Talk:José Enrique Varela

Carlist or not Carlist

the lead identified Varela as a Carlist; I have deleted this phrase.

Indeed in numerous works, also by renowned scholars, Varela is identified as a Carlist: "a Carlist and a reactionary" (Payne), "the sole Carlist general, Varela" (Blinkhorn), "general Varela, the Spanish Army Minister (a Carlist)" (Smyth), "Carlist general Varela" (Preston), "romantic Carlist" (Thomas), "the Carlist Varela, now a general too" (Carrol), "General Jose Enrique Varela - Carlist reactionary" (again Payne, another work) "The general José Enrique Varela Iglesias, Marqués de Varela de San Fernando, was a Carlist" (Guell), "General Varela, a Traditionalist" (Beevor), "el propio Varela, carlista" (Egana), "carlista Varela", "carlista Varela" (Tussell), "general carlista Varela" (Ramos), "el general Varela era carlista" (Bossan), "el coronel (luego general) Varela, convertido al carlismo", "Varela (militar carlista)" (Clemente), "Varela, además de ministro del Ejército, era carlista, "general Enrique Varela, de ideología carlista" (Sanchez), "" sólo un carlista ha formado parte en alguno de ellos: el general Varela" (again Clemente, another work), "Varela, buen amigo de Franco, pero carlista y antifalangista" (Palacios), "Enrique Varela, the Army Minister and a leading Carlist" (Wigg), "Carlist army minister Varela" (Payne yet again), "General Varela, a Carlist by conviction" (Lippschitz), "Carlist War Minister, General Varela" (Trythall), "War Minister Varela, a Carlist" (Roig), General Varela, Minister of War, who had been attending Mass, and who was both a Carlist and an anglophile" (Gallo), "Traditionalist Varela" (Kleinfeld), "tradicionalista Varela" (Moa), "Traditionalist leader General Varela" (Ross), or "José Enrique Várela —ministro del Ejército, carlista, reaccionario y uno de los jefes militares...".

In some works he is identified somewhat more loosely: "general José Enrique Varela, de simpatías carlistas", "notables favores a partidarios de la causa carlista tan conocidos como elgeneral Varela" (Plenn), "Anglófilo y antifascista, relacionado con los carlistas, Varela" (Carr), "protradicionalista general Varela" (Marin), "general Varela, entonces ministro del Ejército y hombre ligado al carlismo más tradicional" (Merino), "los carlistas encontraban su mejor valedor en el general Varela", "general Varela, miembro o simpatizante de esta agrupación" (Munoz), "pro-Carlist Colonel Varela" (Hodgson), "the books ogf Vazquez de Mella and other Carlist ideologues were eagerly devoured by Colonel José Enrique Varela" (Preston), "General Varela, the Minister of War - a Carlist sympathizer" (Hodges), "Varela, who was simultaneously pro-Carlist" (Payne, Palacios), "Varela, who was regarded as an Anglophile and a monarchist opposed to Serrano and who was linked to Carlism" (Fusi), "General Varela, well known for his traditionalist sympathies" (Lloyd), "General Varela, the most nearly Traditionalist member of...", "General Varela, Minister of War, publicly identified his "Traditionalism" with the Church and army" (Roxburgh), "general filocarlista - Varela" (Morente), "filocarlista Varela" (Llera), and "Varela, simpatizante Carlista" (Cardona).

In some works he is identified as "monarchist" (which might or might not imply Carlism): "monárquico general Varela" (Rodo), "general Varela, monarquico" (Soria), "monárquico general Varela" (de la Cierva), "Monarchist Army general, Varela" (Black), "monárquicos (figuras como Kindelán,Varela, Orgaz)" (Rodriguez), or "uncompromising monarchist, Varela" (Boyd).

However, two monographs on Varela published recently claim he has never been a Carlist. They argue that Varela considered himself first and foremost a military and that in principle, the military should stay clear of politics. Moreover, according to the authors, Varela was a monarchist with an Alfonsist leaning. See Antonio Atienza Peñarrocha, Africanistas y junteros: el ejército español en Africa y el oficial José Enrique Varela Iglesias [PhD thesis Univ. of Valencia 2012], p. 915, Federico Martínez Roda, Varela: el general antifascista de Franco, Madrid 2012, ISBN 9788499703008, p. 207.

I think that though majority of historiographical works in circulation claim Varela was a Carlist, 2 monographs outweigh them; as a result, I deleted the Carlist identifier. Now the entry mentions a number of times Varela's close co-operation with the Carlists, but refrains from identifying his political views. Alternatively, one might note that the question of Varela's political views is controversial, if that fits WP standards better.

--Dd1495 (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I kinda agree with dropping the decontextualised carlist "descriptor" from the lead. However, I feel the sources above merit some inclusion one way or another in the entry. What do the two monographs would say about the second loose labelling (the links between him and the carlists, -not his real political ideology- for example through the "requeté"), Dd1495?--Asqueladd (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

