Spanish Civil War [history lesson on 4ch]

I need your help, guys. Probably, opinion of spanish mates will be the most valuable.
>republicans
>nationalists
1. Why that war started?
2. What did they (both) want?
3. What is a good and bad sides of them?
4. Which one got your personal sympathy and why?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=SNaVxXkmnuY
youtube.com/watch?v=_4UKw7OK__E
youtube.com/watch?v=2P9UX5-SAtg
forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/92572-spanish-civil-war-1936-1939/
steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=210528424
twitter.com/AnonBabble

bump

First of all, republicans were communists. And nationalists were fascists.

Im sorry, i dont have time right now to explain it all, if this thread is up later i will try to answer your questions. But for an overall view of your quesions:

1. It started because the unsteadiness created by the second republic. The army prepared a coup in some major cities, some of them failed, some not. The major part of the army was on Africa, and all of them went to Spain to slowly retake every city and town.

2. Not so sure the republicans wanted to fight. They were not prepared for a war this big and mostly lost all of the battles. Was a massacre.

3. There were no good sides in that war.

4. My personal sympathy.... maybe nationalists. But in this kind of war you dont choose were to fight. You are forced to one of the sides, if not, they kill you.

Good guys won

I'll just say that the Republic was strong in the more industrial areas while the rebels were stronger in the rural areas controlled by the church and "caciques" (local bosses with power to influence the votes of the people).

Thanks for the answer!
>There were no good sides in that war.
Eh.. Actually, i didn't mean that "who's right and who's not". This question is more about "what bad and good they did, both".
>more
Also, i would like to know how this moment of history seems now, in the modern Spain.
Because i heard there was sorta "rule of silence" (or sort of) for 30+ years and nobody should talk about it but in the late 90s new generation started to asking questions.
>i dont have time right now to explain it all, if this thread is up later i will try to answer your questions
Yeah, np. I can wait.

youtube.com/watch?v=SNaVxXkmnuY

youtube.com/watch?v=_4UKw7OK__E

youtube.com/watch?v=2P9UX5-SAtg

Sorry i didnt find them with subtitles, but this documentaries are great. Im sure there are a lot in english too, but the thing is this footage is in color. Like the Apocalypse documentaries of the WWII.

in addition to what said

1.- The army in spain had a disproportionately high amount of high ranking officers

2.- They organized in secret and originally expected to take the country without a long-term war

3.- Franco wasn't planned to be the leader from the start as some people think

4.- It was really a proxy war between Germany and the URSS. Germany took this opportunity to try bombings on non-strategic civilian targets to harm morale for the first time.

5.- Extremelly tragic event of brothers against brothers (sometimes literally) that foreigners have no respect for

Yeah, ithout at least english subtitles it will be hard. But thanks anyway!
Btw, can u answer on this
>Also, i would like to know how this moment of history seems now, in the modern Spain.
>Because i heard there was sorta "rule of silence" (or sort of) for 30+ years and nobody should talk about it but in the late 90s new generation started to asking questions.

>Extremelly tragic event of brothers against brothers (sometimes literally) that foreigners have no respect for
>that foreigners have no respect for
Why do you think so?

not from you, but a lot of Sup Forumsfags think this was a good thing from Spain and that the bloodshed was worth it
from a military point of view, with a bit of perspective its the direct prelude of WW2
the first modern aircraft, the first modern tanks... if fascists didn't win Hitler might have thought twice about moving into poland
Fascists had complete superiority in the air and in logistics while Republicans had better tanks but a lower amount of professional troops. The militias were hard to command and sometimes would even fight each other (see anarchists vs communists in Barcelona)
i have a full article on the aircraft used in the conflict if you're interested

>i have a full article on the aircraft used in the conflict if you're interested
Yeah, ofc. It's on english, i hope?

number 5 is especially important, it completely divided my family. It makes visiting all my old relatives a real fucking cunt

Now the fascists are seen as demons by the majority and acclaimed as saviors by others.
And the Republic is seen as a perfect thing where tolerance and equality reigned by the majority.

yes it is
its from a while back so the forum were i posted it fucked up the formatting
forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/92572-spanish-civil-war-1936-1939/
here's a short version
steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=210528424

1.Failed coup d'etat by the nationalists.
2.Republicans: Communist republic
Fascists: Fascist catholic dictatorship
3.Both are shit Tbh
4.none

