The Bombing of Guernica
 

Recently the Military Channel featured a 30-minute program entitled Weapons of World War 2: Heavy Bombers in which the narrator claimed that the Luftwaffe began terror bombing of civilians during the Spanish Civil War with the raid on Guernica. The narrator claimed that there were no military targets in Guernica and that the bombing was clearly intended to kill only civilians, although no evidence was provided. The mention of this bombing raid was intended to excuse the later Allied bombing of German civilians and several times the narrator quoted and also showed "Bomber" Harris stating that "The Germans had sown the wind, now they must reap the whirlwind."

The book Guernica: How Hitler's Air Force Destroyed a Spanish City for Franco in Practice for World War II clearly states that the city had as a legitimate target Republican military forces in and around the town. Another source, Hitler's Luftwaffe in the Spanish Civil War, which uses original German sources including von Richthofen's diaries, basically states there is no evidence that the raid was to intimidate civilians and that it was part of a strategy to trap Republican ground forces during the Nationalist advance to Bilbao.

The Spanish Republicans may have lost the civil war but they and their Communist cohorts have won the propaganda war which still goes on today with British sources like the TV program mentioned above repeating this lie.

Re: The Bombing of Guernica
 

Please correct me if I was wrong,Guernica was part of Basque region, and in the spanish civil war, it was territory of the Basque National force, scince when Basque become part of communist?

Re: The Bombing of Guernica
 

Perhaps one shouldn't expect much in the way of historical insight from anyone who picks a pseudonym from the bloody SS but even so ...

Let's remind ourselves of a few facts. Franco was in illegal rebellion against an elected government (not an institution an SS-fan might care for even though they tend to outperform totalitarian regimes on every count). Germany had not declared war on Spain. The Condor Legion was deployed under false pretences ("volunteers") in support of that illegal rebellion. It's very presence in Spain was illegitimate, it had no legal business bombing anything at all.

Re: The Bombing of Guernica
 

Well said, Nick.

Re: The Bombing of Guernica
 

Franco being illegal or not, but has either Nick or Bruce actually cared to ponder what would have happened if Stalinists had won? Probably a bloodpath on unimaginable proportions, country in total ruins. It is very easy to compare the state in which each respective regimes left their lands after falling. The Spain as left by Franco was far and above anything that the bolsheviks and their lackeys left after falling everywhere else, like in Eastern Europe.

But the stronghold of leftists among academia is so strong that these questions are so rarely raised. Another example of the bolshie-leftist influence is how the USSR and the RSA are compared. During the recent Football World Cup we heard again how reporters and everyone who wanted to be "in" were applauding how FIFA ejected the so evil apartheid South Africa from their tournaments while conveniently forgetting to wonder why the very same FIFA of great moral fiber had no trouble in keeping in the USSR, the number 1 human rights violator of all times. What was going in RSA at that time was peanuts in comparison. And considering the facts that ever since the bakcks took over RSA, the sole beacon in the whole continent has sunken in the bottom with vast increase in corruption, crime, economic instability. These facts are again so unpleasant to the Red academia.

Re: The Bombing of Guernica
 

I would not call pre-civil war spanish government as "Stalinist", majoriy of this left wing spanish were socialist and anarchist, neither were friends of Soviet, and as far as I know neither Stalin nor Hilter had direct role of the breaking out of the spanish civil war, that tragic war was a result of almost 100 year long bloody conflict between left wing and right wing of the spanish society. It was a conflict between liberal vs conservative, rather than Fascist vs communist

Re: The Bombing of Guernica
 

Dear SS: Firstly the Military Channel is NOT British. Second, whether or not there were legitimate targets, the city was subjected to a devastating bombing attack that left thousands of civilians dead, whose only "crime" was the misfortune to live in that town.

You obviously overlook the fact that this was not the only event where Nazi airpower was used to devastate unprotected cities. Have you not heard about the bombing of Warsaw and Rotterdam?

The Nazis had sown the wind and they did reap the whirlwind.

Bomber Command did not take on undefended targets, the scale of their losses is proof of that. What they did do was, almost alone for nearly 3 years, tie up an ever increasing proportion of men and equipment to defend Germany that would possibly have tipped the balance in favour of Germany winning the war.

