Talk:Second Spanish Republic

75th anniversary

I think this article is a bit one-sided, and it doens't focus too much in what was achieved with the Second Republic in Spain. If anyone wants to translate the following, not all, but some parts, I think it would be a good contribution to the article. As today is the 75th anniversary of the Second Republic in Spain, there is a lot of Spanish info out there. This, granted, is a manifiesto, but I think it does emphasize more the achievements of the Second Republic, which are not very stressed in the article.

Manifiesto "Con orgullo, con modestia y con gratitud"

El 14 de abril de 1931, España tuvo una oportunidad. La proclamación de la II República Española encarnó el sueño de un país capaz de ser mejor que sí mismo, y reunió en un solo esfuerzo a todos los españoles que aspiraban a un porvenir de democracia y de modernidad, de libertad y de justicia, de educación y de progreso, de igualdad y de derechos universales para todos sus conciudadanos. Hoy, setenta y cinco años después, los firmantes de este manifiesto evocamos aquel espíritu con orgullo, con modestia y con gratitud, y reivindicamos como propios los valores del republicanismo español, que siguen vigentes como símbolos de un país mejor, más libre y más justo.

Frente al colosal impulso modernizador y democratizador que acometieron las instituciones republicanas -siempre con la desleal oposición de quienes creían, y siguen creyendo, que este país es de su exclusiva propiedad-, todavía se nos sigue intentando convencer de que la II República fue un bello propósito condenado al fracaso desde antes de nacer por sus propios errores y carencias. Los firmantes de este manifiesto rechazamos radicalmente esta interpretación, que sólo pretende absolver al general Franco de la responsabilidad del golpe de estado que interrumpió la legalidad constitucional y democrática de una república sostenida por la voluntad mayoritaria del pueblo español, con las trágicas consecuencias que todos conocemos. Y exigimos que las instituciones de la actual democracia española rompan de manera definitiva los lazos que la siguen uniendo -desde los callejeros de los municipios hasta los contenidos de los libros de texto- con un estado ilegítimo, que surgió de una agresión feroz contra sus propios ciudadanos y se sostuvo en el poder durante treinta y siete años mediante el abuso sistemático e indiscriminado de los siniestros recursos que caracterizan la pervivencia de los regímenes totalitarios. Después de treinta años de democracia, resulta vergonzoso tener que recordar aún donde estaba la ley y donde estuvo el delito. A estas alturas, es intolerable, y muy peligroso para la salud moral y política de nuestro país, que todavía se pretenda equiparar al gobierno legítimo de una nación democrática con la facción militar que se sublevó contra el estado al que, por su honor, había jurado defender, y cuya victoria sólo fue posible gracias a la ayuda de los regímenes fascista y nazi que preparaban una invasión de Europa que acabaría provocando una guerra mundial y, aún más decisivamente, gracias a la culpable indiferencia de las democracias occidentales, que, antes de convertirse en víctimas de las mismas potencias en cuyas manos habían abandonado a España, eligieron parapetarse tras el hipócrita simulacro de neutralidad que representó el comité de No Intervención de Londres.

El 14 de abril de 1931, España tuvo una oportunidad, y los españoles la aprovecharon. Pese a la brevedad de su vida, la II República desarrolló en múltiples campos de la vida pública una labor ingente, que asombró al mundo y situó a nuestro país en la vanguardia social y cultural. Entre sus logros, bastaría citar la reforma agraria, el sufragio femenino, los avances en materia legislativa de toda índole, la separación efectiva de poderes, las constantes y modernísimas iniciativas destinadas a difundir la cultura hasta en las comarcas más remotas, el decidido impulso de la investigación científica o el florecimiento ejemplar no sólo de la educación, sino también de la asistencia sanitaria pública, para demostrar que aquel bello propósito generó bellísimas realidades, que habrían sido capaces de cambiar la vida de un pueblo condenado a la pobreza, la sumisión y la ignorancia por los mismos poderes -los grandes propietarios, la facción más reaccionaria del Ejército y la jerarquía de la Iglesia Católica- que se apresuraron a mutilarlo de toda esperanza.

