Franco: The dictator's legacy to modern Spain

[KarlXII]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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!
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.

[PBI]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[PBI]

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]

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.

Oh, please. The fighters that the film portrays as heroes were just as bad as the fascists.

[PBI]

Not disputing that at all.

[HoreTore]

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]

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.

[Reverend Joe]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

Ah ha! Finally someone admits we are not the same as Fascists!

Complaining about them being run by Socialists means nothing to me - you will have to come up with an argument that I don't find appealing. Besides, we weren't the ones who overthrew the Democracy

[Tribesman]

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]

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

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-]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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]

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]

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-]

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?

[PBI]

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?

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.