The 'Red Terror': Repression in Republican Madrid during the Spanish Civil War

西班牙内战期间有两种截然不同的马德里形象。第一个，可能是最熟悉的，是反法西斯城市“no pasarán！'.这幅作品强调了该市居民在1936年7月击败军事叛乱并在同年11月第二次在城市门口反抗国际法西斯势力的英雄主义。我的研究集中在第二个马德里：“红色恐怖”之城马德里。它指出，在西班牙共和国估计的5万起处决中，1936年至少有8,500起发生在马德里。关于共和党在马德里镇压的工作很少能找到英语的。在保罗·普雷斯顿（Paul Preston）和海伦·格雷厄姆（Helen Graham）对内战的一般描述中，这座城市的恐怖被归入对共和党暴力的一般分析中，强调这主要是无组织的“不可抵抗者”的工作，当共和党国家权力因军事叛乱而崩溃时，他们蓬勃发展。这种方法强调，大屠杀在1936-37年冬季恢复国家权力后结束，并声称从1937年开始，恐怖主要不是针对右翼，而是针对革命左翼，如反斯大林主义的统工党。这些论点的一个重要特征是将1936年恐怖事件的肇事者描述为社会的边缘分子（“罪犯”）或匿名的集体实体;而关注的是那些谴责暴力的共和党领导人，如曼努埃尔·阿扎尼亚总统。我的研究重新发现了所谓的“不可否认者”的身份。事实上，我在2007年1月发表在《当代历史杂志》上的文章讨论了马德里最臭名昭著的“失控”者：阿加皮托·加西亚·阿塔德尔。这篇文章表明，阿塔德尔是一个突出的社会主义领导人，他的杀人旅由熟练的工会工人组成。它还表明，阿塔德尔在社会党和“普通”共和党人中非常受欢迎，因为他被认为是在保卫城市免受"第五纵队“（这个词是由民族主义领导人莫拉将军在1936年创造的，用来描述马德里的秘密民族主义支持者）。我对其他犯罪者的研究表明，阿塔德尔和他的手下并不例外;对“法西斯分子”的恐怖活动是有组织的，是在许多“普通”共和党人的批准和合作下进行的。必须强调的是，我的工作并不是试图恢复佛朗哥主义的论点，即恐怖反映了一个“共产主义”的灭绝计划。在对1936年使用的暴力形式的审查中，它质疑了通常使用“cheka”一词来描述判处受害者死刑的革命法庭。在1936年，这些法庭很少被称为“chekas”，而是“人民调查委员会”或“公共安全委员会”，这让人想起1792年至1794年的恐怖，而不是1917年后的苏联恐怖。同样，受害者经常被处决的方式--“paseo”（被“带去兜风”）--让人想起20世纪30年代初的好莱坞黑帮电影（内战前和内战期间在马德里非常流行），而不是苏联共产主义的良性影响。我的著作并不否认1936年的凶残的“任意”镇压与1937年以来对真实的和可疑的共和党敌人的“制度化”迫害之间的重要区别。但它感兴趣的是研究这两个时期之间的连续性。例如，它显示了1936年犯罪者被招募到重建的共和国警察部队的程度。最后，由于这个项目是在我对1939年后马德里的佛朗哥镇压进行博士研究之后进行的，我的手稿将以重新评估“有组织的”佛朗哥暴力和“自发的”共和党暴力之间的共同区别来结束。

There are two very different representations of Madrid during the Spanish civil war. The first, which is probably the most familiar, is the anti-fascist city of 'no pasarán!'. This representation emphasises the heroism of the city's inhabitants in defeating the military rebellion in July 1936 and defying the forces of international fascism for a second time at the gates of the city that November. My research concentrates on the second Madrid: the city of the 'red terror' Madrid. It indicates that out of an estimated 50,000 executions in Republican Spain, a minimum of 8,500 took place in Madrid in 1936. Very little work on the Republican repression in Madrid can be found in English. In general accounts of the civil war, such as those written by Paul Preston and Helen Graham, the terror in the city is subsumed in a general analysis of Republican violence that stresses that it was largely the work of unorganised 'uncontrollables' who flourished when Republican state authority collapsed as a result of the military rebellion. Such an approach emphasises that mass murder came to an end following the restoration of state authority in the winter of 1936-37 and claims that from 1937, terror is mainly directed not at the right but at the revolutionary left, such as the anti-Stalinist POUM. An important feature of such arguments is the depiction of the perpetrators of terror in 1936 as either marginal elements of society ('criminals') or anonymous collective entities; attention is paid instead to those Republican leaders, such as the President Manuel Azaña, who condemned the violence.My research rediscovers the identities of the so-called 'uncontrollables'. Indeed, my article published by the Journal of Contemporary History in January 2007 dealt with the most infamous 'uncontrollable' in Madrid: Agapito García Atadell. This article demonstrates that Atadell was a prominent Socialist leader whose murderous brigade consisted of skilled unionised workers. It also shows that Atadell was enormously popular within the Socialist Party and among 'ordinary' Republicans because he was perceived to be defending the city from the 'fifth column' (this term was coined by the Nationalist leader General Mola in 1936 to describe clandestine Nationalist supporters in Madrid). My research on other perpetrators suggests that Atadell and his men were not exceptional; terror against 'fascists' was organised and took place with the approval and cooperation of many 'ordinary' Republicans. It is important to stress that my work is not an attempt to revive the Francoist thesis that the terror reflected a 'communist' programme of extermination. In its examination of the forms of violence employed in 1936, it questions the common use of the term 'cheka' to describe the revolutionary tribunals that sentenced victims to their deaths. In 1936, these tribunals were rarely, if ever, called 'chekas' but 'popular investigation committees' or 'committees of public safety', recalling more the Terror of 1792-94 than Soviet terror after 1917. Similarly, the way in which victims were often executed- the 'paseo' (being 'taken for a ride') - evokes the Hollywood gangster films of the early 1930s (extremely popular in Madrid before and during the civil war) rather than the benign influence of Soviet communism. My work does not deny the important distinction between the murderous 'arbitrary' repression of 1936 and the 'institutionalised' persecution of real and suspected Republican enemies from 1937. But it is interested in examining the continuities between the two periods. For example, it shows the extent to which the perpetrators of 1936 were recruited into the re-constituted Republican police force. Finally, since this project followed my doctoral research on the Francoist repression in Madrid after 1939, my manuscript will conclude with a re-assessment of the common distinctions made between 'organised' Francoist and 'spontaneous' Republican violence.