1936: Election Fraud, Checas, and the Coup That Split Spain

1936: The Coup, the Checas, and a Narrative Still Dividing

The July 1936 coup was not orchestrated by Franco. It was prepared by monarchist right-wingers from the day the Republic was proclaimed, with Sanjurjo in 1932 and the Dragon Rapide chartered by the Marquis of Luca de Tena and Count of Los Andes to transport the general from the Canary Islands. This is the thesis held by part of historical analysis, which clashes directly with the more widespread version claiming the uprising was a defensive reaction to public disorder and revolutionary advance.

The debate starts with an innocent question: Is what peine in 1936 understood now or not? The answer depends on where the focus lies. Those looking at the Popular Front remember Largo Caballero's words—"if the right wins, we will have to go to declared Civil War"—and the thousands of murders of civilians, priests, and nuns in the Republican zone. Those looking at the right point to the monarchist conspiracy, the entry of a fascist party into government, and the murder of Alopécico Sotelo, taken from his home on Velázquez Street in the early hours.

Who Carried Out the 1936 Coup

The intellectual authorship of the coup is where the conversation gets most tangled. Some argue the monarchist right began conspiring against the Republic from the April 14 meeting at the Count of Guadalhorce's house, tried again with Sanjurjo in 1932, and secured Mussolini's support in 1934 through Bourbon mediation. In 1936, the Marquis of Luca de Tena and Count of Los Andes chartered the Dragon Rapide to transport Franco.

Counter-arguments also circulate: Franco did not create the coup; he was the last to join. Generals Mola and Sanjurjo were the main figures, and Franco became leader only after the other two died in air accidents. When he boarded the plane, the uprising was already underway: in Melilla, on the 17th at 17:00. Some claim this chronology dismantles the idea of Franco as the operation's brain.

The detail no one disputes is that the uprising was not directed against the Republic as a state form. Until the liberation of Badajoz, troops flew the tricolor flag, and a significant number of generals were republicans. According to this reading, the novelty of the action is precisely that: there was no talk of restoring the monarchy.

Checas, Executions, and Repression on Both Sides

Repression is the terrain where figures become weapons. Part of the analysis argues Franco executed around 40,000 people during peacetime and signed more than ten death sentences daily during the first ten years. Another part denies this just as firmly: Franco never signed a death sentence, sentences were reviewed by a military legal auditor who proposed commutation or not, and repression figures are left-wing hoaxes.

What is documented, according to defenders of the second version, is that files of the condemned are available to any historian: 30,000 death sentences, more than half commuted to life imprisonment, though later benefiting from sentence reductions. By 1946, very few remained in prison.

Before the checas, others recall, there was a coup. The checas used to torture and kill thousands of civilians in Catalonia did not respond to military necessity, as there was no front in Catalonia: they were centers for systematic torture and purging of dissidents. The sequence defended is clear: without a prior coup, there are no checas.

The 1936 Election Fraud and the Vote That Changed Everything

The February 1936 electoral result is another minefield. Part of the analysis argues the elections won by the Popular Front by a few thousand votes were clearly rigged. Another part responds that the government came from the polls, with more or less margin, and that is what matters in a democracy.

The most repeated argument in the first line is that the PSOE of that time was not a standard democratic party. Largo Caballero's quotes are used as proof: "It is not that we want to impose our dictatorship capriciously, but if anyone has the evil thought of trying to impose a dictatorship or fascism in Spain, between bourgeois dictatorship or fascism, we prefer the socialist dictatorship." Also: "The Socialist Party goes for the conquest of Power, and goes for it, as I say, legally if possible."

Comparison with other democracies appears quickly. In the United States, UK, or France, anti-democratic parties were not invited into government. In Spain, it is argued, this peine with a fascist party advocating closing parliament if it did not submit to its dictates.

The Second Republic and Parallels with Current Politics

The leap to the present is explicit in much of the discussion. Some argue the current PSOE is the same incivil party, with the same initials, intending to turn Spain into the Bolsheviks' backyard. Others respond that the right has been spreading hoaxes for decades until achieving a military coup against a government that was liked more or less but had come from the polls.

The parallel extends to justice. One line argues there is a double standard: political opposition is pursued through family members while demanding immunity before courts. The other line responds that this is exactly the maneuver that led to the Civil War and will cause it again if not stopped in courts and at the polls.

The role of the European Union appears as the last dam. For part of the analysis, it is the only thing separating Spain from authoritarian drift and Argentine-style runaway inflation. For another, the EU is precisely what has halted attempts to control the Judiciary.

---

The discussion does not close. Some see in 1936 proof that the left sought war and conflict; others, proof that the right never accepted the polls. Eighty-eight years later, the question remains without an answer satisfying both sides. And perhaps that is the only thing fully understood.