Thanks a lot, my friend!
>where tolerance and equality reigned by the majority
And now you have problems with it?

my great grandfather was based.

plvs vltra

>Why that war started?
A failed coup by the army
>What did they (both) want?
>republicans
They had a lot of factions.But the communist party wanted to create a popular republic and they were the main leaders of the faction
>nationalists
End the republic and anti-clericalism.Most were catholics and monarchists
>3. What is a good and bad sides of them?
I don't know what you mean by this
>4. Which one got your personal sympathy and why?
The nationalists.As they actually believed in the concept of Spain and were way less brutal than republicans.

>End the republic and anti-clericalism.Most were catholics and monarchists
Wait a sec. They were catholics and, as i understood, supported by religios people. But they want to
>anti-clericalism
It's because "enemy of my enemy is my friend" or...?

>My personal sympathy.... maybe nationalists
me too

>And now you have problems with it?
Not now, but the people use to compare the dictatorship with the Republic and usually comes to the conclusion that the Republic was better because well... it was a republic. The reality is it was a mess that divided the country even more and tried to fully change the foundations of the country in a few years

>The most baffling thing in the Spanish war was the behaviour of the great powers. The war was actually won for Franco by the Germans and Italians, whose motives were obvious enough. The motives of France and Britain are less easy to understand. In 1936 it was clear to everyone that if Britain would only help the Spanish Government, even to the extent of a few million pounds’ worth of arms, Franco would collapse and German strategy would be severely dislocated.

Good guys lost

All you need to know

The carlists?

:^)

>The reality is it was a mess that divided the country
I heard that in one documentary about SCW. And that stuff was pointed as a one of the reasons of war.
But still, do you have serious social tensions now?
Well, i have my personal sympathies too but also i think this guy >5.- Extremelly tragic event of brothers against brothers
is totally right. So i'm just trying to understand how and why it's happened and how other people see it.

Tbh they really lost

>Good guys lost
no

Why anarchy communes failed?

Republican infighting

>The motives of France and Britain are less easy to understand.

No man, it is easy to understand why they didnt intervened.

Why a monarchy would help a side that is republican and anticatholic extremists? The republic was full of shit, they even killed each other. While on the other side is a fascist regime, but without further intentions than rule their own country. It was better to step aside.

The post war was specially hard in rural areas, but thats what happens always when half of the country is destroyed, but this period is the long peace too.

Besides, later in the cold war, Spain was a great ally in Europe to USA because the "sympathy" against communists.

They did the right thing not intervening.

No.They wanted to end anti-clericalism.So they fought with the nationalist band.

>1. Why that war started?
The second republic was very unstable and it had three vey diferentiable stages. In the first one it was ruled by centrist/moderate leftist and tried to push a lot of reforms, most of them good but not easy to do in a country with a very low literacy and a huge sense of tribalism, as some of them went directly against the church and the "terratenientes", powerfull people often aristocratic that had in posesion much of the farmable land. Then in the second stage and after giving sufrage to women (this is important because many of them still did as the priest said) the rigth parties united and managed to take the power democraticaly. This was not seen with good eyes by the more leftist groups, and them stoping and even reversing many of the reforms only agravated this. This led to an higer level of inestability and even some violent riots on the areas were the more radical leftist groups operated. In the third stage the diferent leftist groups united to defeat the rigth goverment in the elections and they did, but the internal diferences of the diferent groups led to even less stability and more conflict. This was seen in the revolt of the miners in Asturias I think it was, that was put down violently by the goverment even tough they were leftist. But in many other places of the country there were waves of violence from the more radical left groups. The rigth, that was also radicalising itself as many of the reforms went directly against them and felt cheated when losing the election united after the Army, and they decided that the Republic had failed and they had to step in and rule with a military dictatorship. And it just started.

You also have to look at the history of inestability at the XIX century in spain and see that military dictatorships had spawned here before after some ruler fucked up and thus I think nobody, not even the golpists, expected a long and bloody civil war.

Now it seems logical, yeah. Just misunderstood you.

>But still, do you have serious social tensions now?
Well idk if the secession movements are something social but besides that not really. You will never see someone killing other person for being catholic or communist.

