Top Tens – TV: Top 10 Fantasy & SF TV Series (5) Fantasy: The Haunting of Hill House

 

 

(5) FANTASY: THE HAUNTING OF HILL HOUSE

(2018: SEASON 1. Yes – I’m only counting the first season. It’s an anthology series anyway)

As the title indicates, it is an adaptation based loosely on the book of the same name by Shirley Jackson.

It is psychological and supernatural horror, working effectively as both. The supernatural horror – the ghosts of the titular haunting and house itself – are certainly chilling, particularly as the director placed ghostly figures in the margins or peripheral angles of scenes (notably involving the stairs). You often didn’t see them, at least directly, but they were still there, squirming in your subconscious mind to unnerve or disturb you. The ghosts that you do see are unnerving enough, from the titular ghost in the very first episode, “Steven Sees a Ghost” – and from there on in, it’s a white-knuckled ride of suspense and creeping fear. And then there’s the psychological horror of a broken family of broken people, not to mention the occasional existential horror of life itself (such as that speech – you know the one, thank you Theo).

The plot revolves around the Crain family – Hugh and Olivia with their five children – moving into Hill House twenty-six years previously, with the parents intending to renovate it for sale, but the House – and its, ah, family – have their own hungry plans. And to paraphrase my poetic musings elsewhere – the Crain family came back from the black abyss, but they did not come all the way back (or all come back), and worse, they brought it back with them (and left part of themselves or their family behind). The story flips between the past and the present, as the family struggles with the aftermath – and that the House is still hungry for those who escaped it.

And then there’s that red room…

The only flaw for me was the ending, which was somewhat divisive for audiences in its tonal shift – although some have speculated a much darker twist in it.

And yes – I’m only counting the first season. It had a second season, retooled into an anthology series with the second season as an adaptation of The Turn of the Screw (and other works by Henry James). It arguably had a third season, an adaptation by creator Mike Flanagan of the Fall of the House of Usher (and other works by Edgar Allen Poe). However, they just haven’t had the same magic for me as this first season.

 

FANTASY OR SF?

 

Dark fantasy – like all good ghost stories.

 

HORROR

 

Well, obviously – indeed, the entry in my Top 10 Fantasy & SF TV Series that is the most readily characterized as horror.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****
B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

Top Tens – Film: Top 10 Fantasy & SF Films (5) SF: The Matrix (1999)

 

 

(5) SF: THE MATRIX

(1999. There are no sequels).

 

The Matrix is perhaps the next most definitive cinematic Robot War after another entry on this list, and like that entry, it works best by combining the Robot War with another trope, in this case that of virtual reality. As such, it is the direct descendant of H. G. Wells’ The Time Machine, consistent with my pet theory that the heart of science fiction is still all Martians and Morlocks.

We’ll be looking at Martians later, but the Machines and their software Agents in the Matrix are Morlocks, except that it’s cyberspace travel rather than time travel. The original Morlocks were one of two evolutionary descendants of humanity, evolved from the working class – maintaining the advanced technology of the future for the Eloi, the other descendants of humanity evolved from its leisured upper class.

The dark twist of Wells’ novel is that the Morlocks eat the Eloi, “farming” them like livestock. This theme of evolution endures in the Matrix, albeit transformed from Wells’ unrealistic biological evolution (without genetic engineering or mutation) to cybernetic evolution – involving artificial intelligence and robots as machine Morlocks that rise up against their human Eloi, particularly as the machine Morlocks do actually farm us for their food or energy.

Ultimately however, this makes no sense – humans don’t produce more energy than they consume. The Machines would obviously use more energy keeping us alive than they would ever extract from us – and that’s aside from programming and maintaining the Matrix itself. My theory is that the human resistance have no idea what the Matrix is for and the Machines actually use the Matrix for entertainment, like television (or the internet) – “Let’s see what the humans are doing on the Matrix tonight!”