La República dotó a los sectores más débiles y desprotegidos de la sociedad de entonces, las mujeres y los niños, de un estatuto jurídico privilegiado en su época. El retroceso fue tan brutal, que el cambio de régimen supuso para ellas, para ellos, la pérdida de todo derecho y su consagración como subciudadanos dependientes de la buena voluntad de los cabezas de sus respectivas familias. La República apostó por la defensa de los espacios públicos como escenario fundamental de la vida española, asumiendo la necesidad de equiparar las condiciones de vida de las poblaciones rurales y urbanas, y desarrollando políticas de igualdad no sólo entre los individuos, sino también entre las regiones más y menos prósperas. El retroceso fue tan brutal, que el cambio de régimen consolidó las desigualdades históricas tanto individuales como colectivas, y abandonó la promoción de los servicios públicos para crear un déficit que en algunos sectores, como la educación primaria y secundaria, seguimos padeciendo todavía. La República fomentó el auge de la cultura española en todos los terrenos de la creación artística y de la investigación científica, el debate intelectual y la vida universitaria, hasta el punto de que su nombre y su destino estarán unidos para siempre a la memoria del máximo esplendor cultural del que ha gozado nuestro país en la era moderna. El retroceso fue tan brutal, que el cambio de régimen supuso la pérdida más trágica que, a su vez, ha soportado nunca la cultura española, el exilio masivo de los mejores, que dejaron las aulas y los laboratorios, los talleres y las redacciones, las editoriales y los museos, la autoridad y el prestigio intelectual de nuestro país, en manos de una improvisada cosecha de oportunistas y segundones, que redujeron la vida cultural española a una lamentable manifestación de mediocres oscuridades.

Hoy, setenta y cinco años después, los firmantes de este manifiesto no queremos seguir lamentando la triste brutalidad de aquel retroceso, sino celebrar la emocionante calidad de los logros que le precedieron, y agradecer la ambición, el coraje, el talento y la entrega de una generación de españoles que creyó en nosotros al creer en el futuro de su país. Reivindicar su memoria es creer en nuestro propio futuro, que será proporcionalmente mejor, más libre, más justo, más feliz, en la medida en que seamos capaces de estar a la altura de la tradición republicana que hemos heredado. Por una España verdaderamente moderna, laica, culta, igualitaria, por su definitiva normalización democrática, y por el progreso armónico del bienestar de todos sus ciudadanos, hoy, setenta y cinco años después, queremos celebrar el 14 de abril de 1931, y proponer que esta fecha se celebre en lo sucesivo como un reconocimiento oficial a todos los ciudadanos españoles que lucharon activamente por la libertad, la justicia y la igualdad, valores comunes que tienen que seguir orientando la construcción democrática de la sociedad española.

Raystorm 10:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the new "Overview" and "Modern Views" sections with parts translated and modified from this text, and added personal views and knowledge of my own. As the text above is a Pro-Republic manifiesto, it's quite biased, so I had to modify it considerably to make it more neutral. This article still needs a lot of expansion and polishing, and probably some pictures, views and knowledge from Spanish wikipedians would be very useful as well, since I'm argentinian and I'm not very qualified to speak about modern Spanish views on the subject. Cheers! --Lobizón 20:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Modern Views POV?

