Franco: The dictator's legacy to modern Spain [Archive]

Louis VI the Fat

08-24-2008, 13:19

Franco 'did alright'? He is to Spain what Mugabe is to Zimbabwe. :wall:

Ah well, we all have our political preferences. Some admire Mugabe for his succesful policy of land reform and driving out the minorities. Some will admire Franco for his torture of political opponents and his turning Spain into a backward hellhole of extreme Catholic conservatism.

War, destitution and backwardness. That is what Franco wrought. It only took Spain thirty years to turn Franco's hellhole into a flowering liberal, wealthy and democratic country. Spain is where's it's at for art, architecture and gastronomy. The hippest place in Europe. I've got a long standing bet running, to expire in 2015, that Spain will overtake Italy, France and Germany for GDP per capita within a decade. They're well on their way. :yes:

I can understand bitter, spiteful old Spanish Catholic creeps still lamenting old Spain. Back when you could simply report those of different opinion to somebody in some uniform, and that was that. Franco is for those born before 1930. And for those stuck in a perennial mental 1930's.

Communism is a radical liberal ideology, yet still a liberal ideology.Indeed it is. The roots of some of communist's core ideas can be traced to a radicalisation of liberal ideas.

No matter what dilettantes of the history of ideas say on wiki. :sneaky:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-24-2008, 17:31

Franco 'did alright'? He is to Spain what Mugabe is to Zimbabwe. :wall:

I strongly disagree with that. I'll just give out some good points.

1) He stopped a communist takeover of Spain.
2) Centralization, including that of language.
3) Actively protected Jews during WWII.
4) The recovery of the economy was slowed in large part because of the United Nations trade embargo. This caused the economy to improve over the next two years and more.
5) El Milagro Español - surprised you missed that one, actually. That's a pretty big one.
6) Transitioned Spain to democracy.

The only downside I can think of with Franco's regime is executions, in which case there would've been little difference between him and the communists, and less likelihood of a good transition to democracy. Franco was not Spain's Mugabe in any way at all.

Louis VI the Fat

08-24-2008, 18:34

5) El Milagro Español - surprised you missed that one, actually. That's a pretty big one.
The Spanish miracle? Gah! :wall:

And how, pray, did the democratic European nations fare economically in this period? To answer my own question: they had post-war econic miracles of their own. Each one far surpassing that of Spain. Did I say far surpassing? That's not true. It's beyond that. True is: Free Europe experienced an economic explosion unique in its history. The German and Austrian Wirtschaftwunder, the French Trente Glorieuses, Italy's extraordinary boom into an industrialisation Great Power.

Whereas Spain under Franco moved from 'starving hellhole' to simply 'backward'. And I shall not even mention that Franco himself was to no small extent responsible for the first part, the 'starving hellhole'.

Nope, I'm afraid that I didn't miss it. I count it as one of the many near criminal legacies of Franco. Because of Franco, Spain performed much, much, much worse than the comparable free nations of Europe during this time.

Franco's 'economic miracle' is comparable to the East German post-war 'economic miracle'. Another one of those closed societies. Another society whose citizens subjects and fellow travellers were led to believe, or strangely still believe, that some economic miracle took place.

This subject frustrates me to no end. It is so glaringly obvious that the democratic European nations after WWII economically drastically outperformed both the Communist and the authoritarian regimes. Yet, fellow travellers of both kind persist and persist and persist in singing the praise of the economic miracles of the dictatorships. They did it in 1958. And in 1968. And in 1978. And in 1988. And in 1998. And in 2008. :wall::wall::wall:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-24-2008, 19:24

And how, pray, did the democratic European nations fare economically in this period? To answer my own question: they had post-war econic miracles of their own. Each one far surpassing that of Spain. Did I say far surpassing? That's not true. It's beyond that. True is: Free Europe experienced an economic explosion unique in its history. The German and Austrian Wirtschaftwunder, the French Trente Glorieuses, Italy's extraordinary boom into an industrialisation Great Power.

Whereas Spain under Franco moved from 'starving hellhole' to simply 'backward'. And I shall not even mention that Franco himself was to no small extent responsible for the first part, the 'starving hellhole'.