The sacrifice they made, against equally dedicated adversaries, paved the way to the Allies winning the War. Perhaps that's what really grates?

Re: The Bombing of Guernica
 

Icare, if you believe of thousands of dead in Guernica, then you have taken Communist propaganda at face value. The true number is about 120, 20 of which could be identified. And even those were not tragets as the target was a crossing west of Guernica, but poor navigation in poor weather led to missing the real target. One leading charlatan was the bolshie Pablo Picasso who simply added some details to an existing panting of his and then advertized this as Guernica.

By the way, when there were attempts after WW1 to ban aerial bombing of civilian targets, the number one opponent was Britain whose leaders saw air power as a cheap way to police the empire by e.g. bombing villages of "savages" to keep then in "proper" leash.

Re: The Bombing of Guernica
 

The bridge is ~225m east of the center of the town.

Order: "bomb the road and bridge to the east of Guernica"

Three SM.79's dropped thirty-six light explosive bombs (50 kg)and incendiaries (1 kg). A Dornier Do 17, coming from the south, dropped approximately twelve 50-kilogram bombs. Hardly big enough bombs to take out a stone bridge. Did they try to burn down a stone bridge?

They had no trouble finding the town.

A recent study by Raul Arias Ramos in his book La Legion Condor en La Guerra Civil states that there were 250 dead and the study by Joan Villarroya and J.M. Sole i Sabate in their book España en Llamas. La Guerra Civil desde el Aire states that there were 300 dead These sources have been cited by historians such as and as well as media such as the BBC and El Mundo.

Re: The Bombing of Guernica
 

I'm capable of distinguishing Stalinism from other more genuinely socialist beliefs. Apparently that isn't a distinction you care to make but that still didn't entitle the Luftwaffe to bomb Guernica.

Re: The Bombing of Guernica
 

Hello Jukka,
Thanks for asking, I have spent a fair part of my life looking at what happened and, more importantly, what the alternatives were.

So there is no confusion about it, now or later, I do not subscribe to the 'official' version of history, and also have little patience with those who are blindly partisan no matter which side they support: the 20th century was a messy, bloody period and every episode from that era I have looked at so far is rich in hypocrisy and jingoism. The fact that enormous sacrifices were made by people all over the planet does not, to me at least, distract from the equally established fact that entire populations were lead to believe lies, and I hope that our work as (amateur) historians will make it harder for this to happen on such a scale again. The leadership of Germany gained credibility in important circles by joining the fight against the Left in Spain, and this is hopefully something we can all agree on: they benefitted and no-one stopped them.

Did the Luftwaffe or any other Air Force have any right to bomb any part of Spain? Absolutely not. Did any other country effectively block the German actions? Absolutely not. Did the plight of Spain get used throughout the world to rally support for the causes representing both sides? Absolutely.

Messy time, the 20th century.

Re: The Bombing of Guernica
 

I can recommend James Corum's biography of Wolfram von Richthofen.

It deals with this subject in a concise but still very informative manner.

The irony of the matter is that it is perhaps the western allies that elevate Guernica to ever greater heights, not your "communist cohorts". Just like the Huns in Belgium, so did the wheels of propaganda work leading up to WW2. Of course the Nazis were perfectly capable of committing real atrocities and surprise anyones imagination while they were at it.

So basically Guernica wasn't a war crime nor did thousands of civilians perish, it wasn't communist propaganda, and yes Nazi Germany was proficient enough to commit warcrimes on a large and arguable unsurpassed level.

Re: The Bombing of Guernica
 

Read 'The Basque History of the World' by Mark Kurlansky, published by Jonathan Cape, London, for another account of the attack on Guernica.

Re: The Bombing of Guernica
 

How about you study the FACTS instead of spouting your selective right-wing propaganda view? Go read properly about the raid on Guernica and its aftermath.

