littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yes of course, but naturalised Moroccans and descendants of soldiers who fought for Franco?
I might be wrong, but I don't know of any.
Spanish Civil War: Why Were The Moroccans Such Bastards?
- Thread starter phildwyer
- Start date
Yes of course, but naturalised Moroccans and descendants of soldiers who fought for Franco?
I might be wrong, but I don't know of any.
OK, apparently there is a film called Moroccan Labyrinth, which claims that they were all deported after the war, despite promises that they could stay.
Also says they were "forced" to fight. But pressed troops wouldn't have fought with such ferocity. There must have been some reason why they hated the republicans. Racism perhaps?
Also says they were "forced" to fight. But pressed troops wouldn't have fought with such ferocity. There must have been some reason why they hated the republicans. Racism perhaps?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
That sounds likely tbh. No place for a bunch of Muslims in Franco's newly pure Catholic Spain.
I'm still interested by the thousands who appear to be unaccounted for. It could simply be that records of Moroccans killed in action weren't kept properly. If in doubt, suspect incompetence first, conspiracy second.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
How much of their reputation for ferocity based on good evidence and how much myth, I wonder?
Also, even if they were pressed, a promise of a new life in Spain after the war with the status of a victorious warrior is an incentive to fight.
Another source cites "rumors" among the Moroccans that Franco was secretly a Muslim, and that he planned to restore Islamic rule in Spain.
And yet to the Spaniards he presented himself as the reincarnation of El Cid, who fought to liberate Spain from Islamic rule.
I wonder about the source of those "rumors." Was it Franco himself?
And yet to the Spaniards he presented himself as the reincarnation of El Cid, who fought to liberate Spain from Islamic rule.
I wonder about the source of those "rumors." Was it Franco himself?
All the sources agree that they were the most barbaric. But it's also true that republican propaganda was frequently racist.
A British correspondent asked how his countrymen would feel if an English general led an army of Zulus against London.
likesfish
You can't park here sir
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2009/06/30/2003447443/2 200 vetrans still getting pensions
colonial troops are always accused of barbarism
Gurkha'sin the flaklans were accused of being high on drugs and wearing sony walkmen into battle
colonial troops are always accused of barbarism
Gurkha'sin the flaklans were accused of being high on drugs and wearing sony walkmen into battle
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Sounds like ridiculous boasting to me.
Begs another question, though. Were the Moroccan units particularly brutal, or were they simply sent on the most brutal missions?
I think we've got some consensus here, though. Some of the Moroccans were probably pressed, but by and large they were willing combatants. They were made promises that were later broken and they were largely deported at the end of the war. They had a reputation for brutality that appears to be backed up by evidence of brutality, but it is dangerous to draw too many conclusions from that, particularly given the levels of brutality that were also displayed by Spanish troops. It was a brutal war.
And then there is the apparent mystery of the thousands who disappeared from the record.
There are other complications here. I'd like to see the evidence of the original recruiting method. That they were forced to fight could itself be a myth that has been propagated since the war to excuse their actions. In short, I don't know enough about it to make many judgements.
Begs another question, though. Were the Moroccan units particularly brutal, or were they simply sent on the most brutal missions?
I think we've got some consensus here, though. Some of the Moroccans were probably pressed, but by and large they were willing combatants. They were made promises that were later broken and they were largely deported at the end of the war. They had a reputation for brutality that appears to be backed up by evidence of brutality, but it is dangerous to draw too many conclusions from that, particularly given the levels of brutality that were also displayed by Spanish troops. It was a brutal war.
And then there is the apparent mystery of the thousands who disappeared from the record.
There are other complications here. I'd like to see the evidence of the original recruiting method. That they were forced to fight could itself be a myth that has been propagated since the war to excuse their actions. In short, I don't know enough about it to make many judgements.
They could have fought for the other side.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
El Cid faought against Muslim rulers, but he was a mercenary who also fought against Christians and as part of alliances including Muslims. So quite a lot like Franco, I suppose.
Maybe the Moroccans just prefered the nationalists to the republican side ? One thing you lefties dont really seem to grasp is that Muslims, on the whole, are very socially conservative and would always have more in common with a Catholic than with godless communist.
And I cannot understand, for the life of me, why any real 'Red' would actually want anything to do with Islam or its followers.
And I cannot understand, for the life of me, why any real 'Red' would actually want anything to do with Islam or its followers.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Or maybe you're ignoring the wider historical and political context. If The Moroccan soldiers were so keen on conservative Spanish rule why the hell did they constantly fight arms in hands against it? If you want a simplistic answer you could have had the guaranteed wage etc that serving for Franco offered rather than working for some fat pig latifunda boss for 14 hours a day at home. The aggressive nature of the those troops wasn't specific to the Spanish revolution, it was part of the Moroccan martial tradition and not ideological. Franco had used these troops to put down the Asturias rebellion in 1934, that was where the idea of using them a a counter-revolutionary force first took seed after years of the army being worried about letting them anywhere near the mainland.
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
The Moroccans that fought for Franco were experienced, professional soldiers. It wouldn't take "fanaticism" in particular to make them look effective against inexperienced, often badly lead conscripts and volunteers.
"Aggressive" is a nice way of putting it.
But anyway, this only raises the question: why weren't the Moroccans ideological? Spanish peasants had no problems grasping revolutionary ideologies. Why didn't the Moroccans see things the same way?
I suspect you may be right.
"Effective" is a very nice way of putting it. The Moroccans' atrocities went far beyond any military necessity. They gave every appearance of feeling visceral hatred towards their enemies.
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
Historically speaking, mercenaries don't generally show a lot of mercy toward the defeated.
jannerboyuk
...just kids gone wild.
.
Similar threads