Nope, I'm afraid that I didn't miss it. I count it as one of the many near criminal legacies of Franco. Because of Franco, Spain performed much, much, much worse than the comparable free nations of Europe during this time.

Louis, there was a little thing called a near-complete trade embargo following a long civil war. It's a miracle that Spain got to where it did. Remember, in most of Europe we had the Marshall Plan to help us, free money, etc. Spain got none of that, but still had to rebuild after a massive war. It's no wonder that Spain was backwards, and it says a lot for Franco that Spain did as well as it did.

This subject frustrates me to no end. It is so glaringly obvious that the democratic European nations after WWII economically drastically outperformed both the Communist and the authoritarian regimes. Yet, fellow travellers of both kind persist and persist and persist in singing the praise of the economic miracles of the dictatorships. They did it in 1958. And in 1968. And in 1978. And in 1988. And in 1998. And in 2008. :wall::wall::wall:

Naturally the democracies did better, and probably in a good part because of the free market, yes. But there were other factors as well.

KarlXII

08-24-2008, 23:28

6) Transitioned Spain to democracy.

Nope. With Franco's death, Juan Carlos I began the transition into democracy, and saw it completed, even though he was named the heir to Franco's rule.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-25-2008, 00:41

Nope. With Franco's death, Juan Carlos I began the transition into democracy, and saw it completed, even though he was named the heir to Franco's rule.

Franco made the succession of Juan Carlos possible.

LittleGrizzly

08-25-2008, 01:46

Franco made the succession of Juan Carlos possible.

If we follow this down a slightly longer path of succession we get to the fact that Stalin lead russia to democracy through various successions only possible because stalin was leader...

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-25-2008, 01:50

If we follow this down a slightly longer path of succession we get to the fact that Stalin lead russia to democracy through various successions only possible because stalin was leader...

No, we don't. Juan Carlos succeeded the throne of Spain because Franco wished him to take it. Juan Carlos owes his throne to Franco.

PBI

08-25-2008, 01:56

If it had been Franco's intention when naming his successor to name someone who would transform Spain to a Democracy, why did he not simply perform the transition himself?

Methinks you are giving credit where credit is not due.

LittleGrizzly

08-25-2008, 01:58

No, we don't. Juan Carlos succeeded the throne of Spain because Franco wished him to take it. Juan Carlos owes his throne to Franco.

That still doesn't give franco credit for the transition to democracy..

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-25-2008, 01:58

If it had been Franco's intention when naming his successor to name someone who would transform Spain to a Democracy, why did he not simply perform the transition himself?

Who knows? Perhaps he liked the power. Perhaps he didn't want to go through another upheaval in Spain in his lifetime. Nonetheless, Franco did facilitate the rise to power of who is now Juan Carlos I.

PBI

08-25-2008, 02:36

If the best that can be said of Franco is that he brought about the demise of his own regime it is hardly high praise.

Still, I maintain my original point: Franco appointed Juan Carlos as a successor to continue his regime, not a caretaker to oversee the transition to democracy. Clearly he did not choose very well since his successor promptly disbanded the regime he had been appointed to run. You are alleging good intentions where in fact there was only incompetence.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-25-2008, 02:36

If the best that can be said of Franco is that he brought about the demise of his own regime it is hardly high praise.

It was point five on a six point list. ~;)

Adrian II

08-25-2008, 08:03

It was point five on a six point list. ~;)You forgot point seven: Stalin paved the way for the end of the Cold War.

Banquo's Ghost

08-25-2008, 08:32

This discussion has developed a life of its own, far from the borders of China, and thus deserves its own thread.

I trust I have moved all the pertinent posts.

Please continue.

:bow:

CountArach

08-25-2008, 09:45

6) Transitioned Spain to democracy.
Yes, overthrowing a Democracy and putting in place a Dictatorship is truly the greatest way to transition a country into Democracy.

Seriously, that point had to be a joke, right?

Mikeus Caesar

08-25-2008, 09:54

The only downside I can think of with Franco's regime is executions, in which case there would've been little difference between him and the communists, and less likelihood of a good transition to democracy. Franco was not Spain's Mugabe in any way at all.

I'm guessing widespread political repression, repression of indigenous minorities, attempted cultural genocide of said minorities and usurping democracy in an attempt to seize power, thus causing a civil war that destroyed the country, ultimately resulting in Franco as the dictator and sole ruler aren't considered downsides?

