When choosing between evil and evil, you can always choose good(franco debate)

In response to this by Bopa, in another thread:

Quote:

---

Uhuh, you think the Catholic peasants of Spain should have gone along with the vehemently anti-Catholic Communists instead? Yeah they really sorted Russia out, what a load...

It was not a much of choice was it? Fascists or Communists?
Care to start up another thread about the civil war in Spain? I would be glad to discuss the Catholocism of Franco with you

---

....which I believe is nonsense. The fascists didn't have to choose fascism, they choose it because they supported it, end of story. Democracy was already invented, people knew about it, they could've stood up and fought for it instead of supporting loonies. But they were loonies themselves, and as such they supported the loonie.

Stop making excuses for dictators. Franco didn't choose to become a murdering sadist because he had no other choice, he became a murdering sadist because he was one. He could've chosen devote his life to the defense of freedom. He did not. He choose to devote himself to tyranny. There is nothing good about such men.

Umm, HoreTore, I was refering to the Spanish peasents, so go ahead if you want to call those poor buggers that "supported" Franco fascists, I suppose we can call those peasants in Russia that "supported" that peasant slaying git Trotsky Commies then?

Angry that communism ends in something very similar to fascism, what with all the mass murders and persecutions of certain sectors of society?

You could line them all up against one wall, they would be holding hands.

Scum is scum and Franco was absolute scum.

So what's the choice then? Fascism or communism? Or Fascism or democracy? Communism or democracy?

I'm a bit rusty on the Spanish Civil War, I don't recall anyone fighting just for democracy in it. I thought it was a straight left/right wing ideology thingy.

I'm happy to be educated though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

So what's the choice then? Fascism or communism? Or Fascism or democracy? Communism or democracy?

I'm a bit rusty on the Spanish Civil War, I don't recall anyone fighting just for democracy in it. I thought it was a straight left/right wing ideology thingy.

I'm happy to be educated though.

---

The Socialist/Communists/Anarchists were the Democratically elected Government and hence they could claim to be fighting for Democracy. In reality though they could largely be considered the Stalinist wing of Spanish politics. The Nationalist Right revolted against the Government not long after the elections and as such the war was fought. It took on a heavily ideological tone for that reason.

So to be clear, it's a choice between an authoritarian one party state and a totalitarian one party state. Not much to shout about.

I say damn both their eyes. Socialism and fascism, two cheeks of the same arse.

I always thought that the Republicans were in fact fairly moderate and democratic, but were often misunderstood internationally as the far-left faction, and that was why many workers from the Clydeside and other areas of Scotland went to fight for them.

The leftist Popular Front won the election democratically, but several acts of violence were committed against the Church by left-wing supporters following the election. This increased the level of instability. That said, Franco revolted against the elected government, so his actions were totally anti-democratic and authoritarian.

I always thought that the Republicans were in fact fairly moderate and democratic, but were often misunderstood internationally as the far-left faction,

This is what i assumed, the left wingers simply got aid of russia and other kinds of material support in the same way america sometimes support rights wing goverments, i mean if you can get free help because you happen to share an ideaology why not ? it makes them no more lackey's than bolivia to venezula as one example, i think the facists just couldn't stomach the will of the people so tried to subvert the oppositions message

and that was why many workers from the Clydeside and other areas of Scotland went to fight for them.

I think some welsh did as well... from a manic street preachers song "So if I can shoot rabbits, Then I can shoot fascists" and very well said too!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I always thought that the Republicans were in fact fairly moderate and democratic, but were often misunderstood internationally as the far-left faction, and that was why many workers from the Clydeside and other areas of Scotland went to fight for them.

---

Wasn't quite that clean. The socialists were pro-democracy more or less. Problem is that they were in a coalition with the Spainish communists (the darkside of a PR system). Which really worked against them. The pro-church and pro-monarchy conservative factions really didn't trust the communists. And in the 1935 parlimentary elections there were "voting irregularities." The conservatives blamed them on the government. But really the blame could be put to the really fringe elements of both ruling parties. Which lead to the socialist/communist government becoming more authoritarian. Which led the army in Morroco to revolt. Which led to the civil war.

