Great statesman or unscrupulous opportunist? Anglo-Saxon interpretations of Lluís Companys

Lluís Companys was the President of the Generalitat de Catalunya during the Spanish Civil War. He had led an abortive federalist rebellion in October 1934 and later faced the contradictory problems of a war effort against General Franco's military rebels and the revolutionary, and often murderous, aspirations of anarchists and the anti-Stalinist Communists of the POUM. After the Civil War, he was exiled in France, seized by the Gestapo and executed by the Franco regime on 15 October 1940. The contemporary Anglo-Saxon views of Companys ranged from admiration by supporters of the Spanish Republic to the hostility of right-wingers. Knowledgeable experts on Catalonia like Professor Edgar Allison Peers or the writer John Langdon-Davies regarded Companys with sympathy. The most extreme example of the latter was the British consul, Norman King, who blamed Companys for the breakdown of political authority and for the atrocities perpetrated by the left. Sympathy or antipathy to Companys did not depend on realistic analysis of his performance and its context but rather was usually the consequence of their prior leftist or rightist views

The massacre of Paracuellos

A principis de novembre del 1936 les tropes del general Franco s’havien plantat davant Madrid. L’assalt a la capital s’endevinava imminent i inevitable. El dia 6 de novembre, en un context de caos, el govern de la República va marxar cap a València. Una Junta de Defensa impulsada pel general Miaja es va fer càrrec dels poder militars i civil. El buit de poder va ser audaçment cobert pel PCE que va aconseguir càrrecs estratègics amb competències en defensa i ordre públic. La Consejería de Orden Público de la Junta de Defensa va anar a raure a mans de Santiago Carrillo, que en poques hores va prendre mesures per reprimir la Cinquena Columna i reordenar les forces repressives. Un dels problemes candents que van trobar les noves autoritats fàctiques va ser l’elevat nombre de presos, simpatitzants dels sollevats, que havia a les presons de Madrid que, cas de ser alliberats, podien passar a enfortir el bàndol facciós. En principi els interns havien de ser evacuats, a la practica però molts d’ells, pel capbaix uns 2500, van ser assassinats prop Madrid, principalment en el poblet de Paracuellos del Jarama. Aquestes matances van erosionar de manera determinant la imatge internacional de la República. Els fets més greus es van donar els dies 7 i 8 de novembre, però les atrocitats van continuar fins a principis del mes de desembre. La responsabilitats dels fets, compartida per diferents persones i instancies, continua essent un tema de debat.In early November 1936, the troops of General Franco were near Madrid. The capital’s assault seemed imminent and inevitable. On the 6th of November, in a context of chaos, the government of the Spanish Republic was evacuated to Valencia. A Defense Committee driven by General Miaja took over the military and civilian functions. The initial power vacuum was boldly covered by PCE (Spanish Communist Party): its leadership posts got strategic positions with competences in defense and public order. The Defense Committee’s Public Order Ministry fell in Santiago Carrillo’s hands, who took decisions in a few hours to curb the Fifth Column, suppress its actions and reorganize the repressive forces. One of the most problematic matters that Defense Committee had to assume was the high number of jailed rebel’s supporters in Madrid; if they had been released, they would have strengthened Francoist side. Initially, the inmates had to been evacuated, but actually many of them –at least 2.500– were executed near Madrid, mainly in the village of Paracuellos del Jarama. These killings damaged decisively the international image of the Spanish Republic. Most of them occurred on the 7th and the 8th of November, but this kind of atrocities continued until early December. Responsibilities on the facts are shared by different people and instances, but it is still a subject of debate

Britain and the Basque Campaign of 1937: The Government, the Royal Navy, the Labour Party and the Press.

To a large extent, the reaction of foreign powers dictated both the course and the outcome of the Civil War. The policies of four of the five major protagonists, Britain, France, Germany and Italy were substantially influenced by hostility to the fifth, the Soviet Union. Suspicion of the Soviet Union had been a major determinant of the international diplomacy of the Western powers since the revolution of October 1917. The Spanish conflict was the most recent battle in a European civil war. The early tolerance shown to both Hitler and Mussolini in the international arena was a tacit sign of approval of their policies towards the left in general and towards communism in particular. During the Spanish Civil War, it became apparent that this British and French complaisance regarding Italian and German social policies was accompanied by myopia regarding Fascist and Nazi determination to alter the international balance of power. Yet even when such ambitions could no longer be ignored, the residual sympathy for fascism of British policy-makers ensured that their first response would be simply to try to divert such ambitions in an anti-communist, and therefore Eastwards, directio