>You also have to look at the history of inestability at the XIX century
Got it. Thanks for the detailed answer!
Would like to talk about this one:
>This was not seen with good eyes by the more leftist groups, and them stoping and even reversing many of the reforms only agravated this.
Hm.. I heard pf some "Mujeres Libres" that was fighting for women's right (but also against feminism because it's a product of bourgeoisie). And they was fighting for republicans.
How so? It seems kinda dissonantly.

Women in spain back then were not expected to think for themselves. They were barely above what muslim women now, at least outside the big cities. They also went a lot to the church, and trusted their local priest a lot. So when the church oposed the reforms and the left goverment, many women voted as their priest told them and voted for the rigth party.

There were many other causes, the rigth also united their diferent groups in only one party, obtaining huge advantage democraticaly over the smalles and more divided leftists and moderate groups for example.

But to answer your question basically most of the women back then were very traditional and voted what they were told in the church to vote. The radical "figthing" women on the anarchist groups were a very small minority.

Got it. Thanks for the answers!

1. Some army officers staged one of the many coups that Spain had been subject to for over a hundred years, but it failed in most places. The best officers, however, were stationed in Africa and were veterans of the colonial wars, and they supported the coup.

2.
> Rebels
A Fascist system modelled after Germany and Italy, plain and simple. Remember that Fascism was seen as a possible "third position" alternative in the 30s, and it was normal for every European country to have at least one Fascist party.
> Republicans
Mostly to quell the coup and restore order, at first. (The Republic had already suffered and beaten a coup by Sanjurjo in 1932.) As the state of war was declared, every faction inside the Republic saw violence as a means to achieve their goals. Anarchists wanted to abolish the state and all authority. Socialists wanted a Socialist republic, Béla Kun and Spartacist style. Communists wanted whatever Stalin ordered. Liberals wanted to introduce gradual reforms. Conservatives wanted to give the Catholic Church a say while keeping democracy. This led to immense infighting among Republicans whereas the rebel faction was united.

3. As others have mentioned, you usually didn't have a say about who you wanted to fight for, it depended on who controlled the area you lived in. So you were either conscripted or shot. Many people, however, chose sides based on personal feuds. If you hated the guts of the town's barber, you would enlist to fight his faction. If someone had stolen your waifu in your youth, you would rat him out as a traitor / Communist / Catholic / whatever - no matter if it was true or not. The situation was THAT ugly.
> rebels
I'm very biased towards the left-wing cause (which answers 4.), so for me Fascists are disgusting reactionaries with no redeeming qualities.
> Republicans
The 2nd Republic was the best opportunity we ever had to actually get on par with Europe socially, to finally modernise our society.

>The situation was THAT ugly.
So you think there was mostly human ambitions instead of some bright ideas or, you know, "fire in our hearts"?
>The 2nd Republic was the best opportunity we ever had to actually get on par with Europe socially, to finally modernise our society.
And how would you describe modern Spain? People learned something from the history, made some changes after it?

Okay Russiabro don't pay attention to anything this guy has written because he has no idea what he's talking about.

>First of all, republicans were communists.

No. The republicans were diverse and mainly divided between social-democrats, anarchists and communists proper. The first cabinet formed by Largo Caballero durig the war was intended as a broad coalition that included all antifascist political parties and trade unions.

The republicans only became majority-communist after the anachists and trotskyites were purged after the 1937 "May Days".

>And nationalists were fascists.

No. It is likely that the vast majority of rebel military officers were monarchists who wanted to restore Alfonso XIII. Falangists were a minority and were mostly city-dwellers, whereas Carlism/Traditionalism was strong in the countryside and in certain regions. Franco also effectively diluted the fascist element with the Unification Decrees with which he merged the Falange and the Carlists into the FET y de las JONS.

>1. It started because the unsteadiness created by the second republic.

It was essentially a reaction against the victory of the Popular Front in the 1936 elections and its immediate aftermath.

>2. Not so sure the republicans wanted to fight. They were not prepared for a war this big and mostly lost all of the battles. Was a massacre.