I would say that the Republicans were pretty left-wing, not moderate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Which led the army in Morroco to revolt. Which led to the civil war.

---

Well there is lot more going on there if you want to be very specific, but in general that sums it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

So what's the choice then? Fascism or communism? Or Fascism or democracy? Communism or democracy?

I'm a bit rusty on the Spanish Civil War, I don't recall anyone fighting just for democracy in it. I thought it was a straight left/right wing ideology thingy.

I'm happy to be educated though.

---

My point was that the choice wasn't just between fascism and communism. People knew about democracy, they knew about freedom. They could've fought for it. Just like both Franco and the communists could have done. There was nothing forcing anyone to become murderers, they became that because they wanted it.

I doubt that anyone can think that Spain has choosen bad.
Spanish communists if wasn't center fraction - they belong to far left part of socialism ideology. And people were afraid when after victory into elections they broke their promises and started changing country into soviet republic.
What would happen if Spain became another Soviet Republic? Country would be definitely much poorer than now and would loose much more people than under General Franco government.
Getting poor was typical for every country that became communist republic.
Look at Romania - before ww2 they were rich, nowadays.....

I think Franco was good leader. If I live into 30ties I would support him. He won civil war and then ....
he did not join ww2, increased country, unite it. And do you know why I respect him most - for the way he lost leadership. He knew that he is not immortal, so he coped about future of the country.
It prooves that he did not want be ruler for ... being ruler. Leadership was just a way to reach objective, not objective itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

My point was that the choice wasn't just between fascism and communism. People knew about democracy, they knew about freedom. They could've fought for it. Just like both Franco and the communists could have done. There was nothing forcing anyone to become murderers, they became that because they wanted it.

---

No HoreTore, you selected a quote of mine which was talking most specifically about the Spanish peasants, no one else. Just becasue they new democracy was "invented" does in no way mean hey could have supported it. It was not he democrats holding the big guns and threatening them with death...

A bit like the commies in Russia.

Well, saying Franco was a Fascist is a little misconstrued. Yes, he was a bastard that intentionally and willingly fought and thereafter persecuted the Republicans (White Terror). However, he also probably saved the Country the headache of having to deal with the Germans, which Spain at that point could not have dealt with, so inevitably a Fascist was going to be in power, its the difference between Franco's "Fascist Light" and Nationalist Socialist. He also walked the tight rope pressure of both Nazi Germany and Italy from entering the war (Volunteering the Spanish Blue Company to fight for the Germans on the Eastern Front seemed a good assurance he wasn't working against them), but he didn't agree with the holocaust, and gave home to thousands of Jews fleeing from France (in secrecy of course) so his intentions weren't terrible, just poorly executed. And at the end of the Dictatorship, he did give the Country back to the King, who he knew was going to establish democratic power again. However, I in no way could ever condone his actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

So to be clear, it's a choice between an authoritarian one party state and a totalitarian one party state. Not much to shout about.

I say damn both their eyes. Socialism and fascism, two cheeks of the same arse.

---

Aye, one would say this would be the inevitable conclusion for those who look back on Europe's 20th century. :yes:

When choosing between evil and evil, you can always choose good. Spain didn't have to choose between fascism and communism. It's just that followers of either thought - and persist in thinking - this was the only choice, while laying the blame entirely at the other faction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Aye, one would say this would be the inevitable conclusion for those who look back on Europe's 20th century. :yes:

When choosing between evil and evil, you can always choose good. Spain didn't have to choose between fascism and communism. It's just that followers of either thought - and persist in thinking - this was the only choice, while laying the blame entirely at the other faction.

---

A bit like two cheeks slapping together to stifle debate?

I guess the problem is that noone dared open a third party, similar to the american two party system where noone dares voting for a third party because "they won't win anyway", so everyone goes with one of the available bad choices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I guess the problem is that noone dared open a third party, similar to the american two party system where noone dares voting for a third party because "they won't win anyway", so everyone goes with one of the available bad choices.