And for a Robot War against humanity, the Machines are actually quite nice to us, whatever the purpose of the Matrix. Morpheus lets slip that humans fought a genocidal war with the Machines, in which we nuked the sun (NUKED the SUN!) to deprive the Machines of their solar energy (and you know, hopefully wipe them out). It didn’t work and we lost the Robot War, but instead of the Machines exterminating us like cockroaches, they keep us in our own cozy virtual dream world. Indeed, Agent Smith (who, unlike Morpheus, tells it straight) says that the Machines even tried to make it a perfect utopia for us, but human psychology wouldn’t accept it.

As I see it, the Machines’ only mistake was not advertising the Matrix to sign people up for it as your own programmable (and not necessarily permanent) reality (like, say, the Playboy Mansion or World of Warcraft) – I should be so lucky to lose a Robot War! “Seriously, you feed me and take care of me in a pod while I live it up in any number of dream worlds of my own design and all you want is my body heat? Sign me up!”

 

FANTASY OR SF?

 

Yeah – the virtual reality world maintained by the Machines to farm humanity for energy after a Robot War? It’s obviously SF. Or is it? Well, yes, it is – but it does have substantial elements of fantasy, what with its mystical trappings of the Oracle and Neo as the (chosen or messianic) One.

And yes – I know there are no sequels, but if there had been a second film it at least might have the interesting spin on fantasy with fantasy creatures such as vampires and so on as leftover programs or perhaps glitches from previous versions of the Matrix.

 

HORROR

 

One can’t really rank it as horror but it has elements of SF horror and could well have been written more in that direction.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – History (WW2): Top 10 Second World Wars (Special Mention) (15) Philippines – War of Occupation & Resistance

US propaganda poster 1942-1943, Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum / US National Archives & Records Administration – public domain image

 

 

(15) PHILIPPINES – WAR OF OCCUPATION & RESISTANCE

(1941-1945)

 

The fighting Filipinos!

The role of the Philippines in the Pacific War has always struck me as similar to that of Poland in Europe. While not playing the same role as casus belli – which is more properly assigned to Pearl Harbor – it was effectively the front line or ground zero for commencement of the war, and then a center of resistance behind the lines of occupation in that war.

Indeed, the parallel with Poland continues in that, similar to the Anglo-French planning that effectively foresaw writing off Poland to liberate it after German defeat, so too did American planning effectively to write off the Philippines.

As I understand it, particularly from my reading of Ronald Spector’s The Eagle Against the Sun, while War Plan Orange – the original American plan for war against Japan which was largely followed in the actual war – did not explicitly plan to abandon American and Filipino forces in the Philippines, its hope for those forces to hold out on their own until relieved by the American naval counter-offensive was unrealistic.

As it turned out, whatever hope there was of the forces in the Philippines holding out on their own, it was dashed first by the naval losses at Pearl Harbor and then, through bad luck and timing, the loss of US aircraft at Clark Field from Japanese attack in the Philippines itself. The loss of air cover forced the retreat of the American Asiatic Fleet from the Philippines, so that American forces were effectively left stranded without air or naval support except for the limited use of American submarines.

The doomed American campaign from 8 December 1941 to 8 May 1942 to defend the Philippines from the Japanese invasion, with its famous landmarks of Bataan (with the infamous Bataan Death March of American prisoners by Japan that followed) and Corregidor, may be the stuff of heroism but is more properly considered as part of the Pacific War.

Equally, the victorious American campaign from 20 October 1944 to 15 August 1945 to return to and liberate the Philippines is also more properly considered part of the Pacific War.

However, in the two and a half years between those two campaigns was the war of resistance in the Philippines. Indeed, the war of resistance in the Philippines overlapped with both. Significant parts of the resistance came from American or Filipino forces that escaped or did not surrender in the 1941-1942 campaign and instead led or fought as guerillas against Japanese occupation.

