Jump to content

User talk:Wllacer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]

Hello, Wllacer, welcome to Wikipedia.


You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.


You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! —Plato

Spanish Civil War. Foreign assistance financing.

[edit]

[copied]
I casually walked thru the article and it's talk page, and I found your signature wondering about several aspects about how foreing aid was payed. It seems (my source is the often provocative book from Pio Moa "Los mitos de la guerra civil") that the "Republican" side, had mostly to pay cash (againts the gold reserves, since 1937 in custody in Russia), and that the "nationalists" managed to finance on it bland loans with Italy and Germany (so bland that almost nothing was left off to pay at the end of WWII). It also seems that the russian weren't exactly billing at "friend's prices". If you're still interested i'll try to pick for you more detailed references.

(A note of warning) Moa's works sparked a monstruous uproar this last years in Spain, as he has put into question most of the late historiographical production about the spanish civil war.--Wllacer 12:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC) [end copy][reply]

If I had citations readily available, I have already given them. However, yes, what you are saying on this point agrees completely with what I understand to be the case. The Soviets sent a certain number of "volunteers" (although by that time it's hard to say how "volunteer" anything was in the Soviet Union), but the only reason that the Republicans were in a position to get any serious arms from the USSR was that when the war started they were in possession of Madrid, and hence of all the gold in the Spanish treasury. And, yes, I gather that Germany and Italy largely supported the Nationalists at their own expense. Both of these have been common knowledge in the U.S. for many years, which is why I couldn't tell you offhand where I know ths from; is this what "sparked a monstruous uproar" about Moa's book, or was it something else? (You can answer here, I'll watchlist you page.) -- Jmabel | Talk 18:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As for the financing, the fascist powers did got payed for the arms they supplied to the "nationals" (some 500 million US $ of that date) but upon credit and in "liras" to the italians (after WWII virtually worthless) and, with a lot of bargaining (even a year after the end of the war, spainards where rejecting german bills, on every possible ground).
The question with Moa is not his stance about the international involvment and the arms trade, but on his main thesis about the war, that it was a defensive reaction against a revolution in progress, whose first step had been the October 1934 asturian (and catalan) revolution. He also went into a frontal attack against the leading left leanig historians (and P.Preston specially). To add injury to insult, his main primary source where the archives of "Pablo Iglesias Foundation" (related to the Socialist Party). It provoked a somehow histerical reaction from the academical establishment (even with cries for censoring), specially as he has become one of the best selling authors in Spain. Moa's biography is singular and wide open for personal attacks (he is a former far LEFT terrorist).
The above is only a brief sketch on the polemic. I'll be out for a couple of days. If you're interested in more details, just ask--Wllacer
Yes, that sounds like it would be a very controversial thesis. Hard to say how overthrowing the constitutionally elected government can be a defensive action, though of course Pinochet made the same claim. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought about the Pinochet analogy, but it is on the mark. But there are two main differences. In Spain, it seems no foreing power was seriously implicated before the war started, and second, what followed in Spain was not a coup but a civil war. But don't throw the baby with the water. Remember that Adolf Hitler was also a constitutionally appointed Prime Minister. Salvador Allende's fall made him "holy", but (as our page shows, but only in the section legacy and debate) his figure is not cristal clear.
At first I approached Moa's books with skepsis, but I must confess he makes a good, but by no means perfect, case.(and paints a really desolate view of almost all politicians of the period).
I've never liked the some mean generals and oligarcs started the war explanation. Applying common sense, such a "gang" can stage a coup, but sustain and win a three year war, starting in absolute disadvantage of men and means? Civil support for the rebels had to be bigger than usually told. As an indicator, in the February 1936 elections, IIRC, the Popular Front won per just 1% of the vote to the right -which almost unanimously suported the coup. Another indicator, carlism, which were a minority but militant group and didn't expanded during the war, could muster some 60.000 volunteers and lost from 5.000-10.000 lives beyond enemy lines. And a third, levels of desertion -except the first and the last moments- doesn't seem to have been of note. And no "red" volunteer (be it socialist, comunist or anarchist) fought for democracy (well if "popular" is added, perhaps) They all fought for revolution, now (anarchists), or at the end of the war (communists). Modern approaches fail to explain all of the above. --Wllacer 04:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much a disagreement as further remarks: the Generals certainly intended a coup, not a war. The coup failed, but not totally; they ultimately won the war; I seriously doubt that they could have won the war without foreign support.