---

That makes sense. If you're looking at two coalitions who do have a chance of winning, and the moderates losing massively, you're probably going to go for the one who you think will do the least harm.

Obviously Fascism was the better choice. Even cut off from Europe after a devastating war, Spain was far more successful that the communist states - who were able to coordinate with each other.

Wasn't there infighting between the anarchists and the stalinists amongst the left-wing groups?

I imagine the latter won and perpetuated more of the evil on the left side...

From my little bits of research, the Republicans were more openly anarchist or Syndicalist than Stalinist. It just so happened that the most powerful Communist country (who also supported them during the civil war) at the time was also perhaps the most (or at least second most) Authoritarian. Although, in all fairness, to say that the Republicans weren't Authoritative in many senses would be falsifying factual evidence; especially that Manuel Azana had open contempt with the Church since before the beginning of the conflict, so it was a lose-lose situation for the Spanish people from the start. The Republicans, for all the Socialist liberty spewing, leftist nonsense couldn't stand a belligerent protagonist right-wing fairly large minority; and in the advent of the White Terror, would have instead probably suffered a Red Terror eventually. The Nationalists knew this, and acted with proper discretion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Wasn't there infighting between the anarchists and the stalinists amongst the left-wing groups?

I imagine the latter won and perpetuated more of the evil on the left side...

---

Yeah, Anarchists wouldn't have supported state-sponsored killing, but I believe they were not the majority of the coalition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Wasn't there infighting between the anarchists and the stalinists amongst the left-wing groups?

I imagine the latter won and perpetuated more of the evil on the left side...

---

There were more fractions involved on the left than stalinists (they were for example different from the Spanish communists) and anarchists, but there was most infighting between these factions.

And yes, thanks to that the only international support was from SU and the aggressive way of spreading stalinism, that originally very weak facion ended up being the dominant one during the course of the war. The anarchists on the other hand started out very strong, but due to thier anarchist nature they were politically and later on militarly outmanuvered.

“Wasn't there infighting between the anarchists and the stalinists amongst the left-wing groups?” And between Communist (Trotskist and Stalinists) as well.

“Obviously Fascism was the better choice. Even cut off from Europe after a devastating war, Spain was far more successful that the communist states - who were able to coordinate with each other.” As History shows in Argentina, Chile, Paraguay and all the Central and South America states which tried this path…:laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

As History shows in Argentina, Chile, Paraguay and all the Central and South America states which tried this path…

---

What so funny Brenus? Compare it to happy communist countries whom were allowed to rise under safe protection of USSR.

Show me communist country rich enough to be compared with normal (China does not count - they are communists only from name) state. Actually mentioned by you Chile is good example what normal people should do with anarchists and communists trying to take authority.

What exactly? That when you over throw a lefty president and institute mass kidnappings and touture and institute a lessie fair system that screwed the economy just as bad as a communist command system.

My favourite judge, Baltasar Garzón, is at it again. I loved how he gave Pinochet a miserable last few years. Now he's going after Franco's henchmen.

I hope they will put several to trail. I am not one easy to forgive. Just like I rejoice whenever someone hunts down an 88 year old nazi in Paraguay, so I welcomed Garzón's project of stirring up Spain in the last few years. Forgive and forget? Nope. I say trace 'em down and make 'em pay.

Quote:

---

A Spanish judge today ordered the grave of poet and playwright Federico García Lorca be dug up as, for the first time ever, the violent repression unleashed by the dictator General Francisco Franco was formally declared a crime against humanity.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

What so funny Brenus? Compare it to happy communist countries whom were allowed to rise under safe protection of USSR.

Show me communist country rich enough to be compared with normal (China does not count - they are communists only from name) state. Actually mentioned by you Chile is good example what normal people should do with anarchists and communists trying to take authority.

---

All Communist States are/were Communists only in name.