Among other American commanders, General MacArthur, who had been ordered to leave his command in the Philippines by submarine, maintained a keen interest in the maintaining or supplying the resistance there, consistent with his declaration that he would return – and indeed, the resistance would also play its part in preparing the ground by sabotage and other means for the 1944-1945 campaign.

The resistance in the Philippines was of no more small scale or effect. “Postwar studies estimate that around 260,000 people were organized under guerilla groups, and that members of anti-Japanese underground organizations were more numerous”. Also, such was their effectiveness that Japan only controlled the key or major islands in their occupation, with their control of the countryside or smaller towns often tenuous at best – “of the 48 provinces, only 12 were in firm control of the Japanese”.

Ironically, some Japanese soldiers took a leaf from the Filipino resistance, with the notorious Japanese holdouts on more remote islands throughout former occupied territory after the Japanese surrender. Many of them, as individuals or in groups, were in the Philippines. Only in Indonesia did one confirmed Japanese soldier endure longer – holding out to 1974! – but unconfirmed reports persisted after that in the Philippines, with  the last report taken seriously by Japanese officials in 2005.

As for the Philippines, while their resistance received mixed or belated recognition from the US government, it at least bore fruit with the US honoring its commitment from 1935 for the independence of the Philippines in 1946.

 

RATINGS: 4 STARS****

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

Top Tens – TV: Top 10 Fantasy & SF TV (6) SF: Black Mirror

 

(6) SF: BLACK MIRROR
(2011 – PRESENT: SEASONS 1-6)

*

Black Mirror – the cyberpunk Twilight Zone of the twenty-first century!

Okay, that cyberpunk label may be overstating it, but it certainly is a series of dark and satirical twists in the tale of the unanticipated or unintended consequences of technology and social media in modern society – or, in the words of series creator Charlie Brooker, “the way we might be living in 10 minutes’ time if we’re clumsy.”

It is an anthology series with no continuity between episodes – each episode has a different cast, a different setting or even a different reality, so you don’t have to watch them in order. Personally, I’d recommend starting with the later seasons and working your way backwards – particularly as the very first episode doesn’t extrapolate so much on technology or social media and can be a little confronting (although unforgettable – let’s just say you won’t feel about pork the same way again).

As for the premise and title of the series, it’s back to Charlie Brooker:

“If technology is a drug – and it does feel like a drug – then what, precisely, are the side effects? This area – between delight and discomfort – is where Black Mirror, my new drama series, is set. The ‘black mirror’ of the title is the one you’ll find on every wall, on every desk, in the palm of every hand: the cold, shiny screen of a TV, a monitor, a smartphone.”

 

FANTASY OR SF?

 

SF, as per its title premise – among the least fantasy of my Top 10 Fantasy & SF TV Series.

 

HORROR

 

As is typical for dystopian SF, it has a few borderline horror elements.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****
B-TIER (HIGH-TIER)

Top Tens – History (WW2): Top 10 Second World Wars (Special Mention) (14) Anglo-Soviet Invasion of Iran & Iran Crisis

Map legend shows origins and direction of Russian and British attacks as the two nations invade Iran to protect oil fields from sabotage by German agents who they claim have infiltrated there – Iowa City Press Citizen Newspaper Archives August 26, 1941 Page 1 (public domain image)

 

 

(14) ANGLO-SOVIET INVASION OF IRAN & IRAN CRISIS

(1941-1946)

 

Another part of the Middle Eastern theater that everyone forgets about when it comes to the Second World War. Following on the heels of Britain’s successful campaigns in Iraq and Syria, as well as the new Anglo-Soviet alliance in the wake of Operation Barbarossa, Britain and the Soviet Union jointly invaded and occupied the neutral state of Iran in the six days from 25 August 1941 to 31 August 1941.

Britain invaded from Iraq to the west while the Soviet Union invaded from its border to the north. Hopelessly outmatched, Iran largely did not oppose the Anglo-Soviet invasion and surrendered on 31 August 1941.