The "Modern Views" section, and to a lesser extent the entire article, shows a heavy pro-Republic bias, and refers to the views of "many authors" without citing any sources. As explained in Spanish Civil War, there were clearly many who had good reason to question the Republic's status as a democratic paradise. I won't unilaterally delete the biased material, rather I'll try to add some of the other side of the story. Miraculouschaos 19:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was working on the article and I tried to make it as neutral as possible (specially since my original source was a pro-republic manifiesto, see above), but it still needs a lot of sources and an opposing point of view. I will try to look for more sources later. You did well with your NPOV notice. As much of an Spanish republic supporter as I am, I agree that the article needs an opposing point of view. --Lobizón 01:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This section-indeed the whole article-is nothing more than a quite nauseating political manifesto. Freedom of speech? What about the events of May 1937 in Barcelona? What about the actions of Stalin's OGPU? A 'worker's paradise', yes, built on the corpses of thousands of priests and nuns. Some of the Spanish people may have resented Franco; I thank God on their behalf that they never had the occasion to resent Stalin. White Guard 03:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree with White Guard statement. This is a very loop-sided account of a very important part of Spanish History. Because many people, including the current Spanish Government, disdain everything Franco did (not that I'm defending it, of course), it now happens that, by contrast, everything about the Second Republic was intrinsically perfect. I'm Spanish and I'll try to rewrite this article and make it more of a history lesson than a political manifesto. uhforja 00:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've rewritten the article. I'd like to get the opinions of people who may be experts in the matter, to see if the page is now more neutral. I've never done a page of this size so I hope no major misprints have slipped up. uhforja 18:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Much better: well done. White Guard 05:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because someone with the name White Guard just reeks neutrality about socialist governments... The Republic was the best government Spain would ever have, and the far right that called itself religious called for its destruction from day 1 (and funded the fascists to boot). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.225.139 (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This article needs to be deeply refernced and lacks of neutrallity. Even , say, being treated as a 'pro'- it migt induce to mistaundertoods or mistakes in interpretation from third parties —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delfin (talk • contribs) 13:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Background

What events prompted the creation of the Republic? What were the forces and factions involved? -- Beland 12:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a section that addresses the birth of the Second Republic. The page 'Spain under the Restoration' - dealing with the Primo de Rivera and Berenguer regimes - does not discuss this either, meaning there is no Wikipedia page detailing how the Republic came to be, surely a significant gap in this portion of Spanish history. Jaimericardo 01:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The Republic simply falls out of the sky. Lacking any exposition of the conditions and actions leading up to the Republic, the article is idiotic. Sounds more like a tourist guide from the local chamber of commerce, rather than a serious account of history. JKeck (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Layout with classic skin

I use the classic skin and this article overlaps the navigational bar on the left --Henrygb 23:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Modified the infobox

Removed the thing that said that the official religion was the Roman Catholic Church (big lol) and removed the map, since that map is from a period of the war, it is not the territory that occupied the Republic. The Republic was Spain, not a half of Spain. Onofre Bouvila 23:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Quality

In my opinion, this article, though too short, and lacking an explanation of the lead-up to the creation of the Second Republic, is of GA quality. It is well-written, authoritative and relatively neutral.

This is a rarity in articles on this period of Spanish history. Well done. Jaimehy (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

'Rebels'

Calling the Nationalists 'rebels' at the start of April 1939 and what was left of the Republican forces the 'Government' is wrong because one, in late February 1939 the Nationalists became the internationally recognised government of Spain, and two, after General Segismundo Casado's coup against the Republic both sides were 'rebels' against the Republic.

If we accept the terminology some want we are calling the recognised government of Spain 'rebels', and rebels against the Second Republic the government' which is a little silly.

Can we just keep the it as just Nationalists and Republicans?