Ronin

08-25-2008, 10:09

1) He stopped a communist takeover of Spain.

Yeah.... :inquisitive: just like Salazar did in Portugal....they stopped the communist takeover by instituting repressive right-wing fascist governments....one is not an improvement over the other.....repression is repression and death is death no matter the political ideology of the one doing it.

3) Actively protected Jews during WWII.

Yes Spain didn´t go into WWII....they went through that lovely thing called the Spanish Civil war instead.

6) Transitioned Spain to democracy.

That´s like saying that the people that picked Gorbachev to be the head of the USSR knew what it would lead to and can somehow claim responsibility...utter bollox.

you go talk to the average Spaniard and ask them what they think of Franco....I would suggest you wear a helmet just in case they throw something at you.

InsaneApache

08-25-2008, 10:54

The fascists had the best uniforms by far. They are the Gaultiers, whilst the communists were more Bon Marche.

Slyspy

08-25-2008, 17:23

1) He stopped a communist takeover of Spain.

Before the civil war the communists were an insignificant part of the Republic. It was the civil war, started by Franco, which gave the communists more power and influence than they could ever have dreamt of. This was, of course, because with the facist powers openly aiding Franco and the democratic West at best ignoring the Republic the only ally to be found was the good old USSR. Through the medium of the Comintern the Republic came to rely utterly on the USSR and hence on the native and foreign communists. Shame for the Republic that the Soviet equipment was so poor, their doctrines terribly flawed and the supply lines so long and uncertain.

KarlXII

08-25-2008, 19:01

As stated before, Franco appointed Juan Carlos I as heir to his rule, he gave him the authority, and Juan Carlos used that to transition Spain into democracy. Franco was not the reason Spain became a democracy. If you used that reasoning, Oscar the Second was the reason Norway dissolved the Union.

Louis VI the Fat

08-25-2008, 21:02

If you used that reasoning, Oscar the Second was the reason Norway dissolved the Union. Yeah, I was going to bring up Oscar the Second as well. :book:

Can't believe all you people here overlooked such an obvious example. Tsk. :no:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-25-2008, 23:14

I'm aware of the reasons why Franco is considered a bad ruler by some, and while I don't think he was great, I also don't think he did badly. It is a matter of opinion. :bow:

CountArach

08-25-2008, 23:17

I'm aware of the reasons why Franco is considered a bad ruler by some, and while I don't think he was great, I also don't think he did badly. It is a matter of opinion. :bow:
Yes, but when your justifications for that reason are based on factual inaccuracies, then your opinion really has no basis in reality.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-25-2008, 23:19

Yes, but when your justifications for that reason are based on factual inaccuracies, then your opinion really has no basis in reality.

Factual inaccuracies? While Franco was personally not responsible for the transition to democracy, Juan Carlos did owe his position to Franco.

KarlXII

08-25-2008, 23:27

Yeah, I was going to bring up Oscar the Second as well. :book:

Can't believe all you people here overlooked such an obvious example. Tsk. :no:

:2thumbsup:

The only downside I can think of with Franco's regime is executions,

And the political, cultural, and religious suppression that is ever so present in Dictatorships.

KarlXII

08-25-2008, 23:28

Factual inaccuracies? While Franco was personally not responsible for the transition to democracy, Juan Carlos did owe his position to Franco.

Do you think Franco's intent was to make Spain a democracy by giving the power to Juan Carlos I? The transition of democracy in Spain was Juan Carlos's doing, he could have very well siezed the power and continue the dictatorship.

Papewaio

08-25-2008, 23:41

Communist China will grow, Democractic China would flourish.

My own quote based on such situations as Facist Spain going from dictatorship to democracy.

Facism & Communism are two end points of a spectrum that have more in common with each other then the middle ground. In practice they are about the people serving the government. Both forms of government are intolerant of ideas, people who espouse them, differences of opinion, lateral thinking and individual initiative. Unless they allow the ruling class to show off more bling or have bigger weapons, which in the case of a space program allows both.

Franco is responsbile for Spain's rapid growth in the last decade. Only because he held them so far back that they only way was up.