Its primary purpose was to secure Allied supply lines to the Soviet Union – and indeed the so-called Persian Corridor turned out to be the most reliable route for Lend-Lease aid to the Soviets.

Other purposes included securing the Iranian oilfields – although the Middle East in general had a lot less prominence for oil during the war than it was to have later – as well as blocking German influence in Iran (understandably enough from the Iranian perspective of a history of being stood over by Britain and Russia) or pre-empting an Axis through Turkey (and later the Caucasus), albeit unlikely.

Not pictured among those purposes – concern for what was, after all, a neutral nation, or for the effects of the occupation on Iran, which manifested primarily in that recurring handmaiden of both British and Soviet empires, famine, with the disruption of food supplies and transport.

For their part, the Soviet Union and Britain signed a treaty with Iran ruling that Iran was not to be considered occupied by the Allies, but in alliance with them. They also declared that they would remain in Iran until six months after the end of the war. Once in the war, the Americans were also drawn into Iran, helping to man the Persian Corridor (and providing Lend-Lease to Iran itself) while effectively guaranteeing the Anglo-Soviet withdrawal from Iran after the war.

That led to the Iran Crisis in 1946 – the first crisis of the Cold War and one in which the Americans succeeded in forcing the Soviets to back down. While the British withdrew according to schedule after the war, the Soviets did not – refusing to relinquish their occupied territory, and worse, supporting pro-Soviet separatist states of the Azerbaijan’s People’s Government and the Kurdish Republic of Mahabad.

Those states actually fought against Iran, but ultimately intense pressure from the United States forced Soviet withdrawal and the dissolution of the Azerbaijani and Kurdish separatist states.

 

RATINGS: 4 STARS****

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

Top Tens – Film: Top 10 Fantasy & SF Films (6) Fantasy: Excalibur

Nigel Terry as King Arthur in the 1981 film Excalibur directed by John Boorman – still the best cinematic adaptation of Arthurian legend

 

 

(6) FANTASY: EXCALIBUR

(1981)

 

“Forged by a god

Foretold by a wizard

Found by a king…

Excalibur!”

 

Yes – that’s the cheesy blurb from the theatrical release poster.

Yes – the film itself can be cheesy at points, or messy, reflected by Roger Ebert calling it both a wondrous vision and a mess.

Yes – it conflates various elements of Arthurian legend, although perhaps necessarily so for adaptation to film and not unlike the adaptations made by the various texts of Arthurian legend. In particular Perceval does some heavy lifting here, conflating in his character (at least) the roles of Galahad and Bedivere in Arthurian legend. He’s not the only one – the film also conflates Morgana and Morgause.

I know all these things but I still love it anyway. I can trace my fascination for and love of Arthurian legend directly to this one film.

 

For mine is the grail quest –

round table & siege perilous

fisher king & waste land

bleeding lance & dolorous stroke

adventurous bed & questing beast

 

And most of it is here. Well, except for the questing beast. Arthur Pendragon himself, the once and future king. His flawed father Uther. The wizard Merlin, played by Nicol Williamson in arguably the film’s best performance. The Lady in the Lake. The titular Excalibur, conflated here with the sword in the stone. Queen Guinevere. The enchantress Morgan Le Fay, conflated with Morgause as the mother of usurper Mordred. The knights of the Round Table – most famously Lancelot but also Gawain and Perceval. The Holy Grail. Avalon – and so on.

That’s of course just the characters – despite its limited budget, the film’s cast is a veritable who’s who of actors who would rise to stardom. Helen Mirren. Liam Neeson. Patrick Stewart. Gabriel Byrne. Ciaran Hinds.

Then there’s its visual style and lighting, used to best effect to convey the ethereal nature of the mythic (and mystical) otherworld that overlaps with our own throughout Arthurian legend. Apparently there’s a study by Jean-Marc Elsholz that “demonstrates how closely the film Excalibur was inspired by the Arthurian romance tradition and its intersections with medieval theories of light, most particularly in the aesthetic/visual narrative of Boorman’s film” – and I’d say it shows.