The republicans wanted to fight, they just couldn't. As an emergency measure after the uprising, the government effectively dissolved the military (dismissed all military personnel, of course rebel military personnel ignored this order) and handed the arsenals to the trade unions. The result was that a rabble of over-enthusiastic but incompetent militiamen would be front and center at the beginning of the war until a series of defeats that threatened the city of Madrid led to the formation of a coalition cabinet and the efforts that ultimately led to the dissolution of the militias and the creation of the (con't)

(continued)

of the Republican People's Army, which was an effective fighting force but which arrived altogether too late. Of course, anarchist militiamen were often more content implementing their collectivization policies in the rearguard than doing any actual fighting; in the Aragon front they had as many as twice as many men as the nationalists at one point and yet didn't make any gains. They were also a nightmare to supply.

>3. There were no good sides in that war.

Le edgy nihilism.

I'm sick of that dichotomy: Franco = evil / Republicans = good.


The Spaniah national movement liberated Spain from Marxist barbarism.

The communists (and a few anarchists) had created an atmosphere of terror throughout Spain, burning Churches, killing priests and businessmen and imposing the dictatorship of the proletariat. They were so inept that the communists and anarchists fought each other, causing several deaths on the same side.

Franco freed Spain from all this barbarism, imposing a dictatorship based on religious fanaticism, oppression and lack of political freedom. But, at the same time, creating economic prosperity (Spanish miracle) and peace.

Why did anarchist were purged?
I feel like anarchy it's a.. sort of national feauture of spanish people. It always was since ~18-19 century. So i feel like they're should be at least in "honorable minority" if not in the majority.
Hehe, yeah, this is more about character than politics.

>I'm sick of that dichotomy: Franco = evil / Republicans = good.
Well, here's a different people in the thread as you can see.
>The communists (and a few anarchists) had created an atmosphere of terror throughout Spain, burning Churches, killing priests and businessmen and imposing the dictatorship of the proletariat
They were all against church? Because here, in USSR, official politics was "no religion" but religious people they were just as they were. Nothing changed. And it doesn't mean "if you're religious = you're against communism" and vice versa.

They were purged because there was an escalation of violence between communists and anarchists in Barcelona, mainly over an arms factory and a telephone exchange. Of course, the more tinfoil-hattish anarchists claim it was all fabricated by Stalin as an excuse to liquidate them. The fact is that there were several days of civil violence in Barcelona which justified dissolving the anarchist element and handing the power to the communists.

>I feel like anarchy it's a.. sort of national feauture of spanish people. It always was since ~18-19 century.

No, that's just Yellow Legend bs. Outsiders have always been schizophrenic in judging Spain -- it's either the Black Legend stereotype (inquisitors, fanatics, strict, tyrannical, greedy, pale, melancholic, dressed in black clothes, masculine), which was recycled in the 20th century to describe the nationalists, or the romantic Yellow Legend stereotype (bullfighters, gypsies, anarchic, individualistic, passionate, feminine). The first image was created by Dutch pamphleteers and authors such as Voltaire, Kant, Goethe or Montesquieu; the second is largely owed to Théophile Gautier, Prosper Mérimée, George Sand and their latter-day heirs, Hemmingway, Brennan or Orwell.

What we are talking about here is political anarchism, which only reached Spain after Bakunin visited in the 1870's and had become a sizeable movement by the 1920's.

>So i feel like they're should be at least in "honorable minority" if not in the majority.

In absolute terms anarcho-syndicalist trade unions (CNT/FAI) had a slightly bigger membership than socialist trade unions (UGT). They weren't spread evenly, though, with the anarchists being predominant in Catalonia and rural Andalusia whereas the Communists dominated inland Spain.

>Hehe, yeah, this is more about character than politics.

Leave the memes at the door when having a serious discussion.

Yes , the majority were directly against the church as it was seen to be against the Republic that for example prohibited the religious schools and it has no official religion. All this in a country like Spain, where catholicism has been always a very important thing.

Intellectual Marxists generally had nothing against religion, mostly of them just wanted to eliminate religion peacefully, they believed that the turn from Catholicism to Marxism was a natural evolution of humanity. There were also some Christian communists, but not relevants.

Anyway, the problem of communism in Spain is that it did not triumph among intellectuals, but among the savages who wanted to impose the dictatorship of the proletariat and eliminate anyone who did not think like them.

You are talking to wannabe fascist Spaniard autists with no gfs. Guess which side they are going to pick and what story they are going to tell.

Socialism did triumph among intellectuals (Manuel Azaña was an archetypal "ateneísta" and the epitome of the people Lenin derided as "tea-drinkers"), it's just that when push comes to shove, the more muscular, bolshevik sorts always come out on top.

how that? Are they still talking about the civil war?