War Origins

[edit]

I tend to hold with the "two Spains" thesis. Once the lines were drawn, people had to take sides. Especially for a lot of devout Catholics, the outrages by the anarchists at the start of the war were probably a deciding factor. Many religious people who did not love the Falange still hated the anarchists more. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "two Spains" theory was the one i'm raised with. It was a good enough explanation for both parties. For the marxist variant (following Tuñon de Lara), it was rooted on developments during the "Restauracion era " (1876-1923), one of the worst (in quality) studied periods in spanish contemporaneous history. For the ultraconservatives, (Luis Suarez and the Navarra University school) and many liberals it can be traced back to 1812.
Both views need, though, an "special case" for Spain, independent of the evolution of the rest of Europe. As of today, I'm not sure anymore of the validity of such a model. My pet theory now is that the break was provoked by the extreme anticlerical views the left republicans (Azaña foremost) forced on the nascent republic, which left out of the system many moderate catholics. The burning of churches from April 1931, and once again from February 1936 onwards, whithout intervention from the government, didn't help either. And as you point, the antireligious persecution in the republican zone was definitive.
Religious aspects were not the only reason many moderates ended up -unconfortably- suporting Franco. The few months of the Popular Front government before the war (and as fact, almost all the life of the republic) were caothic with near daily gunfights between the different militias, political motivaded arsons, press censorship, .... with the public authority hiding or taking side. Once the war started, the repression in the "red" zone against "non-commited" was as worse as on the other side... The evolution of many spiritual "fathers of the Republic", like Jose Ortega y Gasset or Gregorio Marañon or Ramón Menenedez Pidal, which sooner o later came to terms with Franco is revealing.
Pio Moa's adition -at least for me- to the equation is double. For one part, he has showed how petti-minded political power plays destroyed from within any centrist alternative (in that time, it meant non anticlerical repubicanism), and on the other hand -probably his most disputed thesis, not only for historical reasons- the constant push on the part of the (then majority) left wing of the Socialist Party to create conditions which would allow them to start its "proletarian revolution". It seems some of their leaders were openly crying for a "civil war". October 1934 had been the first try and he implies that the conditions which prevailed before July 18 were in many instances to be blamed on this policy -of what i'm not so sure as a whole-. None of this ideas are strictly new, but the documentary support mainly is. Ironically, as I told you earlier, most of this sources belong to the Socialist Party's trust.
Before I forget, you -your sources- seem to put on the anarchists a good deal of "blame". It's not to be denied that they were a constant destabilizing factor in spanish politics for everybody, and their overt push for revolution at the start of the war, contributed to make the republican side "unfit" for international help. But, for instance, regarding religious persecution and political repression , all the "red" groups behaved more or less equaly. A less well known fact is that Falange had always looked on anarquism with a certain degree of simpathy, (the colours of Falange's flag been the same as CNT's was not casual), and political propaganda after the war tended to "forget" them. What did not meant they weren't hard hit by repression--Wllacer 11:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On this last: sure, there were elements within the Falange (as in the original Italian facsists, and the early German Nazis - the Strasser brothers, for example) who had some genuine intent of a certain type of social revolution. And in Spain, the part of the left in which they had some grounding was anarchist (much as in Italy it was syndicalist). And all of these tendencies were totally wiped out -- often killed, always politically shoved aside -- when their respective parties took power.
In Spain things went a somewhat different course, as the "Movimiento" was more a coalition than a real party. The "falangists" were normally in control of the trade union and of the ministerium of Trabajo(work), and "monarchists" and later "opus" of the economy ministerum, and they were frecuently at odds, because -with better or worse criterium- the first pushed on the creation of a "welfare state" difficult to fund, or made sudden wage raises which skyrocketed inflation.
The bulk of our actual welfare state system (things have been improved since Franco's dead, but the basics were then in place) was constructed under the guidance of José Antonio Girón de Velasco, which, at the same time was the "Pope" of the political hardliners of the Regime (and of the extreme right opposition later), had a dark reputation of corruption and practically died in 1995, still claiming for the (social) Revolución Pendiente. I have reasons to believe that he was sincere in this (and that the other things were also true).
But with stuff like that, the paternalistic way all of this was implemented, the poor funding, and sindical corruption, is normal that the result was a -relative- mess--Wllacer 16:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Back a little: I don't blame the anarchists for standing for what they stood for. I think that, if anything, they deserve a lot of credit for choosing to stand against the fascists rather than say "fascists, liberals, what's the difference"? If the German Communists had taken the same tack in 1933, Hitler might never have come to power, but they decided "worse is better", that the Nazis wouldn't last and would only hasten the inevitable Marxist revolution.
In general, the 1930s in Europe were not a good time for centrists. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, a couple of links for you about the Moa-Moradiellos debate if you're still interested. They are recension of both authors' books by S.G. Payne [1] (about Moa's) and [2] (about Moradiellos').--Wllacer 16:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carlism

