decentralized != disorganized
losing ground to advances by former republican allies, losing the war because of intervention by republicans, losing power and influence, once again, because of republicans

they attacked the anarchist movement

spanish republicans are traitors

Do you see the difference with Marxist groups? When in 41-43 USSR been losing ground it didn't blame the Fascist. We say **WE** were not prepared. **WE** failed to defend. **WE** lost ground due to our misery and underdevelopment. Anarchists are never to blame themselves because they do not take responsibility of anything.

because we were doing well.
before the republican government attacked the anarchists, the anarchists were the most decisive opponents to franco's movement.
then all of a sudden it became our fault?

please

When was it ever your fault? <:caring:312066184948350976>

franco almost lost because of the anarchists and the poum

he won because of the republicans

He won because overwhelming foreign aid and the Soviet union essentially killing the revolutionary fervor

They were counter-revolutionary in spain by all accounts and essentially hijacked the civil war.

i can get behind that statement

@alines Franco wasn't a communist you dumbass.

@Firefly#9983 I will give you one thing, in that the anarchists own beliefs are what make them behave so incompitently in warfare.

i never said he was.
hamfisted tactics by the republican movement led to nationalist victory.
you never actually pay attention to conversations, do you?

@alines The anarchists were at one point capable of winning the war? Nope, they were destroyed by a single group, that being the falange.

because of republcan disarmament.
how could anarchists be disarmed by republicans after being crushed by nationalists?

When even all the trotskyist internationalists in the soviet union could not defeat the Falange or Franco's armies, that really shows how bad they were.

I hate anarchists, it's all promises and no responsibility

@alines Are you arguing with yourself now?

Let's bring that to question since you argued with yourself.

in what way?

How could anarchists be disarmed by the republicans, if this was after the war ended in favor of the nationalists?

you seem to think that's the way it had to have happened, since falange apparently has full culpability according to you

@alines That's the way you put it, you quite literally are arguing with yourself now.

no, i said FIRST anarchists were disarmed by republicans, THEN crushed by falange.
try actually reading

@alines But you questioned yourself on how the anarchists could have been disarmed by the republicans.

what is rhetoric?

"how could anarchists be disarmed by republicans after being crushed by nationalists?"

what are rhetorical questions?

@alines The only rhetoric I see here is fallacy.

go on and tell me what fallacy

not a word

I would say a hastily generalization, mostly due to the fact that you questioned how the anarchists could have been disarmed after the civil war, which didn't happen, and you bring together another fallacy, by just stating "OH IT WAS ALL A RHETORIC ALL ALONG!" which I seriously doubt is the truth, unless english isn't your first language, you are autistic, or just have issues with reading and text, along with that, you seem to be so stubborn, that you will outright refuse to admit that you made a mistake, in favor of continuing to argue with me.

falange wasn't the only force responsible for the defeat of the anarchists.
that's where you seem to have it wrong.
and i can admit to mistakes and still argue with you

Then prove it!

"I can admit mistakes, but I won't for you!"

How hypocritical.

You truly will say anything to make yourself seem better, won't you?

okay, i shouldn't have assumed you had the order of events leading to anarchist defeat switched

Was that what you call an apology?