Talk:International Brigades

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

RfC about Soviet citizens in International Brigades[edit]

I see general consensus that Soviet citizens should not be listed as International Brigades volunteers. Closed per request at WP:ANRFC. (non-admin closure) --DannyS712 (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Should Soviet citizens be listed as International Brigades volunteers? See discussion and arguments above RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 00:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC). 89.76.22.216 (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. You have provided sources stating that Soviets in the IB were military personnel assigned to the unit, not volunteers, and that Soviet citizens were not allowed to join. Mediatech492 has not provided any sources supporting their position. The Soviet advisers should be mentioned somewhere in the article, but not in the "Brigadiers by country of origin" table. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously Yes The question of "Were the allowed?" is irrelevant. Britain, Canada, the USA and several other countries also prohibited their citizens from joining the war in Spain. Many still joined regardless of these prohibitions. Also, their membership in the brigade does not hinge on them being either soviet advisors or volunteers. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. As I have already stated above, User talk:89.76.22.216's own sources show that they did serve in the Brigade, and in leadership positions, so there is no reason to exclude them. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. They should not be listed as citizen volunteers but an explanation of their official presence as Soviet military advisors should be inserted in the article. Cynistrategus (talk) 03:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Summoned by bot) Simplicistic approach. I think the problem is more complex. Soviet "volunteers" should clearly be described as Soviet agents. They may have personally been enthusiastic enemies of Franco (and of everybody who was not Stalinist), but they were choosen primarily to represent Soviet interests in Spain. Could we describe SS-officers as "volunteers" in WWII? They were enthusiastic Nazis, but they were told where to go to fight. My concern is that it is difficult to decide whether Communists who came from other contries to fight against Franco were actually volunteers or agents. They were fanatical followers of a totalitarian ideology and a highly centralised administrative system was serving this ideology. They most probably also served Soviet interests in Spain and they were most probably told to go to fight there. Remember, most French Communists opposed the war against Nazi Germany while Stalin and Hitler were allies, because the Stalinist Comminform informed them that it was a war between "imperialists". Borsoka (talk) 04:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Sources above do not state that Soviet volunteers were in the International Brigades; actually they say the opposite. We could have a separate article, Soviet volunteers in the Spanish Civil War. buidhe 04:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We could hardly refer to Soviet agents as volunteers. Borsoka (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is a POV on your part. You provided no basis for any claim as to their motivation. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide sources that SS-officers were not volunteers? The same type of people: fanatic supporters of an inhuman totalitarian ideology. Do you really think that anybody in a totalitarian regime can be described as "volunteer"? Borsoka (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A "volunteer" (in this context) is one who choses to join the military, as opposed to a conscript who is under compulsion to serve, regardless of whether or not he wants to. Do you have any evidence to show that the soviet advisors in Spain were conscripts? Mediatech492 (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, but it is so absurd. Can you imagine anybody volunteering in a totalitarian regime? Borsoka (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should be no problem for you to provide at least one RS to support you assertion. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we misunderstand each other. I say we should not use an expression ("volunteer") in connection with a totalitarian regime, because it is absurd. Could we write of philosemitic Nazis or kosher bacon? No, we could not. We do not need to verify it, because we know that Nazism was an antisemitic ideology and we also know that religious Jews do not eat pork. Similarly, we know that Stalinism was one of the most centralized totalitarian regimes, so no Soviet citizen was allowed to volunteer. Borsoka (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand, I do not. Even the most despotic regimes do have their supporters. People who will serve a tyrant of their own will, out of loyalty to the leader, fanaticism for a cause, personal ambition, greed and profit, patriotism, and so on. No government could ever stand a day if it had no one to support it. So the idea that there might be volunteers in a totalitarian country is not at all absurd. However that is besides the point. You have made an assertion that the soviet advisors were not volunteers, but still have provided no basis for it other than your own presumptions. This is an encyclopedia, not a op-ed blog. You need to provide RS support for your assertions. No exceptions. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand the core of a totalitarian regime: no volunteering. Could you provide a reliable source stating that philosemitic Nazis did not exist? Would you need a source to verify it? No, because antisemitism was the core of the Nazi ideology. Borsoka (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This line of questioning is irrelevant to the topic of the article. You have been repeatedly asked to give a source to support you assertion and, despite being given plenty of time have refused to do so. Since you cannot provide a source to support you assertion it cannot be included in the article. This matter is closed. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have you referred to a single reliable source during this discussion? Borsoka (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not making an assertion, you are. Do you, or do you not, have a source for your assertion. If you do, please provide it. If you do not, goodbye and have a nice day. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please read your above messages: they contain assumptions and theories, for instance, about the relationship between dictators and their subjects (and your remark clearly shows you do not know that Nazism, Stalinism and other totalitarian regimes were not simple dictatorships). Please also take into account that it was not me who suggested a name for an article. Borsoka (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Being assigned to a unit is being voluntold to do something. Ifly6 (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nonsensical infobox, country section[edit]

The country section of the infobox is neither arranged by the number of volunteers by country or by alphabetical order. It ought to be one or the other to avoid nonsensical ordering. It was arranged by the number of volunteers until the revision as of 16:13, 7 August 2021 by 188.164.221.51 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.58.65.226 (talk)

Casualties[edit]

the lead of this article claimed that there were 15,000 IB combatants killed, with quotations pointing to Thomas (2003) and Beevor (2006). Unfortunately I do not have access to these books, so can not check. As to Thomas: GoogleBooks offers limited view of the 2013 edition, which lists fatal casualties for the French (1000), Germans (2000), Americans (900) and British (500), which leads nowhere near the total of 15,000 (maybe Thomas revised it between 2003 and 2013?). I have Beevor on my shelf in its Polish version, and have not found there the 15,000 figure alleged in the footnote (maybe they have dropped it?).

I have also compiled info from other authors on KIA, and published it in the "Casualties" section. It demonstrates that estimates range from 15,000 to 6,500, with perhaps most authors inclined to adopt 10,000.

Given the above, I have deleted the figure of 15,000 in the lead and replaced it with 10,000.

regards, --2A02:A317:2144:1A80:E121:A418:9430:E7D7 (talk) 10:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_Brigades&oldid=1207724613"