Talk:Second Spanish Republic
|The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.|
|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Second Spanish Republic article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Spain||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
|WikiProject Former countries||(Rated Start-class)|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on April 14, 2006, April 14, 2007, April 14, 2008, and April 14, 2013.|
- 1 Untitled
- 2 'Rebels'
- 3 Modified the infobox
- 4 75th anniversary
- 5 Modern Views POV?
- 6 Background
- 7 Layout with classic skin
- 8 Quality
- 9 Paradise
- 10 Conclusion
- 11 Thats 2 folk songs
- 12 Former countries???
- 13 It's the History different according to the language?
- 14 State Atheism
- 15 Requested move back to Spanish Second Republic
In the section '1931 Constitution' it reads "...after the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War [the Cortes}, it became a dead letter...". The phrase'dead letter' is difficult to interpret. Slightly ambiguous. ~~ commentary ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Calling the Nationalists 'rebels' at the start of April 1939 and what was left of the Republican forces the 'Government' is wrong because one, in late February 1939 the Nationalists became the internationally recognised government of Spain, and two, after General Segismundo Casado's coup against the Republic both sides were 'rebels' against the Republic.
If we accept the terminology some want we are calling the recognised government of Spain 'rebels', and rebels against the Second Republic the government' which is a little silly.
Can we just keep the it as just Nationalists and Republicans?
Just what was the legal status of the republic? The Second Republic "was proclaimed" in 1931, but by whom and on what authority? In reality wasn't the republican government just as much rebels as the nationalists in 1936?188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Modified the infobox
Removed the thing that said that the official religion was the Roman Catholic Church (big lol) and removed the map, since that map is from a period of the war, it is not the territory that occupied the Republic. The Republic was Spain, not a half of Spain. Onofre Bouvila 23:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I think this article is a bit one-sided, and it doens't focus too much in what was achieved with the Second Republic in Spain. If anyone wants to translate the following, not all, but some parts, I think it would be a good contribution to the article. As today is the 75th anniversary of the Second Republic in Spain, there is a lot of Spanish info out there. This, granted, is a manifiesto, but I think it does emphasize more the achievements of the Second Republic, which are not very stressed in the article.
Manifiesto "Con orgullo, con modestia y con gratitud"
El 14 de abril de 1931, España tuvo una oportunidad. La proclamación de la II República Española encarnó el sueño de un país capaz de ser mejor que sí mismo, y reunió en un solo esfuerzo a todos los españoles que aspiraban a un porvenir de democracia y de modernidad, de libertad y de justicia, de educación y de progreso, de igualdad y de derechos universales para todos sus conciudadanos. Hoy, setenta y cinco años después, los firmantes de este manifiesto evocamos aquel espíritu con orgullo, con modestia y con gratitud, y reivindicamos como propios los valores del republicanismo español, que siguen vigentes como símbolos de un país mejor, más libre y más justo.
Frente al colosal impulso modernizador y democratizador que acometieron las instituciones republicanas -siempre con la desleal oposición de quienes creían, y siguen creyendo, que este país es de su exclusiva propiedad-, todavía se nos sigue intentando convencer de que la II República fue un bello propósito condenado al fracaso desde antes de nacer por sus propios errores y carencias. Los firmantes de este manifiesto rechazamos radicalmente esta interpretación, que sólo pretende absolver al general Franco de la responsabilidad del golpe de estado que interrumpió la legalidad constitucional y democrática de una república sostenida por la voluntad mayoritaria del pueblo español, con las trágicas consecuencias que todos conocemos. Y exigimos que las instituciones de la actual democracia española rompan de manera definitiva los lazos que la siguen uniendo -desde los callejeros de los municipios hasta los contenidos de los libros de texto- con un estado ilegítimo, que surgió de una agresión feroz contra sus propios ciudadanos y se sostuvo en el poder durante treinta y siete años mediante el abuso sistemático e indiscriminado de los siniestros recursos que caracterizan la pervivencia de los regímenes totalitarios. Después de treinta años de democracia, resulta vergonzoso tener que recordar aún donde estaba la ley y donde estuvo el delito. A estas alturas, es intolerable, y muy peligroso para la salud moral y política de nuestro país, que todavía se pretenda equiparar al gobierno legítimo de una nación democrática con la facción militar que se sublevó contra el estado al que, por su honor, había jurado defender, y cuya victoria sólo fue posible gracias a la ayuda de los regímenes fascista y nazi que preparaban una invasión de Europa que acabaría provocando una guerra mundial y, aún más decisivamente, gracias a la culpable indiferencia de las democracias occidentales, que, antes de convertirse en víctimas de las mismas potencias en cuyas manos habían abandonado a España, eligieron parapetarse tras el hipócrita simulacro de neutralidad que representó el comité de No Intervención de Londres.