[edit]

Aqui esta la referencia [3]. Viene del Wiki castellano. Saludos Kaliz 17:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

J***r. La pagina del Partido ... La coña es que recuerdo a Cherid, pero no a De La Chiae. Si te interesa puedo desempolvar alguna otra referencia que localicé preparando material para el articulo del carlismo. La verdad, a mi lo de Montejurra solo me interesaba como el canto del cisne del movimiento, pero tu referencia a Gladio le abre curiosas variantes --Wllacer 18:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just got your message. I see your point, and my intro should probably be changed to better reflect the complexities of the Carlist movement. However, the central "issue" of Carlism is (and has always been) a dynastic dispute. Their other beliefs and objectives, while no doubt significant, are secondary to this dispute. At any rate, this is my understanding. Maybe we could change the introduction to read something like "Carlism is a right-wing legitimist movement seeking, among other things, the establishment of a separate line of the Bourbon family on the Spanish throne", or something to that effect. I agree that my former phrasing (i.e. "established for the purpose of...") is a bit sweeping. Bhumiya 19:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catalan negationism

[edit]

Joe, i've stumbled upon this article. Besides not getting a single fact right, it's the first time i've ever heard about the concept. I don't know what to do with the article. Can you, as administrator and interested in all things catalan, have a look at it and flag as you may deem appropiate ?

By the way, many thanks for your careful editing of my sorely written contributions (It seems my english is not as good as I thought), and all your input in between. I wish you many luck getting a new contract. --Wllacer 12:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. If you think the article is a valid topic, but false, edit it. If you think the term is a total neologism (certainly there is no equivalent in the one Catalan-language piece cited), nominate it for deletion on WP:AFD and say "This is a neologism, and besides, the material in the article is false and is not backed up by the one piece cited" (or something to that effect). If you don't know how to do the "articles for deletion" process, WP:AFD is pretty clear step by step, and if you are getting involved here it is probably worth learning.
  2. Editing: I do a lot of that. At least your English is pretty consistently decipherable. On some articles, I can't even make a solid guess what they meant.
  3. Contract (or perm): Thanks. I'm not too worried, the market has picked up a lot here in the last year. I have a lot of people I'm talking to, I think it's just a matter of what will come through, not whether. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After two hours of deciphering, going back and forth from the original and the linked article, I saw at last the light ... and looks -for me- like smear campaing, so it's now in WP:AFD. If I'm right is nominated for the worst made propaganda work of the year.I only hope the translators did in good faith, thinking they had found something interesting. Only too sorry their basic history knowledge was AWOL that day, to smell the fish earlier --Wllacer 01:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I'm actually English, but I'll look out for that book.

Apologies for getting the Spanish naming conventions wrong. Thanks for fixing it.