Rsloch (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2008 (BST)

Just what was the legal status of the republic? The Second Republic "was proclaimed" in 1931, but by whom and on what authority? In reality wasn't the republican government just as much rebels as the nationalists in 1936?203.184.41.226 (talk) 07:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Paradise

You must say that second republic was a marvellous paradise. It was a wonderful democratic paradise. José Calvo-Sotelo was democratically assasinated. PSOE rebel democratically at 1934. Some priests and nuns was democratically assasinated. Some churchs was democratically fired. What a wonderful democratic paradise!!!!! 85.57.149.203 (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you know what democratic means... It means everyone has a say and the majority's will is followed. Like it or not the majority of people wanted to protect the Republic and the priests and nuns almost all called for the destruction of the Republic and the creation of a fascist theocracy. The Republic WAS democratic up until the war broke out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.225.139 (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion

The conclusion is written from a much more biased POV than rest of the article:

"In the context of the rise of totalitarian government, especially Nazism in Germany, Fascism in Italy and Stalinism in the Soviet Union"

Why Communism is called "Stalinism"? In this way someone can try to whitewash "Nazism" and blame just "Hitlerism".

"The murders of the leftist military leader Castillo and the rightist politician Calvo Sotelo..."

As I understood, Castillo was not "the leader", and no "military" man, but a policeman (merely a leutenant), who at the same time belonged to an inofficial militia created to silence the opposition by violent means. And Calvo Sotelo was not just "a politician", but the leader of parlamentary opposition. Thus they are figures of totally different political proportions. I am not Spanish, so I cannot judge how important was Castillo. His "official" positions suggest he was not too signifficant, but I concede his death might have carried some significance in Spanish society. In that case it indeed would be possible to mention both cases in one sentence. However the wording should be reflecting facts more:

"The murders of a known member of a violent leftist militant group Castillo and the parlamentary leader of rightist opposition..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.79.106 (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, I read the conclusion (as it is now written) to be TOO "neutral". This civil war was clearly started by rightist elements who were frustrated at being voted out democratically (much as the conservatives in the US currently are...). This "conclusion" section tries to skew things to seem more balanced than they were. This is inappropriate. Besides, a "conclusion" section is totally unneccessary. I don't usually see them on wikipedia. It really makes the article look like some high school report. Unless anyone can defend its inclusion, I nominate it for deletion. 24.69.66.116 (talk) 03:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The "conclusion" is very valuable summary of the historical debates and should be kept. Editors who want the article to favor their side may be annoyed but the section helps achieve that elusive high priority Wiki goal of neutrality. Rjensen (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If you don't know the difference between the very large and nuanced group known as Communism and the subgroup that is Stalinism, then you REALLY need to go take a course in political science. While German fascism didn't exist before Hitler, Communism was around for over 100 years before Stalin was even heard of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.225.139 (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats 2 folk songs

really, i am spanish speaker (venezuelan, in fact) and i cant understand a fu@#1ng nothing!! about thats songs in this article.. --Venerock (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Former countries???

The country was then and is now Spain--and has been for 1000+ years. It's not a "former country" (like, say, East Germany). Rjensen (talk) 05:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. Spain was not around 1000 years ago, and the Republic was completely different then the Spanish State. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.225.139 (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It's the History different according to the language?

The Spanish version and the English one are differents. Someone has taken the Spanish document and translated into English, and he has changed some parts of the text and has added personal views and opinions, can it be done? is it legal?

Can the History be changed with the language? When talking about History the facts should be related objectively and conclusions and points of view should be avoided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.228.41.65 (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You are right. This was not a translation of the Spanish article. I am trying to fix all this Franco whitewashing and historical inaccuracies about the Republic. Xufanc (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"Dead letter"?

In the section '1931 Constitution' it reads "...after the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War [the Cortes}, it became a dead letter...". The phrase'dead letter' is difficult to interpret. Slightly ambiguous. ~~ commentary ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.193.47 (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

