Nationalists of Spain

[Karl Marx's Camel]

To those who are restricted to OI:

What is your view of the Nationalists in Spain?

What is your view on Franco?

What is your view on the church of Spain at that time?

[Tupac-Amaru]

They're fascists.

He's an evil fascist.

Very oppresive; censorship, conservative views, didn't allow bikinis...

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

What about the fact that he was pro-Nazi and imperialist (in the traditional sense)? He allied himself with basically everbody who sucked -- the US and their fascist lackeys in Latin America, Nazi Germany, Mussolini, Salazar, et. al.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The nazis never gave Franco his demands, as far I know.
He joined them after France was succesfully invaded.

[t_wolves_fan]

Don't know but I highly recommend San Fermin.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 07:18 PM
He was an old school monarchist in the early days of the civil war he stated numerous times he wanted to return the spainish king to the throne kinda funnywith in a year king was sent far away and there was no more talk about after franco had a taste of power.
Franco was no Carlist

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by patton+Sep 29 2006, 04:44 PM--> (patton @ Sep 29 2006, 04:44 PM)
Dr. [email protected] 29 2006, 07:26 PM
The nazis never gave Franco his demands, as far I know.
He joined them after France was succesfully invaded.
When ever the germans and italians approched him about joining there side in the war he gave them insane demands for huge amounts of cash. He never declared war on anyone after france fell. He sold them guns. [/b]
You haven't refuted the argument that Franco didn't join Germany because Hitler gave him stuff because Hitler didn't give him stuff. Obviously Franco joined because he's a fascist. To what extent he supported the axis countries is irrelevent.

[Herman]

Don't know but I highly recommend San Fermin.

Do you even know what that is?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 05:33 PM
I think the reason Franco bla bla bla bla bla I think if they had meet he would bla bla bla bla bla bla bla I dont think Franco had any intention bla bla bla bla bla i think he gave them bla bla bla bla bla bla
yeah whatever

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by patton+Sep 29 2006, 06:14 PM--> (patton @ Sep 29 2006, 06:14 PM) Dr Rosenpenis if Franco were a real why didn't he join the axis? Certainly after the first 2 years when it looked the axis going to win if Franco was real facist he would have joined that fact he didn't speaks volumes of what his true politcal colors were. [/b]
This speaks even more volumes of what his true politcal colors were.


wikipedia.org
After the war, a very harsh repression began, with thousands of summary executions, an unknown number of political prisoners and tens of thousands of people in exile, largely in France and Latin America. The 1940 shooting of the president of the Catalan government, Lluís Companys, was one of the most notable cases of this early repression, while the major groups targeted were real and suspected leftists, ranging from the moderate, democratic left to Communists and Anarchists, the Spanish intelligentsia, atheists and military and government figures who had remained loyal to the Madrid government during the war. The bloodshed in Spain did not end with the cessation of hostilities; many political prisoners suffered execution by the firing squad, under the accusation of treason by martial courts.

So does the fact that he was an ally of Hitler, Mussolini, Salazar, Greece, the US and it's right-wing military lackey regimes at the time, like Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Panama, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Haiti, and basically every other fascist/fascist-supporting country at the time.

[ZX3]

Franco used the Fascists to get what he wanted. Hitler met Franco once; they both disliked each other. There was never a Berlin-Rome-Madrid Axis. By 1940 Hitler concluded he had made an error backing Franco. He met with exiled Republican leaders and found them far more to his liking. This of course is no surprise.

[SPK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 10:20 PM
[Hitler] met with exiled Republican leaders and found them far more to his liking.
WTF? Please tell us your what your sources are for this claim.

[Free Left]

He met with exiled Republican leaders and found them far more to his liking.

Give me one credible source of information as to why Hitler would give two shits about the exiled Republican leaders and would arrange a meeting with them.

[mauvaise foi]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 06:48 PM
I view the Nationalists exactly like the Republicans both sides were brutal like in every other civil war.