Incidentally, like most Anglophones, my knowledge of the Spanish Civil War is mainly via George Orwell and Homage to Catalonia. Although I have read a few other things, it's clear to me that this Richy character and you know more about the Spanish Civil War than I do, no matter that your views on it differ from his and mine. I am quite happy to accept what you two decide until I can learn more about that conflict. BillMasen 14:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths of Condés and Cuenca

[edit]

You're absolutely right. Thomas does not make the claim I originally wrote; he supports your additional source (Thomas, Modern Library edition, ed.2001, p.198n2 and p.309). I misread the orginal and have now fixed the footnote. Thanks much for the assist! Dasondas 11:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duchy of Vasconia

[edit]

Too bad you've been too busy to contribute as of late. Too bad, also, that you don't have access to JSTOR. I want to clarify that while Rouche may be a "must read" for any comprehensive study of the topic of Merovingian Aquitaine (and he is), he is not the "must read". In fact, I think there is hardly any definitive authority covering any aspect of Merovingian history. It is a controversial and poorly recorded period of history. The primary sources are the realy "must reads"! That said, it would be great to be able to incorporate stuff from Rouche and Mussot-Goulard, as I am unaware of any other works surveying in detail Gascony and Aquitaine in the obscure Dark Ages. I would urge you to look at the articles I have created on the dukes of that time period, though, as I have tried to extensively source them. I look forward to any contributions you make to them. Srnec 06:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

[edit]

Greetings again, Wllacer. Once again, thanks for taking the time to answer my doubts over at the SCW talk page. After having read through your interesting exchange with Jmabel here on your talk page, I've almost forgotten why I popped in here in the first place. I still haven't checked out the Sp. Wikipedia version, but I'm intrigued by the fact that if such a large body of evidence apparently exists regarding Paracuellos, nothing has been done about it. You mention two failed attempts since 2005 - and how does the Ley de Memoria Histórica fit into all this? Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You make a very smart question, i've never seen answered, so let me guess:
Francoism didn't staged great "iusse trials" like Nuremberg and followings, but court martialed (mostly) on a person by person basis, rather than on particular events/iusses. The genesis of the "Causa General" points that they toyed with the idea of such trials, but gave up very early (prob. by 1943 when the book was published). There were practical dificulties (most defendants where either in exile or had already been judged; the procedings of information gathering were extremly slow;...) and it seems,little propaganda value. Add to this that, at some point around 1950 (perhaps even from 1945 onwards), there are strong signals that show an increasing unwillingness to open war related cases (unless there were of "practical" interest, f.i. the Grimau case en 1962, -a serious blunder as it showed up-)
Even for the Regime, to study the Paracuellos case was extremely difficult. Even today there is not a reliable number/list of victims (not all graves were opened and the number of unidentified corpses in those which were, was far from negligible), and those were times without even a central personal register ... Probably, most of the excutioners left behind were, in turn, executed by 1943, and most of the line of command was in exile (at least the communists), so a trial was of no use.
After 1969 a trial was not possible anymore.
Carrillo, after 1977, was somehow protected from his past (not only Paracuellos) because of his stance during the Transition. Only in the last few years it has become again "fair game". After his extravangant 90th birthday party (2004) someone -based on the new (post 1977) paragraphs about imprescriptibly of "Crimes against Humanity"- tried to open a case regarding Paracuellos. Judge Garzón shelved it, with general consensus.