Incongruous

08-25-2008, 23:45

Yes, overthrowing a Democracy and putting in place a Dictatorship is truly the greatest way to transition a country into Democracy.

Seriously, that point had to be a joke, right?

Yep that good old Spanish Republic before hand sure was great!:smash:

There was nothing moderate or good about the Republic by 1939, it was going to be run by commies and extremist socialists, they woulkd have turned Spain into another far left dictatorship.
So hold the pointing of fingers over who wanted to destroy freedom and democracy, unless you use both hands.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-25-2008, 23:50

Do you think Franco's intent was to make Spain a democracy by giving the power to Juan Carlos I? The transition of democracy in Spain was Juan Carlos's doing, he could have very well siezed the power and continue the dictatorship.

Whether Franco intended it or not, that move was undeniably a key in transitioning Spain to a democracy.

Yep that good Spanish democracy before hand sure was great!:smash:
Forgetting the massive persecution of religious communities are we?
Commies or fascists, if you pick you can't point.

Good point, and one I should have made myself. :bow:

PBI

08-25-2008, 23:56

Whether Franco intended it or not, that move was undeniably a key in transitioning Spain to a democracy.

I don't think anyone's denying this, I just don't understand why Franco making a poor choice (from his point of view) of successor in any way justifies his regime. Plenty of serial killers make a mistake which results in them getting caught, but there is a world of difference between that and them deliberately handing themselves in to the police.

Incongruous

08-25-2008, 23:56

Actually, to be fair I believe that those persecutions were only begun after the hostilities began and not before. Although the Republic did wish to get rid of the church even though the rural regions still wanted it.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-26-2008, 00:07

I don't think anyone's denying this

Good.

I just don't understand why Franco making a poor choice (from his point of view) of successor in any way justifies his regime.

It doesn't. It was one point on a six point list. It was just a statement of fact, though perhaps poorly worded.

Actually, to be fair I believe that those persecutions were only begun after the hostilities began and not before. Although the Republic did wish to get rid of the church even though the rural regions still wanted it.

Catholic priests in the Spanish Republic were being killed as early as 1934.

PBI

08-26-2008, 00:33

It doesn't. It was one point on a six point list. It was just a statement of fact, though perhaps poorly worded.

My understanding was that the purpose of the list was to give reasons for why Franco's regime was not as bad as it is often made out to be. If this point does not in fact justify Franco's regime in any way, what was it doing on the list at all?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-26-2008, 00:36

My understanding was that the purpose of the list was to give reasons for why Franco's regime was not as bad as it is often made out to be. If this point does not in fact justify Franco's regime in any way, what was it doing on the list at all?

Ask Evil_Maniac From Mars II. It's my alternate personality, takes over when I pull an all-nighter. :wall:

~;)

PBI

08-26-2008, 01:20

Fair enough then.

Incidentally, this discussion of Franco's fascists has put me in the mood to watch the excellent Pan's Labyrinth. Can't say it's exactly giving me warm fuzzy feelings about fascists. It also quite nicely illustrates two of the reasons I loathe fascism so deeply: Its anti-intellectualism, and its pointless macho militarism. As far as I'm concerned fascism is just as broken and hopeless a philosophy as communism.

And for what it's worth, I don't buy any of this "Nazis were not fascists" nonsense. The only distinction I can see is that the Nazis heaped a large dollop of anti-semitic paranoia on top of their fascism.

The fascists had the best uniforms by far. They are the Gaultiers, whilst the communists were more Bon Marche.

I don't know how you can say that. Murderous war criminal he may be, but no political extremist looks better in a photo than Che Guevara.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-26-2008, 01:22

PBI

08-26-2008, 01:29

Not disputing that at all.

HoreTore

08-26-2008, 01:31

Whether Franco intended it or not, that move was undeniably a key in transitioning Spain to a democracy.

You do realize that Franco could've just.... you know, NOT created a dictatorship in the first place...? You realize that he could've helped build a democracy instead...?