Re: The Bombing of Guernica
 

My belief is that the best summary of the bombing of Guernica is in James Corum's The Luftwaffe: Creating the Operational Air War, 1918-1940. He states that "There is no evidence to indicate that the German air attack on Guernica was a "terror bombing" or that Guernica was carefully targeted to break the morale of the Basque populace." "The Condor Legion bombed Guernica because of the simple fact that it was a significant military target. The two major roads needed for the retreat of much of the twenty-three battalions east of Bilbao intersected at Guernica. At least two Basque battalions, the 18th Loyala Battalion and the Saseta Battalion were stationed in the town."

Corum adds that no traffic could move through the area for about 24 hours but that the Nationalist Army did not take advantage of the bombing to cut off the Basque battalions. Corum also states that von Richthofen never had a policy of terror bombing against civilians or deliberate targeting of civilians.

Mr. Vasco, if you have information to the contrary, tell us what it is. Also, I should have added to my statement the phrase "liberal cohorts."

Re: The Bombing of Guernica
 

That´s a statement I can agree 100%. A few general observations:

1) In the recent von Manstein biography by Mungo Melvin the author makes an interesting statement that from 1870 to 1945 German Army allways had a low tolerance for any kind of civilian resistance. Sadly the author does not ponder why it was so. I, for one, understand the policy perfectly: if civilians of an occupied country wish to be treated like civilians, they must also behave like civilians and by the definitions on the international law in effect at that time it meant that they refrain from any form of resistance. Period. Most of the battlefield atrocities in the West were rooted in the aforementioned tradition.

2) As far as the Eastern Front is considered, it is most interesting to note how few authors have asked the big question, i.e. why didn´t the Soviets evacuate their civilian population from the battle zones? And I believe that the answer lies in the mindset of bolshevik leadership. They simply ruthlessly calculated that the partisan warfare that was part and parcel of bolshevik way of war would surely lead to harsh countermeasures and that in turn to increased support for the partisans. And the plan worked perfectly, though at the expense of the poor civilians. That does not exonerate the NS responsibility for the massacres éntirely, or even mostly, but does show that the war on the Eastern Front was a different war from the beginning. And shows that the NS people were their own worst enemies as they simply failed to grasp that their plocies were in total opposition to their main goal, making Germany a BIG player. In short, the NS leadership lacked true statemanship. In this context it is interesting to note that Reinhard Heydrich was assassinated for exactly the same reason. Heydrich had managed to pacify the protectorate so that the British leadership wasn´t happy for the lack of saboteur activity there. So they carried out the assassination in the belief that Hiter will be enraged and will order excessive countermeasures. And again the plan worked like a charm. And again the poor civilians paid the price. And again the NS folks screwed up.

3) It is also quite interesting to note that the books by Polish historian Bogdan Musial have not been translated into English while every second rate holocaust book is. Musial´s findings are simply not too pleasant for the left dominated academia and political establishment as he has shown that while the Soviets were retreating in 1941, NKVD was fully committed to liquidate large number of people Stalin considered as his enemies.

4) And it is interesting too to note how Sylvester Stadler is harped upon due to his choice of a name. I am pretty certain that had he selected e.g. Ivan Konev as his name, no harping upon would take place. Yet, if the careers of these two are compared, one will note that Stadler spent his entire NS era career as a career military man, while Konev began his career as a political commissar who e.g. took action against anti-Bolshevik uprisings. And if Franco was an illegal entity, then the Soviet regime was even more illegal.

Re: The Bombing of Guernica
 

Jukka, could you please explain What Stalin, Communist and East Front had anything to do with the bombing of Guernica

Re: The Bombing of Guernica
 

[quote=Jukka Juutinen;111524]That´s a statement I can agree 100%. A few general observations:

... Heydrich had managed to pacify the protectorate so that the British leadership wasn´t happy for the lack of saboteur activity there. ...QUOTE]

I am sorry, Jukka, but to rationalise the bombing of Guernica with a statement that, somehow, the evil butcher Heydrich was doing good is beyond me.

Bruce

Re: The Bombing of Guernica
 

Now all you have to do is explain what business Germany had in attacking the forces of a legal and elected government in a country with which Germany was not at war.

