The Bombing of Guernica

[Sylvester Stadler]

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.

[mars]

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?

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Sylvester Stadler

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.

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.

[Bruce Dennis]

Well said, Nick.

[Jukka Juutinen]

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.

[mars]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

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.

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

[Icare9]

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?

[Jukka Juutinen]

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.

[Kutscha]

a crossing west 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?

poor navigation in poor weather

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.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

has either Nick or Bruce actually cared to ponder what would have happened if Stalinists had won?

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.