And the music! It’s again used to much the same effect for the ethereal otherworld, but also for the heroic scenes of battle – I can trace my love of Carl Orff’s Carmina Burana to this film, even if I was disappointed to subsequently learn that work is essentially about drunk monks singing.

Intriguingly, the film apparently started as an unproduced adaptation of The Lord of the Rings – and it makes me wonder what director John Boorman might have done with that property. Perhaps not quite as good as the Jackson film trilogy but I’d be prepared to bet it would have been the next best thing.

As it is, the film is still the single best cinematic or screen adaptation of Arthurian legend, although Monty Python and the Holy Grail comes in a close second. Although that may also say something about the adaptability of Arthurian legend, particularly to the sensibilities of modern directors or producers of film and television – and that it takes something like lightning in a bottle for a director such as Boorman (who after all made films such as Zardoz) to make it work.

 

FANTASY OR SF?

 

Fantasy obviously. The film that is most fantasy in my top ten fantasy or SF films – not a shred of SF to be seen here.

 

HORROR

 

As with much mythology or legend, there’s elements reminiscent of horror, although perhaps less so than in the Arthurian legend from which it was adapted. .

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – History (WW2): Top 10 Second World Wars (Special Mention) (13) Anglo-Iraqi War

Map of Iraq during WWII by Kirrages for Wikipedia “Anglo-Iraqi War” under license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

 

 

(13) ANGLO-IRAQI WAR

(1941)

 

Everyone forgets about the Middle Eastern theater in the Second World War. Granted, it wasn’t much of a theater in terms of actual fighting, but that was because Britain moved quickly behind the scenes to secure the Middle East under its control – behind the scenes that is, of Britain’s defeats fighting Germany elsewhere in the Mediterranean at the same time.

One part of that was the British taking over Syria from the Vichy French government in the successful Syrian campaign in June-July 1941. However, before that was the Anglo-Iraqi war in May 1941 which was the central part or ground zero of the Middle Eastern theater – not least because it then enabled (and led to) both the Syrian campaign as well as my next special mention entry.

Britain had taken over Iraq from the former Ottoman Empire, ostensibly as a mandate under the League of Nations, but effectively in real terms as a colony or protectorate. Iraq nominally became independent in 1932 but the British had been careful to lock in a pro-British government with the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty of 1930.

Iraqi nationalists as well as the Axis nations of Germany and Italy saw the opportunity of the war for a coup to oust the pro-British government in April 1941. As usual, German political diplomacy and material support counted for little beyond the effective projection of its military power, although it (and Italy) did supply material and even aircraft through Vichy French Syria (hence the subsequent Syrian campaign).

If it’s one thing Britain could still do well, even at this late stage of empire, it was to crush colonial revolts – which it did by quickly mobilizing forces from the neighboring parts of its empire, notably including Indian troops, and stamping out the Iraqi coup in four weeks from 2 May 1941 to 31 May 1941.

Thereafter, Iraq served Britain as its base of operations within the Middle Eastern Theater.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

Top Tens – History (WW2): Top 10 Second World Wars (Special Mention) (12) Greek Civil War

Greek Civil War CIA Map – deployment of the communist “Democratic Army of Greece” in 1948. CIA Map Branch (Harry S.Truman Library, President’s Secretary’s File, Box 255 – public domain image)

 

 

(12) GREEK CIVIL WAR

(1941-1949)

 

“In April 1941, the Axis powers conquered Greece and Yugoslavia and thereafter the real struggle for the control of those countries began”- only in the case of Greece, the struggle for control was where the Second World War became the Cold War.

Yes – I’m again quoting how H.P. Willmott summed it up in The Great Crusade, his history of the Second World War. When I quoted him for my top ten entry for Yugoslavia, I noted that Greece will earn a place in my special mentions. And here it is.