But he did not do that, he choose a path of brutal oppression and murder instead. There is nothing right about such men. That you are capable of admiring a brutal murderer is quite frankly beyond me.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-26-2008, 01:43

Reverend Joe

08-26-2008, 02:14

How many prominent warriors and generals of the past do you admire? At a Total War forum, chances are that you admire some, and given history, that some of them committed murder. Anyways, that's not the point. You can be quite capable of admiring people for the good points while also recognizing (or ignoring) their faults. Just look at how most people think of Churchill.
:inquisitive: I'm fairly sure that Churchill has fewer faults than Franco... such as not singlehandedly destroying a country.

And the Communists really don't apply to this conversation. Yes, they probably would have turned out just as bad, but then we would be having a discussion with someone about how the Communists weren't all that bad. Comparing the Spanish Communists to Franco is like comparing two clones of the devil with different shirts on.

Incongruous

08-26-2008, 03:30

You do realize that Franco could've just.... you know, NOT created a dictatorship in the first place...? You realize that he could've helped build a democracy instead...?

But he did not do that, he choose a path of brutal oppression and murder instead. There is nothing right about such men. That you are capable of admiring a brutal murderer is quite frankly beyond me.

You do realise the context don't you?
Those guys he fought and killed were just as brutal and murderous. The Second Spanish Republic was a joke, it deserved to fall.

Incongruous

08-26-2008, 03:32

:inquisitive: I'm fairly sure that Churchill has fewer faults than Franco... such as not singlehandedly destroying a country.

And the Communists really don't apply to this conversation. Yes, they probably would have turned out just as bad, but then we would be having a discussion with someone about how the Communists weren't all that bad. Comparing the Spanish Communists to Franco is like comparing two clones of the devil with different shirts on.

Why don;t they apply? Their dominance of the '39 government is what sparked the military rebellion, without them and their brutal methods of control, such as the murders of priests, I doubt Franco could have pulled it off. It's all complementary and it is completely useless to discuss it otherwise.

CountArach

08-26-2008, 07:32

Tribesman

08-26-2008, 08:19

So Franco was great because he was an evil murdering git but there was a chance that some other evil murdering git might of had his job , he helped Spains economy by ruining Spains economy , he helped bring democracy by finally dying and thus ending his dictatorship .....and .....errrrr...... he wore a pretty uniform and had real shine on his boots .
Yeah Franco was great and I can see how people can admire him and his regime .

Ironside

08-26-2008, 08:48

Yep that good old Spanish Republic before hand sure was great!:smash:

There was nothing moderate or good about the Republic by 1939, it was going to be run by commies and extremist socialists, they woulkd have turned Spain into another far left dictatorship.
So hold the pointing of fingers over who wanted to destroy freedom and democracy, unless you use both hands.

I assume that you mean 1936, as the Spanish republic by 1939 were quite small. As for the far left dictorship, it would depend which faction that took power, to put out the 2 most extremes, the imported Stalinists would've been worse than Franco, while the anarcho-socialists wouldn't been creating a dictorship at all.

You do realise the context don't you?
Those guys he fought and killed were just as brutal and murderous. The Second Spanish Republic was a joke, it deserved to fall.

As said above it depends, the Nationalists (the Fascists were only one faction) killed more than 5 times more people and were more top down, while the people killed on the Republican side were often killed due to the original chaos (the entire law structure fell apart on the Republican side for the first months).

So going by the war actions, the Nationalists were much more brutal and murderous.

Why don;t they apply? Their dominance of the '39 government is what sparked the military rebellion, without them and their brutal methods of control, such as the murders of priests, I doubt Franco could have pulled it off. It's all complementary and it is completely useless to discuss it otherwise.

That Spain was an explosive power ken at that point is true, in many ways it was a delayed peasant rebellion incoming. So you are correct that it would most likely be a civil war if the nationalists won the election as well.

And for what it's worth, I don't buy any of this "Nazis were not fascists" nonsense. The only distinction I can see is that the Nazis heaped a large dollop of anti-semitic paranoia on top of their fascism.

There were plenty of anti-semitism amoung the Spanish facists. It never went into something more organised though.

JR-

08-26-2008, 11:28

And the Communists really don't apply to this conversation. Yes, they probably would have turned out just as bad, but then we would be having a discussion with someone about how the Communists weren't all that bad. Comparing the Spanish Communists to Franco is like comparing two clones of the devil with different shirts on.

i agree that either would be a terrible result for spain, but......

they were at least not using the enemies (post WW2) ideology, which meant that NATO did not have a fifth column in its rear post 1945.

so yes, in the absence of any certainty of a democratic spain post civil-war then i am content with franco.