State Atheism

I like the efforts put in the article and don't see any major changes are needed anymore, but I'm surprised to find State Atheism as the official religion. I hardly believe it's possible, note that while it might be true at Wartime in areas under the rule of the PCE, the pre-war politics were not headed towards elimination of religion, but just to taming a power sometimes richer than the government itself and more socially influential aswell. Aside from the catholic CEDA government of 1934-1935, the left-wing governments mainly led by Azaña still had to deal with a catholic conservative President of the Republic as Niceto Alcalá-Zamora. The new laws about freeing of encumbrance were approved following the reformations of some 19th century liberal governments in Spain and othe european countries, far from what we could call State Atheism, and the burning of churches followed periodical rises and wanings in concordance with communist or anarchist agendas, something the pre-war governments never supported and always prosecuted, were they either progressive or conservative. It's not possible to say State Atheism was the official religion in a country where masses saw unanimous attendance and the Church held massive power and influence in the society and the army until the very end. I'll wait until someone else agrees before changing anything, though.Satyajit Ray (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move back to Spanish Second Republic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page returned to Second Spanish Republic: reversion of unexplained page move. Moonraker12 (talk) 10:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Spanish Republic (1931–1939) → Spanish Second Republic – I'd like to reverse the unilateral move made a few days ago. I attempted to get some reasoning from the user (TRAJAN_117), without success. The page should be moved back and discussed properly. The reasoning I gave was ""Second" is a widely employed disambiguator is all sorts of books, and it's one with which the reader may be familiar rather than an arbitrary one. For example, notable writers including Blinkhorn, Stanley Payne (1,2). Those authors that do not employ the term use no disambiguation of "Spanish Republic", where one is needed. I feel that "Second" is therefore really useful and appropriate in this role." which I feel is suitable to form the "R" of "BRD". Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Support Second Spanish Republic: Clearly the most common term in literature. --RJFF (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. A term that is regularly used by the sources, making it a far more natural form of disambiguation. Jenks24 (talk) 06:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Alternative. What about "Second Spanish Republic"? It seems to be somewhat more popular than "Spanish Second Republic", according to this ngram. Either one is better than the current title, though. Dohn joe (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'd be fine with that alternative. Jenks24 (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment/question. Is it too late to add Spanish Republic (1873–1874) (the other page that was moved) to this move request (to be moved to First Spanish Republic for the same reasons)? Dohn joe (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Nah, I don't think that would be a problem, especially considering it could just be moved back per BRD anyway. Jenks24 (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - one the proviso that the move is back to "Second Spanish Republic" rather than "Spanish Second Republic" mainly because that was the article name until the move and it makes more sense to have the number at the front of the name. Green Giant (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I've closed this RM and returned the page to its previous title, which had been stable up until two weeks ago. There was no reason given for moving it, and no reason posted here in explanation. If anyone feels this title is inappropriate, they should open a Request move and give a reason, not move it unilaterally. The editor making the original move has been informed. Moonraker12 (talk) 10:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Obvious leftist POV bias

"The leaders of the treason (Franco was not commander-in-chief yet) did not lose heart with the stalemate and apparent failure of the coup. Instead, they initiated a slow and determined war of attrition against the Republican government in Madrid.[18] As a result, an estimated total of half a million people would lose their lives in the war that followed; the number of casualties is actually disputed as some have suggested as many as a million people died. Over the years, historians kept lowering the death figures and modern research concluded that 500,000 deaths was the correct figure.[19]"

This is obviously biased narrative construction. (and no, "But there's a source" isn't an argument, since leftists remove any sourced statements all the time.) Herewardwakes (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Note: editor may have a point about the text but is blocked for the attitude exemplified in "since leftists remove any sourced statements all the time" (and much worse elsewhere). Drmies (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, I saw the same leftist leaning POV and I must agree with the fact that the bias is observable. Although, I must disagree with user Herewardwakes because his attitude also gives hints of non-neutrality. I decided to fix it today (5/23/2022). Replacing some words that make the article left leaning or right leaning to keep it a neutral and reliable page. -- Archieproductions (talk) 12:30 UTC, May 23 2022 Archieproductions (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate Map

The map in the infobox uses post WW2 borders(but with a united Germany? The time period of the map is actually rather hard to pin down.), when it should use interwar borders (probably '36). I would fix this myself, but my talents with mapping/SVG software are lacking, so I'm just making a post here. I believe someone simply copied the map from Spanish State. BSMRD (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Nun sor Felisa González.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant/Potentially biased segment in the 1933-35 section