The massacre of Paracuellos

A principis de novembre del 1936 les tropes del general Franco s’havien plantat davant Madrid. L’assalt a la capital s’endevinava imminent i inevitable. El dia 6 de novembre, en un context de caos, el govern de la República va marxar cap a València. Una Junta de Defensa impulsada pel general Miaja es va fer càrrec dels poder militars i civil. El buit de poder va ser audaçment cobert pel PCE que va aconseguir càrrecs estratègics amb competències en defensa i ordre públic. La Consejería de Orden Público de la Junta de Defensa va anar a raure a mans de Santiago Carrillo, que en poques hores va prendre mesures per reprimir la Cinquena Columna i reordenar les forces repressives. Un dels problemes candents que van trobar les noves autoritats fàctiques va ser l’elevat nombre de presos, simpatitzants dels sollevats, que havia a les presons de Madrid que, cas de ser alliberats, podien passar a enfortir el bàndol facciós. En principi els interns havien de ser evacuats, a la practica però molts d’ells, pel capbaix uns 2500, van ser assassinats prop Madrid, principalment en el poblet de Paracuellos del Jarama. Aquestes matances van erosionar de manera determinant la imatge internacional de la República. Els fets més greus es van donar els dies 7 i 8 de novembre, però les atrocitats van continuar fins a principis del mes de desembre. La responsabilitats dels fets, compartida per diferents persones i instancies, continua essent un tema de debat.In early November 1936, the troops of General Franco were near Madrid. The capital’s assault seemed imminent and inevitable. On the 6th of November, in a context of chaos, the government of the Spanish Republic was evacuated to Valencia. A Defense Committee driven by General Miaja took over the military and civilian functions. The initial power vacuum was boldly covered by PCE (Spanish Communist Party): its leadership posts got strategic positions with competences in defense and public order. The Defense Committee’s Public Order Ministry fell in Santiago Carrillo’s hands, who took decisions in a few hours to curb the Fifth Column, suppress its actions and reorganize the repressive forces. One of the most problematic matters that Defense Committee had to assume was the high number of jailed rebel’s supporters in Madrid; if they had been released, they would have strengthened Francoist side. Initially, the inmates had to been evacuated, but actually many of them –at least 2.500– were executed near Madrid, mainly in the village of Paracuellos del Jarama. These killings damaged decisively the international image of the Spanish Republic. Most of them occurred on the 7th and the 8th of November, but this kind of atrocities continued until early December. Responsibilities on the facts are shared by different people and instances, but it is still a subject of debate

Preferred Leadership Styles of Coaches: Collegiate Athletes’ Perception of Quality Coaches

The purpose of this study was to determine the most effective leadership styles judged by collegiate football athletes. Six participants were recruited from the team spanning over three grade levels. Data collection involved conducting semi-structured interviews. Data analysis revealed three main themes: (1) Leadership qualities (2) leadership styles and (3) and motivation. Results of the study support previous literature and participants preferred supportive style leadership as well as the qualities of accountability, leading by example and confidence. The implementation of these qualities and style of leadership may benefit a leader looking to improve relationships and trust with their followers

Explaining the Paradox: Perceived Instructor Benefits and Costs of Contributing to Massachusetts Institute of Technology OpenCourseWare

This study examines perceived benefits and costs of instructors who contributed to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) OpenCourseWare (OCW) project. While previous research has investigated the benefits and costs of OCW from the perspectives of the users and institution, the instructor\u27s perspective is the focus of this qualitative case study. Instructors created the original educational content and would seem to have the most to lose by contributing to OCW. Data come from six years worth of surveys conducted by the evaluation team of the MIT OCW project, follow-up interviews with contributing MIT instructors, and a content analysis of written feedback comments received by the MIT OCW team. Findings include instructor benefits of: (1) improved reputation, (2) networking, (3) supplementary opportunities, (4) improved course content, (5) course feedback, (6) students accessing materials, and (7) working with the MIT OCW team; and instructor costs of: (1) damaged reputation, (2) loss of intellectual property rights, (3) requirement of extra resources, (4) realignment of individual professional goals, (5) public materials, and (6) working with the MIT OCW team