Indeed, you could argue that Greece and the civil war that originated from its rival resistance movements should outrank Yugoslavia because of the significance of the Greek Civil War not only for the Second World War but even more so for the Cold War.

The Greek resistance to Axis occupation followed similar lines to that in Yugoslavia and Albania. While the Greek resistance can’t quite claim the same as that in Yugoslavia and Albania to have liberated their nation on their own, it was able to control much of the countryside prior to the German withdrawal from mainland Greece in October 1944.

Of course, in large part the liberation of Greece was because of the German withdrawal from mainland Greece, although German garrisons remained in Greek islands and were among the German forces to hold out until the end of the war.

Like both Yugoslavia and Albania, Greece had a royal government-in-exile, with both military forces serving within British forces in the Mediterranean and resistance movements within Greece itself. However, as in Yugoslavia and Albania (as well as elsewhere), the communists emerged as predominant among the rival resistance movements.

The big difference with the communists coming out on top in Yugoslavia and Albania was that the British were having none of that in Greece – and what’s more, they were in a position to do something about it. Churchill had effectively secured Greece for Britain’s postwar sphere on influence in his “naughty document” or infamous “percentages agreement” with Stalin in October 1944 – an agreement that Stalin appears to have kept when it came to Greece. British forces landed in Greece in October 1944 on the heels of (or even in advance of) the withdrawing German forces, entering Athens on 13 October 1944 and aiding the returning Greek government in exile to suppress or disarm communist partisans. That saw British and Greek non-communist forces fighting against the Greek communist forces from December 1944, with the former very narrowly prevailing as the Fourth Indian Infantry Division were flown in as British reinforcements.

There followed a brief interlude in 1945 effectively by way of treaty between the Greek non-communist government and Greek communists, which broke down into the Greek Civil War proper from March 1946 onwards.

While the Yugoslavian and Albanian communist governments supported the Greek communists, Stalin’s Soviet Union remained ambivalent in a way often seen as sticking to its agreement with Churchill – and actively opposed to the Greek communists after the Soviet split with Yugoslavia.

Britain continued to support the non-communist Greek government re-equipping and training the Greek Army but by early 1947 had to appeal to the United States that it could no longer afford to do so. That saw the first instance of what became known as the Truman Doctrine and effectively the American role as combatant in the Cold War, with the United States taking over from Britain in supporting the non-communist Greek government.

The Western assistance to the non-communist Greek government, and isolation of the Greek communists from support elsewhere but particularly from the Soviet Union, ultimately saw the Greek communists demoralized and defeated in 1949 – something “Western anti-communist governments allied to Greece saw…as a victory in the Cold War”, indeed one of the first such victories and commitments of American aid to anti-communist regimes.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

Top Tens – History (WW2): Top 10 Second World Wars (Special Mention) (11) Albania – Occupation & Resistance

Map of Albania in WW2 by Nakko for Wikipedia “World War II in Albania” under license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

 

 

(11) ALBANIA – OCCUPATION & RESISTANCE

(1939 – 1944)

 

Everyone forgets about Albania in the Second World War – or that it was occupied by Italy in April 1939.

It’s easy to forget Italy’s occupation of Albania among the higher profile German occupations of Austria or Czechoslovakia, particularly the latter as Germany had effectively finished it off only the month before in March 1939, prompting Britain’s guarantee to Poland in April 1939.

It’s easy to forget even for Italy, overshadowed as it is by Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia or intervention in the Spanish Civil War.

That everyone forgets about Albania is striking because it had important knock-on effects for the course of the whole war as it provided the platform or springboard for Italy’s ill-considered and ill-fated invasion of Greece. Without Albania as a base right next to Greece, it is difficult to see that Italy would have had the motive, means or opportunity for its invasion of Greece.