El 14 de abril de 1931, España tuvo una oportunidad, y los españoles la aprovecharon. Pese a la brevedad de su vida, la II República desarrolló en múltiples campos de la vida pública una labor ingente, que asombró al mundo y situó a nuestro país en la vanguardia social y cultural. Entre sus logros, bastaría citar la reforma agraria, el sufragio femenino, los avances en materia legislativa de toda índole, la separación efectiva de poderes, las constantes y modernísimas iniciativas destinadas a difundir la cultura hasta en las comarcas más remotas, el decidido impulso de la investigación científica o el florecimiento ejemplar no sólo de la educación, sino también de la asistencia sanitaria pública, para demostrar que aquel bello propósito generó bellísimas realidades, que habrían sido capaces de cambiar la vida de un pueblo condenado a la pobreza, la sumisión y la ignorancia por los mismos poderes -los grandes propietarios, la facción más reaccionaria del Ejército y la jerarquía de la Iglesia Católica- que se apresuraron a mutilarlo de toda esperanza.
La República dotó a los sectores más débiles y desprotegidos de la sociedad de entonces, las mujeres y los niños, de un estatuto jurídico privilegiado en su época. El retroceso fue tan brutal, que el cambio de régimen supuso para ellas, para ellos, la pérdida de todo derecho y su consagración como subciudadanos dependientes de la buena voluntad de los cabezas de sus respectivas familias. La República apostó por la defensa de los espacios públicos como escenario fundamental de la vida española, asumiendo la necesidad de equiparar las condiciones de vida de las poblaciones rurales y urbanas, y desarrollando políticas de igualdad no sólo entre los individuos, sino también entre las regiones más y menos prósperas. El retroceso fue tan brutal, que el cambio de régimen consolidó las desigualdades históricas tanto individuales como colectivas, y abandonó la promoción de los servicios públicos para crear un déficit que en algunos sectores, como la educación primaria y secundaria, seguimos padeciendo todavía. La República fomentó el auge de la cultura española en todos los terrenos de la creación artística y de la investigación científica, el debate intelectual y la vida universitaria, hasta el punto de que su nombre y su destino estarán unidos para siempre a la memoria del máximo esplendor cultural del que ha gozado nuestro país en la era moderna. El retroceso fue tan brutal, que el cambio de régimen supuso la pérdida más trágica que, a su vez, ha soportado nunca la cultura española, el exilio masivo de los mejores, que dejaron las aulas y los laboratorios, los talleres y las redacciones, las editoriales y los museos, la autoridad y el prestigio intelectual de nuestro país, en manos de una improvisada cosecha de oportunistas y segundones, que redujeron la vida cultural española a una lamentable manifestación de mediocres oscuridades.