Re: The Bombing of Guernica
 

I don't think it is "leftist academia" nor the "political establishment" who dominate History when it comes to these subjects, it is wartime propaganda, popular believe and to some extend even current political pressure groups. Not to mention (good) business sense in terms of who and what sells and who and what doesn't.

When I look at the subject of the Holocaust, you are much more likely to buckle under conservative (right wing) jewish interest groups than under a left(ist) academician. The latter will try to counter you with arguments, while the former will attack with any means possible including legal action and dirty tricks.

Note that I am not taking a position on the subject of the Holocaust, but describing what I generally observe.

This is just one subject, but in general I see conservatives to be just as entrenched to maintain the status quo when it comes to (ww2) history as so-called leftists, perhaps even more actively and effectively so.

WW2 is still too modern for us to be objective, too many links with the current world (order). Governments are still too painfully aware of many a dirty action, secret or exposed.

WW1 is slowly entering the objectivity phase, but will still lead to some painful debate.

Re: The Bombing of Guernica
 

Aah, the difficult subject of legality!

Well the Germans were welcomed by the Nationalists, so in that sense they were at least invited to take part in an internal power struggle by one of the warring fractions.

As soon as a conflict starts the world community takes positions, it naturally comes down to an official position based on international pressure (read the view taken by the dominant powers in whatever international body is accepted by the majority of nations) and the unofficial position based on a variety of reasons ranging from cultural sympathy to national interests.

The difference between a legal government and an oppressive or objectionable regime that should be toppled is pretty arbitrary.

Again I am not taking any positions when it comes to the Spanish Civil War, but more modern conflicts have taught me to be extremely cynical and suspicious.

Re: The Bombing of Guernica
 

I've posted it once, perhaps you missed it? "...Read 'The Basque History of the World' by Mark Kurlansky, published by Jonathan Cape, London, for another account of the attack on Guernica..." Not that I think for a second you will accept any part of that account, as it does not fit you view the event.

Re: The Bombing of Guernica
 

Mr. Vasco:

I saw your response which was to read someone else's book. This is another way to avoid answering the questions which were raised. If someone asked me to prove that Oswald killed JFK and I told them to go read the Warren Commission Report and/or its attendant 26-volume investigation or to read Vincent Bugliosi's 1600-page book, I would be avoiding the question. Instead I would present in a summary all of the evidence against this Marxist. I never tell people to go read someone's book without giving them an idea of the point I want to portray and the evidence that it provides to bolster my supposition.

I don't have the book you mentioned at my disposal and I am not going to purchase it either. You were asked for evidence that contradicted my argument and you failed to provide it.

My original contention was that the producers of the 30-minute program either lied or never looked at the evidence surrounding the events of Guernica. The program claimed that there were no military targets in Guernica. This statement is a lie. The makers are repeating a lie whether they know it or not. They may very well believe it is true. But it is a sad state of scholarship. The same producers created another 30-minute program entitled The Men Who Invented Radar which gives credit to the British although the Germans already had radar which the narrator conveniently forgets to mention. This is the kind of history we get on the History Channel and the Military Channel, which do not produce their own shows but purchase them from whatever source available, in this case from Britain.

Re: The Bombing of Guernica
 

And I asked you to explain what business Germany had in attacking the forces of a legal and elected government in a country with which Germany was not at war. Oddly enough you haven't done so.

And quite frankly, anyone who adopts a Nazi persona is no position to complain about lies and propaganda, are they?

Re: The Bombing of Guernica
 

Mr. Beale:

I am glad you brought up the subject regarding the legality of Germany (and Italy) assisting Franco in overthrowing the Republican regime of Spain. One could also ask the same of Stalin sending material and personnell to Spain. I would like to know which international law which was in effect in 1937 made this illegal.