However, apart from its role in the Italian invasion of Greece, Albania was a backwater of Italian occupation, effectively as its own separate corner of the war.

There was Albanian resistance to occupation, which everyone also forgets about because it essentially followed the same lines as Yugoslavia, just on a smaller scale. Again, that everyone forgets about Albania is striking because it is the only nation other than Yugoslavia that can claim to have liberated itself through its own resistance, except even more so than Yugoslavia. Also, the Albanian resistance achieved the rare feat of saving most of Albania’s Jews.

Like Yugoslavia, it had a royal government-in-exile but the communist partisans and their political leader Enver Hoxha emerged as predominant among the rival resistance movements. Also like Yugoslavia, the Albanian resistance got a boost from the Italian surrender and desertion to it of Italian soldiers, only more so due to Italy’s larger and exclusive occupation, as well as Germany’s more pressing priorities than maintaining the occupation of Albania after that. The Albanian resistance liberated Albania from German occupation by 29 November 1944.

After the war, Albania and its communist government went from being its own strange separate corner of the Second World War to being its own strange separate corner of the Cold War – firstly with a ‘split’ from Yugoslavia aligning itself with the Soviets, then splitting off from the Soviets to align itself with China, before the inevitable Sino-Albanian split and aligning itself with no one.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

Top Tens – History (WW2): Top 10 Second World Wars (Special Mention) (10) Spanish Civil War

The how it started and how it’s going meme for the Spanish Civil War – with the areas controlled by the Nationalists (in pink) and Republicans (in blue) in September 1936 (left) and in February 1939 (right) as mapped by NordNordWest for Wikipedia “Spanish Civil War” under license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

 

(10) SPANISH CIVIL WAR

(1936 – 1939)

 

The war most seen as a precursor to the Second World War yet ironically not part of it, with the Nationalist victory in Spain on 1 April 1939 and Spain remaining neutral in the world war that erupted in Europe five months later. It was and is also seen as a Nazi-Soviet proxy war.

Also – George Orwell fought in it, reflecting that the Spanish Civil War “became notable for the passion and political division it inspired worldwide”, perhaps the most of any of the conflicts or events leading up to the war in Europe short of the outbreak of the latter war itself.

Ironically, its contemporary fame as political cause célèbre seems almost inversely proportional to its lack of actual impact in the Second World War, as Spain became something of a backwater to that war – no equivalent to the Peninsular War in the Napoleonic Wars to see here.

It always strikes me how much of an outlier the American Civil War is for civil wars in modern history, with its two neatly defined sides of the Union and the Confederates. The Spanish Civil War is more typical of most modern civil wars as a messy battle royale. Yes – again as in most civil wars, there were broadly two sides, but each side was chaotic or amorphous, to the point of at least one side almost as a civil war all on its own.

The war itself was also messy, although it was straightforward enough in broad outline. It originated from a military coup or revolt in July 1936 against the left-leaning Popular Front government of the Second Spanish Republic (which had been proclaimed in 1931). The coup failed as such but evolved into the Nationalists fighting to overthrow the Republic.

The Nationalists were a diverse alliance of groups “chiefly defined by their anti-communism” – and to a lesser extent, support for the Catholicism targeted by the Republic. Reflecting its origin in a military coup, the segments of the army and its officers opposed to the Republic predominated the Nationalists, among whom General Francisco Franco emerged as leader.

The Republicans were equally as diverse in their loyalty or allegiance to the Republic but reflecting the role of the Soviet Union as the primary source of support for the Republic, increasingly fell under the control of the more Stalinist elements, to the point of civil war within the civil war by them against anarchists and other factions on the Republican side.

From a combination of factors, the Republicans more consistently proved to be militarily ineffective, and the Nationalists ultimately won under Franco in 1939.

Of course, one of those factors – certainly the most famous and much of the reason for the war as cause célèbre – was the more effective foreign support for the Nationalists, above all from Italy and Germany in troops or advisors, munitions and armaments, and air support.

