A heated debate over the memory and interpretation of the Civil War has once again flared up in Spain. The controversy erupted after the cancellation of a conference dedicated to the events of 1936, sparking a wave of discussions among the public and experts. The focus was not only on the cancellation itself but also on the wording of the event’s title, which many considered offensive to the memory of the victims.
Journalist and two-time Ondas award winner Isaías Lafuente delivered sharp criticism of the organizers. His opinion was voiced amid an ongoing controversy, after renowned writer David Uclés refused to participate in the conference due to the invitation of politically divisive figures. As a result, the debate extended far beyond the event itself, raising issues of historical responsibility and respect for the memory of those who perished.
Public reaction
Shortly after the event was canceled, the organizers—including Arturo Pérez Reverte and Jesús Vigorra—tried to explain their decision. In his statements, Pérez Reverte blamed radical left-wing groups for the disruption of the conference, and in a subsequent column, he noted that despite there being both winners and losers, the entire country suffered irreparable losses. According to him, Spain lost freedom, justice, progress, civil rights, and dignity—and it is precisely this, the writer believes, that unites everyone as losers.
However, Lafuente drew attention to the essence of the conference’s title. He emphasized that the phrase ‘the war that everyone lost’ is not only incorrect but also insults the memory of those who truly suffered irreparable losses. In a public statement, the journalist compared this approach to a hypothetical conference title for a German audience: ‘The Holocaust: a wound experienced by all.’ This comparison sparked a new wave of discussion and debate on social media.
Conflict details
In response to the criticism, some participants pointed out technical errors in the conference title’s wording, claiming that it was originally intended to include question marks: ‘The war that everyone lost?’. According to them, the absence of this punctuation was due to editorial oversights that occurred after several participants, including Antonio Maíllo and Ukles himself, declined to take part.
Lafuente, in turn, did not delve into the specifics of formatting, stating that debates about punctuation do not change the substance of the issue. He commented ironically that if the discussion remains focused solely on punctuation marks, it might lead to organizing a separate conference devoted entirely to errors in event titles like these.
Historical context
The scandal surrounding the cancellation of the conference has once again raised the question of how modern Spain should address the tragic chapters of its history. For many Spaniards, the Civil War remains a painful subject, and any attempts to generalize the experiences of all sides spark heated debates. In recent years, such discussions have become increasingly common, especially against the backdrop of political polarization and efforts to revise historical narratives.
The growing interest in the issues of memory and historical justice is not unique to Spain. Other European countries also regularly debate how to properly discuss tragic events of the past without diminishing the suffering of victims or distorting the facts. In Spain, however, such conflicts often become a catalyst for public debate, where different perspectives on the country’s past and present collide.
In recent years, Spain has repeatedly seen the cancellation or postponement of public events dedicated to controversial historical topics. The reasons have included pressure from political groups as well as disagreements over wording or the guest list. Similar cases have occurred, for example, during discussions on historical memory in Andalucía and Cataluña, as well as during debates on the role of individual political figures in the country’s history. Each such incident invariably sparks widespread public reaction and prompts new debates on how the past should be addressed.