The "Ley de Memoria Historica" of 2005 finally didn't include a direct mecanism to reopen the post-war trials (although it was in some drafts), simply made them "illegitimate" (art 3.3; whatever this means). Anyhow, the sectarian nature of the law (not to talk of the drafts) was in no way intended to reopen, even acknowledge, any case of "Red Terror" (cf. the ambiguous writing of art 3.1, the only part which purports to deal with it)
It was the very same judge Garzón, who using the law and exactly the same arguments cited above who tried to put the whole Francoist Regime on trial. Not unexpectedly, someone tried again, after Garzóns move, to open a Paracuellos case. The later was again shelved w/o comments, and in the case of Garzon, he is now the defendant accused of misbehavior because of whole story. Although I bet the judge will be acquited (but severly reprimanded), I hope this will be the end on any attempt to use the courts on any pre 1977 case. Wllacer (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks once again! With each new explanation I keep coming up with more questions (children have a similar tendency: "Why?", "But if,... why?", "And what if...?"). Don't want to take up too much of your time, so please bear with me for just one last (multi-) q. (no hurry for reply!): If Carillo's past is so well-known - and documented -, why was he so well "accepted" during the Transition? Did the Paracuellos affair only come to light c. 1977 or had it already been well studied in the 60s? In the "Causa General"? Thank you for your patience! Regards,--Technopat (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just keep asking, i'll try to answer if i can. But be warned, i try to be objective, but i'm by no means neutral. And excuse if I forget to explain certain things, being a spaniard near its fifties, i tend to take some things for granted. F.i. Carrillo's role after the death of Franco. As the leader of the main (short of being the sole) opposition group (The Communist Party) his very moderate and bridge building attitude (at least outside of the Party) was extremely helpful -and widely acknowledged- in smoothing the change of the political system. OTOH, as he was one of the handful of parlamentarians who showed a degree of dignity and courage during the attempted "coup d'etat" in 1981, won him a lot of respect from even hard core rightist. Only in the last few years, due partly to some unfortunate words and him being used by a radical agenda, has made him again open to public criticism of his past (and there is a lot in it, starting from his "selling off" the Socialist Youth to the Communist in 1936 and ending with his rather ruthless control of the Party during the 60's)
What happened in Madrid during November 36 was public domain since the first day (more or less). but studies about it were marred by its obvious Propaganda value (only that the spanish right has never been very good at it) and the counter-propaganda, and only from around 1970 (perhaps until 2000), the cultural climate allowed objective study in possible in Spain. The 43' book edition of the "Causa" borders dangerously on Propaganda (and anyway, was published too early). And the "real meat", the over 4000 boxes of documentation it generated (what's currently been made available on line ) was not available to researchers at least until 1970, and for a long time with serious restrictions --Wllacer (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for filling in some background - and it's good to come across someone who makes an effort to be objective. I'll give you a break now and let you do some constructive editing! Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to fill some voids. I you want to have a look to the original documents on the Causa General regarding Paracuellos go to [4]], search for sacas Madrid and select the line Fiscalía .... Part of the releated documents will show up (to get the full listing (till now) you have to go thru the whole Inventario Dinamico interface which is rather boring)