HoreTore

08-26-2008, 12:14

so yes, in the absence of any certainty of a democratic spain post civil-war then i am content with franco.

What a nicely raised middle finger at the victims of Franco and their families.

You do realise the context don't you?
Those guys he fought and killed were just as brutal and murderous. The Second Spanish Republic was a joke, it deserved to fall.

Some of the men he killed may have been brutal murderers too, but how does that justify all of the completely innocent people he killed...?

How many prominent warriors and generals of the past do you admire? At a Total War forum, chances are that you admire some, and given history, that some of them committed murder.

I'm sorry, but no, I don't, actually.

Anyways, that's not the point. You can be quite capable of admiring people for the good points while also recognizing (or ignoring) their faults. Just look at how most people think of Churchill.

State committed murder is not a fault I can forgive, ignore or overlook. That's completely inexcusable. And as a conservative, I thought you agreed with that. Oh well, you learn something new every day, I guess...

Sarmatian

08-26-2008, 14:54

Communist China will grow, Democractic China would flourish.

According to estimates, China's GDP in 2050 will be about 70,000 billion dollars (compared to estimated 38,000 billion of US in 2050 for example) while at the moment is a 3,000 something billions.

If that's not flourishing, then I don't know what it is...

Louis VI the Fat

08-26-2008, 15:42

If that's not flourishing, then I don't know what it is...It isn't. And I do know just what, exactly, is meant by flourishing then: Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan. Free Chinese. Wealthy Chinese. Flourishing Chinese.

If China hadn't been communist, then economically it would already have been where it will be in 2050. China isn't growing because of its dictatorial regime, it has been prevented from growing owing to its regime.

And if their autocratic regime is changed for a democratic regime, it will also be flourishing in other aspects besides the economy.

HoreTore

08-26-2008, 16:01

Louis has it spot on. China is in particular suffering from extreme corruption, a signature trait of dictatorships.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-26-2008, 16:40

What a nicely raised middle finger at the victims of Franco and their families.

Perhaps, but being realistic, that was the better of the two or three options Spain was given.

Some of the men he killed may have been brutal murderers too, but how does that justify all of the completely innocent people he killed...?

It doesn't.

State committed murder is not a fault I can forgive, ignore or overlook. That's completely inexcusable. And as a conservative, I thought you agreed with that. Oh well, you learn something new every day, I guess...

I don't like state engineered murder either. I am against the death penalty except in extreme cases, I am completely for a citizen's rights. I recognize that this was a flaw in the Falagalist government.

Jolt

08-26-2008, 16:49

Before the civil war the communists were an insignificant part of the Republic. It was the civil war, started by Franco, which gave the communists more power and influence than they could ever have dreamt of. This was, of course, because with the facist powers openly aiding Franco and the democratic West at best ignoring the Republic the only ally to be found was the good old USSR. Through the medium of the Comintern the Republic came to rely utterly on the USSR and hence on the native and foreign communists. Shame for the Republic that the Soviet equipment was so poor, their doctrines terribly flawed and the supply lines so long and uncertain.

What the... Do you know that the Comunists had in fact so much power prior to the Civil War (As they were themselves in the 1936 Government) that there was great fear arising from the Conservatives that there would be a Communist revolution? Prior to the Civil War, the Left was basically the only political force in politics of Spain, with the moderate Socialists refusing to take part in the Government, made the Republican Government Communist. Then the leader of the Communist Party of Spain began being hailed by the major Soviet newspaper as "The Lenin of Spain", basically already anticipating what was going to happen. It was very clear what was going to happen.

With a minority of moderates in the Government, the Communists would use their democratic tools to outlaw right-wing parties, and soon after moderate left-wing parties. With that, done, they could proceed to changing the constitution and creating a communist state. No need for "Civil War" to give the communists more power.

Stalin knew very well that if the Republicans won the Civil War, then there was a major possibility of the instalation of the Communists in power. And ally across Europe. Therefore it makes a lot of sense for him to help a communist government under the guise of republicanism to win.