German air support – particularly in the form of the Condor Legion fighting in Spain – was arguably critical for the Nationalists by flying their troops that were otherwise stranded in Spanish Morocco to Spain in the early stages of the war. The Condor Legion also infamously bombed cities held by the Republicans, of which the bombing of Guernica led to international outcry against them (and a painting by Picasso that became iconic of the war itself).

International outcry perhaps but not too much support – with Britain and France declaring an official policy of non-intervention that was largely followed by the international community However, France and other nations covertly supported the Republicans, while tens of thousands of volunteers from non-interventionist countries fought in the war, mostly in the pro-Republican International Brigades.

“Only two countries openly and fully supported the Republic” – not surprisingly, the primary source of support was the Soviet Union, but I always find it surprising the second was Mexico. While Soviet support no doubt prolonged the resistance of the Republic, one might infer it was just not as effective as German or Italian support contributing to Nationalist victory.

And in some ways, it was a millstone around the Republic’s neck – as Soviet support brought with it Stalinist hardline organization or terror within the Republic and political commissars within its armed forces. Not to mention costing the Republic’s gold reserves in payment up front, diminishing Soviet interest in Republican victory when no longer expedient – as opposed to German or Italian interest in the Nationalists repaying their credit.

Franco ultimately led the Nationalists to victory in the civil war on 1 April 1939, although sporadic irregular or guerilla warfare persisted until 1965, and Franco’s government persisted for a decade after that until his death in 1975.

For all the furor during the civil war from 1936 to 1939, Franco’s Spain played little part in the world war that followed, remaining neutral if supportive to his Axis sponsors after they won his civil war for him – such as raising a volunteer division, the Blue Division, to fight as part of the German army against the Soviet Union.

However, despite the help Mussolini had given him in his civil war, Franco had more insight than Mussolini in recognizing that Spain would only achieve its self-destruction by anything more than token support in actively fighting on the German side or allowing German forces in Spain. Of course, a large part of that wisdom was born of necessity from Spain’s economic and military weakness recovering from its civil war.

However, Mussolini should have shared Franco’s insight as Italy was not much better than Spain in either economic strength or military readiness – which played a large part in its poor military performance and for which Italy’s own foreign adventures before the war, particularly including its support for Franco in the Spanish Civil War, contributed a large part.

As it was, Franco played the few cards he had extraordinarily well in dealing with a Germany and Italy that now expected a return on their investment in his civil war by Spanish participation on their side. He so frustrated Hitler at their meeting in Hendaye on 23 October 1940, with such extravagant preconditions for Spanish participation in the war as a German ally, that Germany essentially gave up on plans on using Spain to attack the British base in Gibraltar.

It is interesting to speculate that Germany might have been better off if the Republicans had won the civil war, since the communist Republicans would have come under pressure to aid Germany because of the Nazi-Soviet Pact at the time. However, I remain skeptical whether Soviet pressure would have extended to requiring Spain to effectively fight on Germany’s side when the Soviets themselves refrained from doing so – or whether a victorious Spanish Republican government would have been willing or able to comply with such pressure.

It might be said that Germany did not get a return on their investment in the Spanish Civil War when it counted in 1940, but that overlooks that Germany otherwise did very well for their investment of resources – notably in combat experience for their air force servicemen but also in securing its new alliance with Italy and destabilizing the European status quo for their diplomatic victories prior to 1939.

Not so much for Italy as we’ve seen – as they expended somewhat more resources than Germany, particularly in soldiers deployed to the Spanish Civil War, which with the resources spent in other foreign misadventures strained or exhausted Italy’s military readiness for wider war. In 1939, Mussolini advised Hitler that Italy was not ready for war before 1943 – interestingly the same advice down to the year that Hitler’s naval commanders gave him for their navy – and subsequent events showed that advice to be right (for both Italy and the German navy).

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)