Hoy, setenta y cinco años después, los firmantes de este manifiesto no queremos seguir lamentando la triste brutalidad de aquel retroceso, sino celebrar la emocionante calidad de los logros que le precedieron, y agradecer la ambición, el coraje, el talento y la entrega de una generación de españoles que creyó en nosotros al creer en el futuro de su país. Reivindicar su memoria es creer en nuestro propio futuro, que será proporcionalmente mejor, más libre, más justo, más feliz, en la medida en que seamos capaces de estar a la altura de la tradición republicana que hemos heredado. Por una España verdaderamente moderna, laica, culta, igualitaria, por su definitiva normalización democrática, y por el progreso armónico del bienestar de todos sus ciudadanos, hoy, setenta y cinco años después, queremos celebrar el 14 de abril de 1931, y proponer que esta fecha se celebre en lo sucesivo como un reconocimiento oficial a todos los ciudadanos españoles que lucharon activamente por la libertad, la justicia y la igualdad, valores comunes que tienen que seguir orientando la construcción democrática de la sociedad española.
Raystorm 10:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I wrote the new "Overview" and "Modern Views" sections with parts translated and modified from this text, and added personal views and knowledge of my own. As the text above is a Pro-Republic manifiesto, it's quite biased, so I had to modify it considerably to make it more neutral. This article still needs a lot of expansion and polishing, and probably some pictures, views and knowledge from Spanish wikipedians would be very useful as well, since I'm argentinian and I'm not very qualified to speak about modern Spanish views on the subject. Cheers! --Lobizón 20:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Modern Views POV?
The "Modern Views" section, and to a lesser extent the entire article, shows a heavy pro-Republic bias, and refers to the views of "many authors" without citing any sources. As explained in Spanish Civil War, there were clearly many who had good reason to question the Republic's status as a democratic paradise. I won't unilaterally delete the biased material, rather I'll try to add some of the other side of the story. Miraculouschaos 19:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I was working on the article and I tried to make it as neutral as possible (specially since my original source was a pro-republic manifiesto, see above), but it still needs a lot of sources and an opposing point of view. I will try to look for more sources later. You did well with your NPOV notice. As much of an Spanish republic supporter as I am, I agree that the article needs an opposing point of view. --Lobizón 01:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
This section-indeed the whole article-is nothing more than a quite nauseating political manifesto. Freedom of speech? What about the events of May 1937 in Barcelona? What about the actions of Stalin's OGPU? A 'worker's paradise', yes, built on the corpses of thousands of priests and nuns. Some of the Spanish people may have resented Franco; I thank God on their behalf that they never had the occasion to resent Stalin. White Guard 03:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Completely agree with White Guard statement. This is a very loop-sided account of a very important part of Spanish History. Because many people, including the current Spanish Government, disdain everything Franco did (not that I'm defending it, of course), it now happens that, by contrast, everything about the Second Republic was intrinsically perfect. I'm Spanish and I'll try to rewrite this article and make it more of a history lesson than a political manifesto. uhforja 00:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've rewritten the article. I'd like to get the opinions of people who may be experts in the matter, to see if the page is now more neutral. I've never done a page of this size so I hope no major misprints have slipped up. uhforja 18:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Much better: well done. White Guard 05:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, because someone with the name White Guard just reeks neutrality about socialist governments... The Republic was the best government Spain would ever have, and the far right that called itself religious called for its destruction from day 1 (and funded the fascists to boot). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
This article needs to be deeply refernced and lacks of neutrallity. Even , say, being treated as a 'pro'- it migt induce to mistaundertoods or mistakes in interpretation from third parties —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delfin (talk • contribs) 13:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
What events prompted the creation of the Republic? What were the forces and factions involved? -- Beland 12:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there should be a section that addresses the birth of the Second Republic. The page 'Spain under the Restoration' - dealing with the Primo de Rivera and Berenguer regimes - does not discuss this either, meaning there is no Wikipedia page detailing how the Republic came to be, surely a significant gap in this portion of Spanish history. Jaimericardo 01:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The Republic simply falls out of the sky. Lacking any exposition of the conditions and actions leading up to the Republic, the article is idiotic. Sounds more like a tourist guide from the local chamber of commerce, rather than a serious account of history. JKeck (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Layout with classic skin
I use the classic skin and this article overlaps the navigational bar on the left --Henrygb 23:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, this article, though too short, and lacking an explanation of the lead-up to the creation of the Second Republic, is of GA quality. It is well-written, authoritative and relatively neutral.