From the opposite camp, who did have grave fears for a Communist Coup in Spain was Portugal, who could very well be overthrown themselves by a Communist coup, following up the Spanish one. That explains why Portugal allowed Spanish divisions to retreat to Portugal incase of defeat. (This gave the Nationalists a gigantic strategic advantage over the Republicans.)

Sarmatian

08-26-2008, 17:06

It isn't. And I do know just what, exactly, is meant by flourishing then: Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan. Free Chinese. Wealthy Chinese. Flourishing Chinese.

If China hadn't been communist, then economically it would already have been where it will be in 2050. China isn't growing because of its dictatorial regime, it has been prevented from growing owing to its regime.

And if their autocratic regime is changed for a democratic regime, it will also be flourishing in other aspects besides the economy.

I beg to differ. Opening up China's market totally after 1949 when instead of "hello" people used to greet each other with "have you eaten today" would have been a disaster, as we've seen in Russia in 1991 - Russian economy collapsed and average salary went below Soviet times. Population was impoverished while a small number oligarchs bought companies worth billions for a few bottles of vodka. In China's case where poverty was the norm and where no institutions existed it was far better to gradually open up.

If you need any more proof, just take a look at China's GDP in 1950 and estimated in 2050 and compare it to any open market economy in the world in a hundred years period. Not the actual figures, just the growth in percentages...

Just to be sure, I'm talking about economy and nothing else. I agree that China should be more liberal but that too will come in time. As I've said in another thread not so long ago, it took two centuries for black people to get their rights recognized in the United States, and one could argue that there are still sporadic cases where their rights have been violated. No changes come over night, especially in big countries.

JR-

08-26-2008, 17:16

What a nicely raised middle finger at the victims of Franco and their families.

and..............?

some other country is going to get a crap deal whichever way it turns out, so is there anything wrong in being satisfied that at least the ideology your country opposes isn't the victor?

:inquisitive:

PBI

08-26-2008, 19:04

and..............?

some other country is going to get a crap deal whichever way it turns out, so is there anything wrong in being satisfied that at least the ideology your country opposes isn't the victor?

:inquisitive:

Uhm, since when was fascism the ideology that the UK was not opposed to? I seem to recall us fighting a World War against it in fact.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-26-2008, 19:13

Uhm, since when was fascism the ideology that the UK was not opposed to? I seem to recall us fighting a World War against it in fact.

I think the UK was also very much opposed to communism for a long time before and after the war. ~;)

PBI

08-26-2008, 19:14

Yes. But it is simply not true to say that "the ideology we opposed did not come to power".

Slyspy

08-26-2008, 19:50

What the... Do you know that the Comunists had in fact so much power prior to the Civil War (As they were themselves in the 1936 Government) that there was great fear arising from the Conservatives that there would be a Communist revolution? Prior to the Civil War, the Left was basically the only political force in politics of Spain, with the moderate Socialists refusing to take part in the Government, made the Republican Government Communist. Then the leader of the Communist Party of Spain began being hailed by the major Soviet newspaper as "The Lenin of Spain", basically already anticipating what was going to happen. It was very clear what was going to happen.

With a minority of moderates in the Government, the Communists would use their democratic tools to outlaw right-wing parties, and soon after moderate left-wing parties. With that, done, they could proceed to changing the constitution and creating a communist state. No need for "Civil War" to give the communists more power.

Stalin knew very well that if the Republicans won the Civil War, then there was a major possibility of the instalation of the Communists in power. And ally across Europe. Therefore it makes a lot of sense for him to help a communist government under the guise of republicanism to win.

From the opposite camp, who did have grave fears for a Communist Coup in Spain was Portugal, who could very well be overthrown themselves by a Communist coup, following up the Spanish one. That explains why Portugal allowed Spanish divisions to retreat to Portugal incase of defeat. (This gave the Nationalists a gigantic strategic advantage over the Republicans.)

The politics of the time before the civil war are indeed rather murky. For example if I recall Largo Caballero was the leader of the PSOE not the PCE. Further Caballero's speeches were worrying both his republican allies and his communist allies while Soviet support of the Republic wasn't given the nod by Stalin until September 1936.