Towards the end of the section, the article reads "With this rebellion against an established political legitimate authority, the Socialists showed identical repudiation of representative institutional system that anarchists had practiced....With the rebellion of 1934, the Spanish left lost even the shadow of moral authority to condemn the rebellion of 1936'"". This whole segment is irrelevant to the rest of the article, as well as clearly biased against the socialists, and I believe it should be removed. MiamMiam02 (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph. Anyone who disagrees with this edit may voice their opposition here. The main issue is not that the paragraph was outlining an opinion, but because it was inserted in a section which only otherwise dealt with facts. Wikipedia is not a journal article; viewpoints should be in their own section with context and counterpoints unless they are prominent. Yue🌙 01:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Let us first seek consensus before removing text that has been stable for quite some time (years). Salvador de Madariaga's opinion is not exactly irrelevant. He is a well known prominent Spanish diplomat and historian, a Franco oppositionist, and his opinion is very relevant and is not placed in the voice of Wikipedia. The statement in Spanish "El alzamiento de 1934 es imperdonable" has become famous and can be found in the Spanish Wikipedia and has been quoted thousands of times both in academia, newspapers, etc... It is a POV, but a relevant POV and it is in the voice of Madriaga not Wikpedia. J Pratas (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The voice of Madriaga in this case is used to support "the voice of wikipedia"(With this rebellion against an established political legitimate authority...), sourcing Julian Casanova, so I don't think we can claim the viewpoint was objective. MiamMiam02 (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The Azaña government: Neutrality

There has not been any discussion on this topic despite the Neutrality Disputation being flagged since October 2021. We ought to either remove the flag or the whole sub-article. I'm in favour of removing the sub-article as it only references Hayes who wrote in 1951 which may be too archaic nowadays. Furthermore, it does not read in a neutral tone but rather pushing an argument (which shouldn't be on Wikipedia) that the Azaña government was something bad and perhaps even oppressive according to the sub-article. Joshua D. Muthi (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

New flag

@Amartin2671 changed the previous flag and (the coats of arms in consequence) with this one because "most flags of that time had this 3d effect", just because most flags had the coats of arms embroidered doesn't mean they wanted to create some kind of 3D effect, I think it should be reverted to the previous one, also most variants are based on the previous one. Half-Time919 (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I had change of mind, changing the flag is unnecesary. Half-Time919 (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Based on images of the time and designs that are preserved of Coat of arms of the second republic, I have designed the following CoA and flag: File:Flag of Spain(Second Republic 1931-1939)(3-5).svg and File:Escudo de España(Segunda República Española 1931-1939).svg Although in various official texts it says that the coat of arms is the same as the 1969 5pta coins, in practice the coat of arms was not regulated, except in its heraldic description. Seeing designs from the time (photographs, preserved flags, sculptures, posters. Not digital reconstructions) I designed a version more similar to the one used during the republic. I have based on the following designs:

   Presidential banner of Niceto Alcalá-Zamora
   Civil War Republican flag
   Coat of arms and flag
   Madrid Naval Museum
   Plaque of the Ministry of Public Instruction

This new versions don’t have the 3d effect looked awful in some devices.

If you still prefer the original images before my first edit, here they are: File:Flag of Spain (1931–1939).svg and File:Escudo de la Segunda República Española.svg Amartin2671 (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

September to November 1933

This period is obviously badly served by this article. It is also badly served by the article about Azana which is stated to be the main article for this period. The entire Lerroux Government is missed out and the reasons for Azana's resignation are sketchy. I write not as an expert but as somebody who knows little about Spanish history who looked to this article for information. I don't have any sources. Can somebody enlighten us and include somethin in the article. Spinney Hill (talk) 09:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Spinney Hill (talk) 09:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)