Azaña was a second-rate intellectual, but smart enough to realize the harsh reality.

>> "El Gobierno apenas cuenta con las fuerzas armadas, pues los sindicalistas tienen las armas en la mano. El Parlamento, muy a mi pesar, no funciona... los partidos tampoco funcionan".

>> "El espectáculo que ofrece Cataluña, en plena disolución. Ahí no queda nada: Gobierno, partidos, autoridades, servicios públicos, fuerzas armadas. Nada existe... sólo histeria revolucionaria, que pasa de las palabras a los hechos para asesinar y robar; ineptitud de los gobernantes, inmoralidad, cobardía

Azaña in 1937.

>Leave the memes at the door when having a serious discussion.
Sorry, but i can't know what is the memes and stereotypes because there's not much ways to know about it. Dry text from the books don't gives a full answer. And i need a real people, their feelings, thoughts and other. That's why i'm asking, no offense.
I'm thankful for you asnwer. But let's talk a bit about character because it seems important to me too.
How could you describe a spanish people without stereotypes? It's even possible?
>All this in a country like Spain, where catholicism has been always a very important thing.
Exactly and that's why
>the majority were directly against the church
this seems strange. I can believe that majority of them was atheists from the beginning or act like "okay, we no need it, we're full communists now".
Well.. It's a his opinion. I'm here not for fighting.

is there absolutely no literature in russian about the civil war
did stalin burn all the relevant documents

There is. But vision of spanish people is more valuable for me.

> mostly human ambitions
I believe that was the case for many people. Nobody ever wants a civil war, it's the worst thing that can happen to you. You see people you knew torturee. It screws up your head, you probably know it already from bezprizorny stories. For example, the Zetas cartel, the most brutal drug cartel in Mexico, is composed of Guatemalan veterans. In 1930s Spain we had a few convinced activists here and there, but I believe most fighters were unlucky conscripts or people with a score to settle

> modern Spain
We have gone a long way in the last 40 years, but the Fascists never paid for their crimes. We are the only country in Europe that waited for its dictator to die in bed - France, Italy and Romania executed them; Portugal, Poland and Serbia ousted them... we simply waited. That's what makes Spanish democracy a special case. The deal the Fascists offered us was, more or less, that we may get our multiparty democracy back if we forget and forgive their betrayal in '36 and decades of oppression.

I don't care much about judging 80 year olds who committed crimes against humanity. What bugs me is that all the social advances conquered in the last decades (women's rights, trade unions, universal education, arts, sports etc) could have been achieved much earlier without the Fascist impasse. We could have been at the forefront of European civilisation for once and reactionaries destroyed that.

>How could you describe a spanish people without stereotypes? It's even possible?

Not really, no. BUT I can give you the gist of the "spirit of the times" that led to the Spanish Civil War. Some of the most important factors that led to the Civil War were:

- The disaster of 1898 and the disaffection of industrial elites (birth of regional nationalist movements)
- The Rif War, its effects on the officer corps, anti-draft riots
- Increased prosperity during the 1910's, blossoming of the arms industry due to WWI
- The configuration of the urban proletariat and early attempts to use this new electorate (Lerrouxism)
- The crisis of the Restoration (post-war recession, disaster of El Annual, the Picasso Report) and the dictatorship of Miguel Primo de Rivera
- The boom of the 1920's, the consolidation of anarchist and communist trade unions
- Pistolerismo (labor wars between trade union men and gunmen and strike-breakers hired by bosses)
- Attempted coup of 1929, resignation of Primo de Rivera
- General Berenguer's "dictablanda" (soft dictatorship) and the 1931 elections, proclamation of the Republic
- Right-wing reaction, formation of the Falange in 1933
- Catalan attempted coup in 1934 as a reaction to the right-wing victory in the 1933 elections
- Straperlo scandal, fall of Lerroux and the Radical Republican party, victory of the Popular Front in the 1936 elections

All of these events will help you understand how the country was transformed dramatically in the space of just 20 years and how it had become extremely polarized between to increasingly radicalized and irreconciliable camps by 1936.

I got your point.
And about achievements - some people thinks that except of material goods there was strong law institute (and order) in the times of Franco.
Maybe it's just a Franco supporters that is seems everything about Franco in the light sight. But still, what do you think about it?