You are correct, however in saying that the communists (that is the parties that were increasingly in thrall to the communists) were a force in the 1936 elections. The Comintern had been busy for years and troubled times breed radicalism. Complete unity between the other left-wing factions would have been necessary to contol them, an unlikely possibility. However prior to 1936, in the early days of the Republic when the seeds of civil war were sown, the communists were far less of an influence.

With the rise of the radicals at both ends of the political spectrums came the rise of the paramilitaries, on the one hand the Falangist and other right wing groups and then on the other, with the forces of government seeming increasingly impotent, those of the left, such as the communist MAOC. Already both sides were busy buying weapons.

The readiness and relative discipline of the communist militias made them a natural cadre for the Republic during the civil war especially since the better equipped and more eperienced elements of the pre-war army the tended to side with the facists. Hence as the war lengthened the armed forces of the Republic became increasingly communist controlled. By the end they were in a large part independent of the government and much more powerful.

Uhm, since when was fascism the ideology that the UK was not opposed to? I seem to recall us fighting a World War against it in fact.

One of the reasons that the Republic had to beholden itself to the USSR is that no one else would help. The fact is that the UK was more worried by a democratic but left-wing government than a facist coup resulting in a dictatorship. The Royal Navy even blockaded Republican ports while letting the Nationalist move at will. Concrete evidence of German and Italian involvment on the facist side was ignored despite the Non-Intervention Pact. Pah, we did much the same in 1939. Impotence in the face of militant facism coupled with a deep fear of communism. The UK wasn't the only one: IIRC the US refused to sell oil to the Republic.

CountArach

08-26-2008, 23:50

Uhm, since when was fascism the ideology that the UK was not opposed to? I seem to recall us fighting a World War against it in fact.
You were clearly fighting the Communo-Fascists. Completely different thing. Get the story straight :rolleyes:

Incongruous

08-27-2008, 01:47

Um, ok so we can all agree that neither of the two sides were any good for Spain?
Or are some people actually in support of commies? If that is the case you are just as strange as those who support fascists...

HoreTore

08-27-2008, 03:12

Perhaps, but being realistic, that was the better of the two or three options Spain was given.

How can you ignore free will so completely? Instead of becoming what he became, Franco could've used his drive and ambition to becoming a champion for a fair and democratic country! But, since he was a complete :daisy:, he did not and instead he devoted his time to being a petty murderer instead of a great leader.

I recognize that this was a flaw in the Falagalist government.

You "recognize it as a flaw"...?

Pray tell, what can a government do that is worse than killing off their own population...?

Or are some people actually in support of commies? If that is the case you are just as strange as those who support fascists...

I can't speak for anyone but myself, of course, but I'm solely in support of the democratic powers. You know, the ones who aren't murderers.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-27-2008, 03:15

HoreTore, what democratic powers?

HoreTore

08-27-2008, 03:22

HoreTore, what democratic powers?

The few who existed, the ones who would be inclined to support such a movement, and what Franco could've chosen to do instead of installing a brutal kill-machine.

Incongruous

08-27-2008, 03:32

The few who existed, the ones who would be inclined to support such a movement, and what Franco could've chosen to do instead of installing a brutal kill-machine.

Who?

The Republic was controlled by a bunch of commie nutters who were just asking for a fight with some fascist nutters.

Franco was not a nice man, he was rather horrible, but he was not the only one who didn't give a fig for democracy, such as the commies.

CountArach

08-27-2008, 09:04

The Republic was controlled by a bunch of commie nutters who were just asking for a fight with some fascist nutters.
How do you know the Commies were spoiling for a fight? They were not in control of the majority of the government on their own, and I doubt the Anarchists would have supported state-sponsored killings.

JR-

08-27-2008, 10:08

Uhm, since when was fascism the ideology that the UK was not opposed to? I seem to recall us fighting a World War against it in fact.

read and learn:

i agree that either would be a terrible result for spain, but......

they were at least not using the enemies (post WW2) ideology, which meant that NATO did not have a fifth column in its rear post 1945.

so yes, in the absence of any certainty of a democratic spain post civil-war then i am content with franco.
spains ideology in isolation matters not one jot (when we consider only the extremes), what matters is spains ideology when we face the potential of nuclear holocaust due the cold war going 'bad' from an opposing ideology.

do i think the West's life would have been easier/better with a commie fifth-column in NATO's rear? no.