A knowledge of history shows that nations have intervened on one or either side in conflicts which were strictly within the boundaries of the nations concerned. Let us look at the conflicts prior to 1937, the practice of which would give Hitler and Mussolini the right to side with Franco and the Nationalist cause:

1. U.S. Marines landed in Nicaragua in 1910 and stayed until 1912 taking part in the fighting to suppress a revolution there.
2. The Marines were in Haiti 1915-34.
3. The U.S. intervened in the Dominican Republic 1916-24.
4. The U.S. again intervened in Nicaragua in 1927-34.
5. The Marines were in China from the Boxer Rebellion to 1941 enforcing American interests. (other nations also)
6. In April 1914 the Marines landed in Vera Cruz, Mexico to overthrow the Mexican government.
7. The U.S. intervenes for Panama's revolt against Colombia 1903 and got the Panama Canal.
8. The Western Allies intervened in Russia in 1918 which had signed a peace treaty with Germany and fought the Bolsheviks (with which I agree).
9. In 1919 Rumania invaded Hungary to overthrow the Bolshevik Bela Kun.
10. 1909-11 Britain and Russia invade Persia to protect their interests from rioters. (Both would invade Persia in August 1941 for Iranian oil.)

There have been many more operations, including clandestine, all over the world since the Spanish Civil War. Every nation has its own interests and will do what is necessary and in their power. Churchill ordered the attack on the French fleet, killing 1200 French sailors, at Oran and Britain was not at war with France. Churchill ordered the invasion of Persia in August 1941, killing 1000 Iranians in the process. Hitler had a more legitimate reason to aid Franco to avoid a Red state on the Atlantic. Recent information indicates that the communists controlled the Republicans in Spain just as the intelligence now indicates that Stalin was the controlling factor behind the invasion of North Korea into the south. We don't generally hear such revelations in the liberal dominated media which also put the disaster named Obama into power.

Re: The Bombing of Guernica
 

Two wrongs don't make a right and I did not seek to justify any of those other interventions. Stalin sent men and equipment to Spain at the request of the legal government - a poisoned gift - because, shamefully in my view, no one else would help them. I repeat, Germany and Italy had no legitimate business sending military forces or arms to Spain.

And that last sentence tells me everything I need to know about yuour world view and how seriously I should take it in future. If you truly imagine that the likes of News International and ClearChannel are "liberal-dominated" then good luck to you.

Re: The Bombing of Guernica
 

SS, I always find it hilarious when intelligent people use the power of free speech to criticise those who would criticise Nazi Germany. Irony such as that can only exist in a world without a ministry of ‘Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda’, which I am sure you will recognise from the list of new offices AH set out in his demands for power August 5 1932.

Re: The Bombing of Guernica
 

Nick, I know two US authors who are also retired career US military: David Glantz (yes, that one) and Henrik Lunde (ex-SF, Vietnam vet, Norwegian by birth, author of the recent book on the Norwegian campaign of 1940)). Care to know what do they think about Hussein Obama? Yes, the word used by Sylvester is apt. And how does the naval aviation author Barrett Tillman feel about Obama? Ditto. And you will find it pretty hard time to label these 3 people as stauch NS men. But all 3 are ardent supporters of the 2nd amendment, i.e. pro-gun. And that is apparently what drives a Briton, especially supporters of Tony Gungrabber Blair, nuts.

And as for the legality of German units being in Spain in the first place, well, their legality was just as legal as the presence of British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan today.

Re: The Bombing of Guernica
 

How many times can you miss the point in a single post? Nothing whatsoever that you have written offers a legal or moral justification of German intervention in the Spanish Civil War (the topic of this post).

I really don't care who in the USA agrees or disagrees with their incumbent President, that's their democratic right. Had you read managed to read my post to the end you might have understood that what I found so revealing of SS's worldview was his need to account for an unpalatable election result by conjuring up some intrinsically implausible "liberal domination" of a US media almost entirely owned by huge capitalist corporations.

You really have a desperately feeble grasp of British public opinion if you think Americans' attachment to guns drives anyone here nuts. Many are bemused by the importance Americans attach to the issue but that's all. And do you seriously imagine that Tony Blair's reputation in Britain, good or bad, rests on gun control laws? Amazing!

Nor should you imagine that involvement in the Iraq or Afghanistan wars has enjoyed universal support in Britain or — to get back on topic — that either offers retrospective justification of Nazi aggression in Spain.

Re: The Bombing of Guernica
 

I think this thread has reached its high point and will only get worse in terms of a constructive debate.

So to paraphrase Obama's campaign slogan, we're closing this thread because we can!