You must say that second republic was a marvellous paradise. It was a wonderful democratic paradise. José Calvo-Sotelo was democratically assasinated. PSOE rebel democratically at 1934. Some priests and nuns was democratically assasinated. Some churchs was democratically fired. What a wonderful democratic paradise!!!!! 220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you know what democratic means... It means everyone has a say and the majority's will is followed. Like it or not the majority of people wanted to protect the Republic and the priests and nuns almost all called for the destruction of the Republic and the creation of a fascist theocracy. The Republic WAS democratic up until the war broke out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The conclusion is written from a much more biased POV than rest of the article:
"In the context of the rise of totalitarian government, especially Nazism in Germany, Fascism in Italy and Stalinism in the Soviet Union"
Why Communism is called "Stalinism"? In this way someone can try to whitewash "Nazism" and blame just "Hitlerism".
"The murders of the leftist military leader Castillo and the rightist politician Calvo Sotelo..."
As I understood, Castillo was not "the leader", and no "military" man, but a policeman (merely a leutenant), who at the same time belonged to an inofficial militia created to silence the opposition by violent means. And Calvo Sotelo was not just "a politician", but the leader of parlamentary opposition. Thus they are figures of totally different political proportions. I am not Spanish, so I cannot judge how important was Castillo. His "official" positions suggest he was not too signifficant, but I concede his death might have carried some significance in Spanish society. In that case it indeed would be possible to mention both cases in one sentence. However the wording should be reflecting facts more:
"The murders of a known member of a violent leftist militant group Castillo and the parlamentary leader of rightist opposition..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
You know, I read the conclusion (as it is now written) to be TOO "neutral". This civil war was clearly started by rightist elements who were frustrated at being voted out democratically (much as the conservatives in the US currently are...). This "conclusion" section tries to skew things to seem more balanced than they were. This is inappropriate. Besides, a "conclusion" section is totally unneccessary. I don't usually see them on wikipedia. It really makes the article look like some high school report. Unless anyone can defend its inclusion, I nominate it for deletion. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
If you don't know the difference between the very large and nuanced group known as Communism and the subgroup that is Stalinism, then you REALLY need to go take a course in political science. While German fascism didn't exist before Hitler, Communism was around for over 100 years before Stalin was even heard of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Thats 2 folk songs
You are wrong. Spain was not around 1000 years ago, and the Republic was completely different then the Spanish State. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
It's the History different according to the language?
The Spanish version and the English one are differents. Someone has taken the Spanish document and translated into English, and he has changed some parts of the text and has added personal views and opinions, can it be done? is it legal?
Can the History be changed with the language? When talking about History the facts should be related objectively and conclusions and points of view should be avoided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- You are right. This was not a translation of the Spanish article. I am trying to fix all this Franco whitewashing and historical inaccuracies about the Republic. Xufanc (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I like the efforts put in the article and don't see any major changes are needed anymore, but I'm surprised to find State Atheism as the official religion. I hardly believe it's possible, note that while it might be true at Wartime in areas under the rule of the PCE, the pre-war politics were not headed towards elimination of religion, but just to taming a power sometimes richer than the government itself and more socially influential aswell. Aside from the catholic CEDA government of 1934-1935, the left-wing governments mainly led by Azaña still had to deal with a catholic conservative President of the Republic as Niceto Alcalá-Zamora. The new laws about freeing of encumbrance were approved following the reformations of some 19th century liberal governments in Spain and othe european countries, far from what we could call State Atheism, and the burning of churches followed periodical rises and wanings in concordance with communist or anarchist agendas, something the pre-war governments never supported and always prosecuted, were they either progressive or conservative. It's not possible to say State Atheism was the official religion in a country where masses saw unanimous attendance and the Church held massive power and influence in the society and the army until the very end. I'll wait until someone else agrees before changing anything, though.Satyajit Ray (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)