I'll read more about those events. Thank you.

1. The army started a coup d'état.
2. The Nationalists wanted to uphold the position of the catholic church and maintain capitalism. The republicans wanted to stop the coup, later a socialist/anarchist revolution broke out with various parties and trade unions with different objectives taking over power. The Soviet-backed communist party took over the republican government and wanted to establish a stalinist state.
3. The republicans weren't fascists and most were genuine in their concern with the working class. The nationalists were faggots.
4. Republicans, because they were the legitimate government.

>Soviet backed
you know the Republicans actually had to pay with gold for a lot of the things bought from Stalin right ? and if it wasnt for that their entire force would be FT-17 (ww1 french tanks) and an odd mix of old aircraft
510 tons of gold

>implying the FT-17 was the worst we had

We even had Schneider tanks and other pieces of junk the World of Tanks kiddies don't know about. Pretty useless, but not as useless as the "tiznaos" (improvised armored vehicles) built in anarchist workshops...

The NKVD tried to bring CNT controlled entreprises and militias under communist government control.

Here's a cool pic of the Schneider tank that participated in the assault against the Cuartel de la Montaña (the barracks that rebelled in Madrid). The guys in uniform are Guardias de Asalto and the café in the background used to be located at Puerta del Sol esq. Preciados

that fits so well with the militia mindset for some reason
others were literal trucks with thin layer of armor on top right?

>you know the Republicans actually had to pay with gold for a lot of the things bought from Stalin right ?
That doesn't make them not Soviet-backed, Pablo.

Yes, the best tiznaos were built in Barcelona. Others either had armor that was far too thin to be of any use or were over-burdened with armor and unable to move at speed and on anything other than perfectly flat and level terrain. Some even had mattresses and other improvised protections strapped to them.

"Hermanos no tirar" has always cracked me up, it's almost a recurring theme among these vehicles (see pic related too). It's almost like an implicit admission of the vulnerability of these death traps that they had to warn their own people not to shoot at them, "just in case"...

This one made by the Field factory in Barcelona has a much more futuristic, "bubble" look and a turret...

This tiznao, also by field, is characteristically rounded but lacks a turret. Useless as they were, they were great morale boosters, the crowds loved them

Here's a rare photo of Manuel Azaña near a "Tortuga" (Tortoise) model tiznao; he doesn't seem too impressed...

>has a much more futuristic, "bubble" look and a turret...
I think it's not for the stylish reasons. More like for the ricochet.

Yes, though this armor had no hopes of bouncing anything. If you asked a child to draw a tank for you, he'd probably draw something similar to a "tiznao"; the men who built them had only a vague idea of armored vehicle design.

Some of the best were based on the Benach tractor chassis, built in Sant Sadurní d'Anoia. Pic related is a Benach tiznao that was abandoned by its crew on the Madrid front, probably around where Ciudad Universitaria is nowadays. At least those had caterpillar tracks and a stronger engine.

The most serious attempt at creating a tank production line was at the Sant Sadurní d'Anoia factory, where two prototypes of a turretless tank similar to the Vickers Gun Carriage were built. It had one machinegun, various possible weapons mounts and a 43 hp engine. Apart from the 2 prototypes, 6 unarmored units were produced as artillery tractors.

>though this armor had no hopes of bouncing anything
Yeah, but they should be decent for the street fight against rifles. But against other tanks.. Absolutely not.

The interesting thing is that although the Republicans achieved clear superiority in tanks thanks to the excellent T-26 vehicles they purchased from the USSR, the nationalist side managed to get the upper hand with superior tactics. The Moroccan Regulares, in particular, became notorious tank-killers; their skill at infiltration tactics made them ideal for the job as they learned about the vehicles' blindspots and crept up to destroy them with explosives. This is all the more interesting because the first time the Spanish army deployed tanks was during the Rif War, and the moroccans had also deployed very innovative tactics to limit the effectiveness of armored vehicles.

The only other domestic tanks in the war until the import of German, Italian and Soviet tanks were several units of the Trubia A4 tank, which had been built in the 1920s and which fought for the nationalists. The nationalists also built an experimental tank in Bilbao in 1937 which combined features of the T-26, Panzer I and L-3/35, and an experimental light tank, the Verdeja I, in 1938.

Noice pics