If we compare the number of voters who voted on the Popular Front with those who were later murdered by Carlists and Falangists, Navarra has the highest percentage of the state, unless in territory without a war front: almost 100 of the 1,000 voters in this party were executed. Mercilessly, Beratan researcher Fernando Mikelarena has investigated this “ruthless” repression. Political cleansing in Navarra, 1936. Impeding and executors (No gupidara. Political cleansing in Navarra, 1936. Responsibilities, collaborators and performers). The political cleanliness developed in the laboratory of Navarre would once again extend to the north front by the francoists.

How have you been able to get all this information?

I realized that most of the right information that could be useful was clean or overturned. The documents of the Phalanx and the Civil Government were removed and the documents of the Carlist Central War Board were censored. So I thought through a deeper investigation, I could get other incorrect information. I noted that the records of some soldiers indicated the activities carried out inside the rear. Anger and passion at the time had prompted them not to interrupt themselves at all when talking about what they had done during the war. Others were much more cautious and told nothing.

You've focused on the shape of the repressors. Why?

The few who have approached this issue have confined themselves to dealing with the figures of the authorities at the top, those responsible for the militias or members of the death squads. But we must not forget that the participation of anonymous citizenship was decisive. In villages where local authorities refused repression, for example, nothing happened. The killings took place in localities where the public authorities opened the doors to repression.

We mention Txato de Berbinzana, Benito Santesteban or Galo Egues as representatives of the repression of 36. But how was citizenship participation?

There is an interesting book about a Polish village, Jan T. The writer Gross, Neighbors, set in the Second World War. In a town called Jedwabne, half were Poles and the other half were Jews. The Poles had killed the Jews. The author bare the official truth in the book: that those who killed the Jews were not Nazis or members of the Gestapo, but citizens there. Cooperation between civil society and repression has been investigated in many places. We don't. The disappearance of the documentation was probably due to an order from the elites, but the fact that Navarre was silent during the Civil War is undoubtedly due to society. From Carlist participation, for example, there has been a pact of silence because they are more Navarros, more Catholics...

And who wanted to cover up the issue?

In the 1960s many inhabitants moved from town to city, moving from agriculture to factory workers, and many of those raised from families on the traditionalist right embraced leftist ideas or Basque nationalism. This issue therefore raises many discomforts. In short, we are talking about 3,000 deaths, the greatest tragedy that Navarre has experienced in its history.

Before 1936 was the Navarre society so fragmented?

In an analytic-objective way, I would say no. It is true that in some villages there were fights, but the division at the time cannot explain for itself what would come again. What happened is that suddenly the foundations of civilized life were broken. They used very effective elements to mobilize and polarize people, like religion. They often tell me that in the villages they believed their enemies had horns and tails. I have a book that I really like, Joseba Zulaika's book, which deals with ETA violence in Itziar. They accused Zulaika of attempting to disguise politically motivated violence with anthropological elements. But how is it possible that in a society without extraordinary conflicts, through messages and speeches, some citizens are able to commit such atrocities?

What happened then brings to mind other bloody events in the world.

I think most of us are very stupid in measuring the impact of violence on people's attitudes. Those who make the leap are well aware of the benefits that can be gained from violence for political purposes. And we are nothing critical. If we look at these kinds of events in different countries, we see that when crossing a border the consequences can be very dramatic.

What political consequences did the violence have in Navarra?

What happened then allowed certain sectors to remain in power for forty years. Phalanx in the elections of 36 in the Spanish State had less than 40,000 votes, 0.1% of the total votes. Carlists and Falangists could not gain access to power through democratic channels. The most striking thing is not that they got power with that violence, but that they stayed there for 40 years.