unfortunately I do not have access to full work of Martínez Roda, so can't say. As to Atienza, he dwells repeatedly on Varela's close co-operation with Carlist structures and on his cordial relations with some Carlists, though this is referred in a very matter-of-fact manner. At one point Varela is quoted as referring to some of his friends as "carlistons" ("carlistoids") - but does not apply this name to himself, which sort of suggests he did not even consider himself a close sympathizer, if that answers your question. My impression based on Atienza's work is that for Varela, the Carlists were close fellow-travellers (though this is my impression only, Atienza does not use this phrase). My impression based on all works I know is that Varela was leaning towards Traditionalist ideology minus the dynastical ingredient - again, this is my impression only with no scholarly reference, so I can not edit the WP entry accordingly. --Dd1495 (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Dd1495. Not wanting the entry to read too much "self-justifying" nor explicitly creating by ourselves a "controversy" in historiography (as so far no secondary source has weighed the historiographical labelling controversy") inside the main text (for example, using too many inline superindex numbers in the main body of the text (in particular in the lead), I think the "identified as carlist or with carlist leanings by several sources" (author1, author2... or author "N") or something like that, can have however some use (maybe as {{refn|group=lower-alpha|Annotation next to the comment on his co-operation with carlists.}}?).--Asqueladd (talk) 12:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

if this Varela entry were almost ready to be splashed on the WP front page as a featured article - except for this tiny Carlist thing – I would consider it worthwhile to aim for perfection and to note that some think Carlist, some think leaning to Carlism and some think not Carlist at all. But – with all due respect to former editors of this entry – it seems very far away from meeting the highest WP standards, so at this stage I am tempted to leave the Carlist question as it is: no straightforward statement, just mentioning close co-operation. However, if there is someone willing to improve the article by pinpointing the issue right now, I can only wish him/her good luck. --Dd1495 (talk) 11:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

If the head of Requeté and the man who in 1934 wrote "Ordenanza del Requeté", one of the most famous Carlist documents ever, can't be considered a Carlist, I don't know who could. Only the claimants and a few party leaders? I think it is pretty clear that he was a Carlist. One can argue that not all those linked to the Requeté during the Spanish Civil War were strictly Carlists, but all those linked to the Requeté prior to the war surely were. It was a party militia. On the other side, having an Alfonsist leaning doesn't mean he wasn't a Carlist (i.e. a member of Comunión Tradicionalista). There was a big sector within CT that favoured that solution since the main Carlist dynasty was going to extinguish, as it did in 1936. Were men like Víctor Pradera or Rodezno not Carlists then? --Bradoman (talk) 11:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

as in my response below--Dd1495 (talk) 07:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Dd1945, I found the statement you made reference to by Atienza where he says he wasn't a Carlist here: Pero Varela no fue carlista porque él siempre defendió la línea dinástica de Alfonso XIII. Again the reason given invalidates the argument, since there was a large number of Carlists in the 1930s who defended that that line should succeed the claimant Alfonso Carlos. Also, his only reference for that statement is Pemán's monograph on Varela: Un soldado en la historia: vida del capitán general Varela (page 127). It would be interesting to see what Pemán wrote exactly in order to avoid a wrong interpretation. Could you please quote the other monographer and his references? Thank you.--Bradoman (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, the reference given by Atienza was not Pemán's monograph but Martínez Roda. Is Martinez Roda's book online? Regarding Varela's comment about "carlistones", by no means that means he didn't consider himself part of the Traditionalist movement (also known today as Carlism). One has to bear in mind that since 1909 until the late 1930s it wasn't usual to call "Carlism" what we call Carlism today. It was just called "Tradicionalismo" or also "Jaimismo" between 1909 and 1931 (perhaps "Legitimismo" too). The name "Carlist" was taken literally and it meant a follower of Don Carlos. Hence, any mention of Carlists in the 1930s usually made reference to that nostalgic period of time (19th Century Carlist Wars, etc.). The term "Carlism" for the movement was still being used mainly in Catalonia and Navarre though, but in the rest of Spain the word used would be "tradicionalismo", with a different connotation although refering to the same movement: Comunión Tradicionalista. One can appreciate this reading El Siglo Futuro or any other Traditionalist newspaper or magazine of the time. In the context of Varela's sentence, my opinion is that you could compare the term "carlistones" with Falange's "camisas viejas", i.e. someone who had been in the movement prior to the rise of the 1930s and perhaps with that connotation that they'd be willing to rise in arms like Carlists did in the 19th Century. I don't think those many references by prestigious historians claiming that Varela was a Carlist are being outweighed by a single monograph, although I'd really like to read what Martínez Roda says exactly.--Bradoman (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I have nothing to add on the Varela Carlist question and hence I intended to plug off, but since you were kind to write such a lengthy piece I concluded that it might be disrespectful on my part to ignore it. So here I come again, unfortunately with no new information on the gaditano himself. All I can offer is my reflection upon the way WP is edited. As I understand it, WP is not interested in my or your views at all. I might present an opinion which is extensively documented in primary sources and all way down nothing but excellent – for WP it is irrelevant. All WP expects of me is to refer what the others have written. Back to Varela: you might present irrefutable evidence that he was a Carlist – as long as this evidence is not referred in secondary sources your writing counts as own research and has no place in WP (I think?). So what shall we do with Varela and secondary sources? I do not know. I have quoted some 30 authors (they were mostly copy-pasting one from another, I guess) who claimed he was a Carlist, some 15 authors who claimed he was a pro-Carlist, and 2 authors (fathering dedicated works) who claimed he was not a Carlist. Now I wish that someone smart comes and makes sense of it.--Dd1495 (talk) 07:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that the standard should be what the majority of historians say and in this case the majority of scholars claim that he was, as you point out. If the 2 monographs don't go deep into the question, which seems to be the case with Atienza's, their view shouldn't be considered more important than the rest of works. The best monograph is probably Pemán's one, which is available at my local library. I'll have a look to see what Pemán has to say. Also, I think that everybody agrees that all S.A. members were Nazis. Why wouldn't all Requeté members (especially the leaders and prior to the Spanish Civil War) not be Carlists? It doesn't make too much sense to me.--Bradoman (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)