The Nationalists were not "exactly like" the Republican; they were far worse. Even if we accept the reactionary Roman Catholic historian Paul Johnson's figure: that the number of innocents killed by both sides was about the same (around 50,000), this figure ignores two things:

1. It ignores the Franquista Terror that took place after the Civil War, which killed many more innocents.

2. It ignores the fact that most of the murders on the Republican side were committed by individuals or private groups (usually anarchists), and they were not directed by the Spanish government or the leadership of the Loyalist movement, where as the vast majority of murders on the Fascist side were directed by right-wing generals at the head of the Fascist movement.

Also, Franco did join the Axis, in actuality if not in theory. He sent a division of "volunteers" to fight the Soviet Union in the Ukraine on the side of the Germans. Franco was therefore directly helped Nazi Germany's war effort and indirectly helped its genocide in Eastern Europe. This ought to do a little bit to deflate any claims that Franco "saved the Jews" in Spain. He may have saved a few Jews in Spain, but he certainly didn't give a shit about Jews in the USSR.

[black magick hustla]

Franco was more of a pragmatist rather than an "ideological fascist".

He could be considered in a similar vein to Peron.

[mauvaise foi]

Ya only according to you guys the reds to rest of the free thinking takes s far diffrent view.

Huh?


What about all the red terror that was going on pre war and post war i find funny how you reds always try to make the other side look worse when there is just as much blood on your hands as there on theres.

Pre-war "Red Terror?" I already addressed this:


2. It ignores the fact that most of the murders on the Republican side were committed by individuals or private groups (usually anarchists), and they were not directed by the Spanish government or the leadership of the Loyalist movement, where as the vast majority of murders on the Fascist side were directed by right-wing generals at the head of the Fascist movement.

As far as a post-war terror from the left in Spain, I don't know what you are talking about. It would be pretty hard for the Republicans to organize a Red Terror after the war considering they lost the war.

For anyone who wants to learn anything about the Spanish Civil War, try starting with this article:
http://www.counterpunch.org/navarro07192006.html

[bezdomni]

red red red freethinking reds overthrow freethinking reds reds reds you reds full of shit red terror reds freethinking

patton

[mauvaise foi]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 02:47 PM
Of course the crimes were commited lone anarchist not directed by the government. Right..................
Yeah, the crimes (such as murder of clergy before and during the war) were committed by anarchists, and were not directed by the government. (it wouldn't make much sense if anarchists were being directed by the government, now would it?) Also, these crimes (and they were crimes; I do not justify them) need to be set against the backdrop of the Roman Catholic Church's actions.
(from the article I linked to previously):

In every village, town, and city, it was the Spanish Church hierarchy (which had called for a military coup during the Republican government) and the priests who prepared the lists of people to be executed. A primary target of the repression was teachers, considered major enemies by the Church. Its active opposition to the popular reforms by the Spanish republican governments, and its calling on the Army to rebel against the popularly elected government, explains the fury felt by large sectors of the working class, led by anarcho-syndicalists, toward the Church. The day after Franco’s coup, large numbers of people decided to take justice into their own hands, burning churches and killing priests. These violations took place against the wishes of the democratic state, which actively opposed such actions. Terror was never a policy of the Republic. It was, however, part and parcel of the fascist state.


Thanks Soviet Pants for adding nothing to the conversation.

You are the one who's added nothing to the conversation. All you've said in response to my argument is "Right......"

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by patton+Oct 4 2006, 05:00 PM--> (patton @ Oct 4 2006, 05:00 PM)
[email protected] 4 2006, 02:31 AM
red red red freethinking reds overthrow freethinking reds reds reds you reds full of shit red terror reds freethinking

patton
Thanks Soviet Pants for adding nothing to the conversation. [/b]
Let's just say you inspired me.

[mauvaise foi]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 02:57 PM
Why do you the church wanted a military coup? The burning of churches the murder of priests the rape of nuns had been going on for years before the civil war started if i was in the church i pissed to and want a little revenge.
No, you've got your cause and effect mixed up. The Church had been calling for the army to stage a coup before the burning of churches and killing of priests (nuns were rarely raped; as reactionary papist pseudo-historian Paul Johnson has admitted, "Assaults on women were rare in Republican Spain.") The Church wanted a military coup because the secular Republic threatened its stranglehold on the state that it had enjoyed since the middle ages and had used to keep Spain backward and feudalistic.