz, was a soldier of the conquering army who composed the document well after the events took place sometime between 1552 and 1557. Though the document did provide insight in regards to the victor’s perspective, it also served as a tool to rewrite the account of the conquered people.

Throughout history, as we study Spain we can clearly recognize high and low points in their success. In the fifteen hundreds Spain had no influence on European affairs, Spain essentially vanished out of Europe. However, within one complete century Spain had become not only a leading power but they also had a great sense of effectiveness in Europe. Spain experienced a Golden age with many social, economic, political aspects. On the other hand, within

The Mexican government were seen as not knowing what they were doing, especially after them gaining independence from Spain in 1821 because the Mexican leaders lacked experience in politics, on top of being a nation that had deep-rooted connection to Spain’s ideologies rather than that of their own. While the United States thrived from the time of its colonial origins, for Mexico to modernize after gaining independence meant breaking its structures, destroying old institutions and building new ones whilst juggling an aggressive neighbor who eagerly sought more land. By putting into context the origin of the soon-to-be-at-war states, it is easier to comprehend why holding aggressive nationalistic behavior was the norm with the United States when they decided to take on its southern neighbor as the state’s population started to expand increasingly. The origins of the United States shows the attitude of “us versus them”, where Mexico’s top officials and administration were seen as incompetent and trickled down to its

In Robert Johannsen’s Book, To the Halls of the Montezumas, it is explained how the Mexican-American War was america’s first major foreign war. He believes that this war defined American people because of the use of new technologies to establish America as an international power. Americans felt as if, for the first time, they were fighting against a foreign power rather than simply fighting of land. Johannsen tells the story of this war through the eyes of the people instead of just telling us the facts. By doing this he gives us the opportunity to see how people of the time truly perceived the war and what factors influenced these perceptions.

However, the story of the Aztec defeat and the successful resolution of the Spanish mission against incredible odds raises many questions. Regardless of more advanced technology and weapons, the Spanish force was vastly outnumbered and began a military campaign poorly supplied within an unknown territory against an unknown enemy. This paper explores the possibility that other key factors were at play, which provided the Spanish with a several of advantages and facilitated the successful resolution of their campaign. Furthermore, these factors allowed for an incredibly quick and effective subjugation of millions of people – considering that by comparison it took hundreds of years to expel the Muslim armies from southern Spain, a war ending in 1492 and in which many conquistadores fighting in the new world took part of. This paper will argue that internal religious quarrels, unsustainable tax obligations, and continuing military conflicts weakened the Aztec social fabric by increasing resentment among subjugated towns and cities and diminishing trust among Aztec citizens in their highly centralized government.

Stanley Payne’s argument strongly rejects the notion that Franco’s Spain can be characterised as an embodiment of the traditional values that comprise fascism. Payne asserts that while Franco’s ‘political orientation was definitely pro-fascist’1, the nature of Francoist Spain never resembled anything that was analogous to Mussolini’s Italy, with Payne confidently stating that ‘scarcely any of the serious historians and analysts of Franco consider the Generalissimo to have been a core fascist’.2 The central premise of Payne’s argument is that Francoist ideology diverges from fascism at a fundamental level, which is made evident by Franco’s largely conservative philosophy and his refusal to pursue revolutionary policies that would radically change

The Spanish case study showcased the political arena of revisiting the memory of the dead that disappeared. The amnesty and transition to democracy changed the understanding of memory but anniversaries brought the debate back into the public. Furthermore, the families of the victims wonder what happened to their loved ones during the war, sought justice against Nationalist perpetrators. With the help of powerful people such as Supreme Court Justice Garzón and the historians that researched new interpretations of the war, the debates increased awareness of the tragedy of the war. Thus, the Spanish Civil War analyzed as a tragedy showcased the challenges of writing the subject with historical memory along with

This depiction of the Spaniards as soldiers continued into modern translations of such works as Hernan Cortes’ Letters from Mexico and Bernal Diaz’s The Conquest of New Spain. Despite Restall arguing that the original, untranslated works of Cortes and Diaz did not refer to the Spaniards as soldiers, the use of the word “soldier” made prominent appearances in the translations of those texts, fundamentally altering the meaning and role of the Spaniards.

From the election of a new middle class government and the declaration of the Second Spanish Republic in 1931 until the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War in 1936, Spanish society struggled to establish a stable, representative democracy for only the second time in its long political history. With the spread of industrialization, the rise of a new working class, and the emergence of a new era of political movements, ideals, and philosophical ideologies or “isms” throughout Europe and the United States—communism, socialism, marxism, anarchism, fascism, etc., Spanish society grappled to find common ground between more traditional and conservative political groups—the Catholic church, the

The Spanish civil war of 1936-1939 was an important conflict in Spain’s history. This war was initiated by a military revolt led by General Francisco Franco on the 17 July 1936 and ended with Franco’s victory on the 1 April, 1939. This victory resulted in the replacement of the Second Spanish Republic with the conservative dictatorship of Franco. This conflict triggered the clash of the various cultures and ideologies within Spain. One important example of an ideological clash was that of Communism versus Fascism. This clash was so important that, based on an analysis of the level of involvement of Fascist and Communist factions in said clash, one must concede that the conflict between Communism and Fascism was represented to a great

The Spanish Civil war can be seen as another example where aggressive fascism triumphs over collective security. As Spain underwent turmoil after King Alfonso abdicated, two rival groups emerged as potential ruling parties. The struggle between the Republic and and Nationalists led to a full-scale civil war. General Franco, leader of the Nationalists soon received the support of the dictators Hitler and Mussolini. As a potential third nationalists/ fascist dictator, international fascism was on the rise. Ultimately, the support of Hitker and Mussolini proved decisive and the Nationalists came out on top. The league’s call for peace were ignored and the strong-arm and aggressive tactics of Fascism were proving to be more effective than collective

The Spanish Civil War was mainly caused by a democratic government being established in Spain in 1931 (“Spanish Civil War”). The war was split between the rightists and leftists, with the leftists being the party in charge of the democratic government that was enacted. Eventually, the left completely lost control and “engaged in what was called ‘arming the people,’ which meant giving weapons and de facto power to the revolutionary organizations” (“Spanish Civil War”). When the democratic government failed, Francisco Franco, rightist commander-in-chief of the military insurgents, installed himself as dictator and chief of state. After this event, the war raged on for three long years, from 1936-1939, with the worst fighting occurring in Barcelona in 1937 (“Spanish Civil

On the eve of World War II, various so called “Right Wing” authoritarian regimes of the conservative, traditional, national and religious type (always considered by the Left to be

How far does the disaster of 1898 account for the growth of Catalan and Basque nationalism?

The purpose of this paper is to analyze why the design of the Spanish electoral law has historically favored PP and PSOE, and why precisely now the situation is changing. We will argue that the outcome of this electoral system was not achieved by chance, but that it was the decision of pre-democratic rulers to benefit the