Saca is the "technical" term used for the non judicial killing of inmates of penal institutions. The name comes because the usual procedure was to get the victims out of the prision (sacar de prisión in spanish) be under pretense of freedom, or a change of place, and to kill them once out. Direct assaults on the prisions and subsequent mass murders, are also to be searched under sacas. As a number of them were real traslations or freedom, the first step is to know which was of what type.

My overview of the docs gives me the following cues

  • From 3.000 to 5.000 people were killed in Madrid alone from October to December,4 1936, from sacas alone. I got references to other some 700 corpses (only at Aravaca's cementery) in aprox. the same timeframe
  • At least from the 7th of November onwards, there was a highly organized machinery involved which ends (w/o a doubt) at the top at Serrano Poncela, Carrillo's 2nd in command. From there upward there are hints, but no evidence.
  • The most surprising document (for me) is Manuel Rodriguez's deposition (pg. 230 passim). A real gentleman. The only person he blamed, but only of not willing to stop it, is his comrade Juan Garcia Oliver, then Justice Minister. OTOH he clearly states that all the diplomatic corps was aware and was trying to stop the madness, to no avail.
  • While the main line of command was stuffed of (open or hidden) communists, all organizations in the Popular Front (starting, and not in minor terms, with the CNT) took part, in one way or another
  • What i'm reading are the actual raw data (i.e depostions, documents, ...) as they evolve in time (this particular piece is rather brief in time ending in 1941). One has to be careful, as with any judicial summary (esp in the circumstances) but is an invaluable resource
  • It's disgusting read, enormously disgusting.
  • On a lighter note, i at last understood why Spain never evolved in a police state during Franco's tenure. The intelligence (and political police) services were definetively sub-standard. My personal experience during the 70's was just the opposite, but then it was probably too late --Wllacer (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to write that out - I don't have time right now to go through it, and from what you say I'll really have to "armar" myself with "valor" to do so in the future. Going on to your lighter note, as usual you leave me wanting to ask more questions! I'll limit myself to just one little one: I knew of the political police (1970s version) but what was [military?] intelligence involved with at that time? Your reference to them as being the opposite of sub-standard suggests they were also active/effective/efficient at that time. From what little I know of police-military co-operation, intelligence, etc., I can't imagine them co-ordinating their activities at all. Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coordination, in Spain, in the 70`s? Never dream about it, not even now, btw. If memory serves me well, in the last years of Franco, MI was served only by section II of the General Staff of each Branch (and the one at the Joint GS). At that time it had no political aim (but for internal control). OTOH political intelligence units passed routinely information about "subversive" recruits to the Army. The Guardia Civil (rural police, a military branch itself) had it own Intelligence section II, and was (and still is) as a whole an incredible intelligence gathering agency (at least in rural areas). Political intelligence for them was just part of his police duties. I don't remember if the Policia Armada (shock police) had any, but due to their military nature it's very possible. In this case it was mostly political. The plain clothes police (el Cuerpo Superior de Policia) had a branch (the Brigada Politico-Social) devoted exclusively as political police and intelligence. In my home city, everybody knew them, but they also knew us very well also. It's still a mistery to me how well we were infiltrated. And there was, for high level operations and coordination a unit directly depending of the Minister President (SSIIPG later CESED) relatively recent. I don't remember the "Movimiento" having any intelligence unit anymore. Each made war on their on devices, and AFAIK data sharing was an almost impossible task.
I knew of a Central Register of the BPS, but it was destroyed for the most part in the early 80's, to much chagrin of future historians. By 1977, f.i. ETA was infiltrated both by the CSP and the GC, but the lines were wound-down (partly because of the exhaustion of the main mole, "el Lobo", and partly to a very regretable political decision). It lasted years to reconstruct it (and again both agencies -and the CESID- competing)
IIRC the CESID was founded in 1981 from the merger of the SSIIPG and parts of section II of all services, but not of the Police) One of is original aims was (besides beeing an unified intelligence agency -a la KGB-) to serve as clearinghouse, but this has never worked in practice

For the sake of tidiness...

[edit]

Greetings Wllacer. Forgive me for dictating matters of layout on your talk page, but the previous thread was getting too long for future additions - of which there are undoubtedly many to come... As Wilde said, "I can resist everything except temptation", and your latest - as usual - brought on an ever-growing list of questions I need to look for answers to. But I shall exercise a bit of self-control, and limit myself to a passing comment re. your 'Brigada Politico-Social' and the infiltration of ETA. Two people I know told me many years ago, and separately, that rumours going around at the time pointed to the Grapo being an invention controlled by the BPS. They both gave me pretty convincing arguments, based on circumstantial evidence, some coinciding, but needless to say I don't remember them now. Obviously for a rumour to exist, it needs to be "known" by more than one person, but what's your take on it? Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry on the formating. It's OK with me.
The rumor was -and still is- widespread. They were a rather small group (PCE Marxista Leninista Reconstituido, IIRC) probably legit (never knew -in a couple of degres of separation- one of those, so I can't tell for sure) but as terrorists were -to say the least- considered very inappropiate in timing and extremely provocative. If it was simply stupidity, ultra leftist activism or that they were used as "agent provocateurs" by the BPS or the CESED/CSID, it's hard to tell. Anyway they always were extremely akward.
I can add a comparision with another very small "wanna be" terrorist group on those times, of which I can talk things with some degree of reality: the PSAN-provisional. They were probably not even a score of people, well funded (rumors had Libia or Albania behind, but this point wasn't clear, and can even be just envy of my informants), but "under control" by the Police. They were "allowed" to blow some harmless "fireworks", but as soon as they planned something more serious (IIRC a bank robbery) were folded by the police in no time. A very different behaviour, but who knows--Wllacer (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. Who knows, indeed! Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 05:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC) PS. Notice extreme self-control being exercised :)[reply]

Greetings again...

[edit]

Greetings Wllacer - good to see you active (?) again. Have a good summer. --Technopat (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to Fascism Task Force

[edit]

I invite you to join Fascism Task Force and improve article related to fascism in Spain (perhaps Falange or National syndicalism?).

If you want to join the project, please sign your username in the participants list. You may also add the userbox User WPF to identify yourself as member.

Sapere aude22 (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wllacer&oldid=484835996"