Polish Volunteers in the Spanish Civil War

My intention is not to hijack your thread. Its just something I feel strongly about. I personally have known some people who lived under Francos regime and their stories were harrowing. Many thousands of families still do not know where their loved ones were buried. I just find it hard to understand how people who have lived under a totalitarian regime such as communism can have sympathy for somebody such as Franco who imposed the same on his own people.

And with regard to the religious aspect of this, its true that Franco saw himself as being on something of a crusade to reconquer Spain from the heathen communists. He based this on the reconquista of the middle ages when they reconquered the country from the Moors. Of course, the fact that Franco used arab soldiers do so is ironic to say the least.

Franco believed (or at least gave the impression) that he was on a mission from God. The church supported him and many priests were staunch fascists. The result of this was that church going (especially amongst males) in Spain is a very upper class activity, whereas many working class people are quite anti Church. In Ireland which was a staunchly Catholic country at the time, much propoganda appeared to suggest that the Republicans were murdering priests and nuns. This is what drove many people to enlist to fight for Franco. Of course, they didnt tell them that many of the priests were themselves responsible for attrocities commited in the name of God etc.

So its safe to say that Franco was a religious fundamentalist nutter (or he at least gave that impression), not unlike the Arab fundamentalists of today and his actions must be viewed in that context. He was supported by the elite of Spanish society who sought to keep Spain as a landlord/tenant based society, which it stayed until change began to emerge during the late 60s. Remember the Republicans had sought to implement land reform when elected.

He should not be held up as some sort of hero simply because he fought against communists. Theres no law that says you cannot be anti-communist and also a bad person.

What this has to do with civil war or his dictatorship?


What do you mean in particular?


As I wrote before Republicans killed many priests, add profanation about 400 churches and anarchy in whole country in general. Of course the church was glad that somebody at last ended this insanity. Later people from Catholic movement Opus Dei successfully reformed Spanish economy, I provided proper statistics before. After Vaticanum II church and ultramontane Opus Dei changed the line and back-stabbed Franco, campaigning for democracy. This was one of the crucial reasons why when Franco passed away Spain changed political system without much of opposition.


Any details?


Why don't you quote and try to overthrow some certain argument (of mine for example) instead posting usual left-wing mantra?

On October 23, 1940, Hitler met with Franco in Hendaye, after you wait for the German leader more than three quarters of an hour. Hitler wanted to deprive England of the Mediterranean He even plans for the conquest of Gibraltar by land. Requested the Generalísimo to enter into the war on its side. But it also noted that Hitler left the meeting very upset, but instead Franco smiled. According subsequent comments, Hitler said: "I prefer that I take three or four molars have to talk again with this man." Its troops never failed to enter Spain, which undoubtedly was a complete success in the Caudillo the political and diplomatic

viva franco!!!!!!!!!!!! el caudillo

So I am spouting left-wing mantra because I disagree with the actions of murdering military dictatorships? To quote one of your earlier posts -


The idea that Franco and his buddies wanted simply to end lawlessness under the Republicans is ridiculous. Spanish society had been in turmoil for a long time before the republican Governemnt were elected to power. Under Primo de Rivera there had been huge lawlessness and bloodshed. Franco himself had been used to brutally smash strikes by people seeking simply to get paid enough to be able to feed their families. Why didnt he launch his coup d'etat then if he wanted to save Spain from lawlessness?

The reason for lawlessness was the massive disparities in wealth between the landlords and their tenants in the country side and the business class and the workers in the cities. Spain was still a feudal based society where peasants were practically slaves and worked the land which was owned by very wealthy landowners. The poor wanted change and the rich wanted to maintain the status quo. Whence violence and lawlessness. The democratically elected Republican Government were attempting to introduce laws to reform these issues which , if given a chance, may have reduced such lawlessness. Instead, Franco, with the support of the elite, launched a coup d'Etat from Morrocco and the islands and unleashed war on his own people during which hundreds of thousands of them were kiled.

You have further made a claim that Opus Dei saved the Spanish economy, again which is ludicrous. The Spanish economy was a basket case until Scandinavians, Germans and British began to go there on the holidays in the late 1960s. It had pursued a policy of self-sufficency which had hindered its economic development. Unless you can provide some evidence for the idea that Opus Dei had any real visionary economic ideas then I would say its similar to asking the Pope to take over as Minister for Finance.

As I have said before, just because Franco was anti-communist doesnt make him good. And just becuase I am anti-Franco doesnt make me a left-wing idealogue, just someone who doesnt like totalitarianism in all its various guises.

a fascist , yes but not a murdered
he saved about 50.000 jews too
the murdered was hitler, Yes!, that he was in the mirror to a dwarf ugly, sickly, brown, grandson of Jewish and problems at the hearing and then claimed by an Aryan race of youngsters high muscle, blond and blue eyes.

viva franco !!!!!!!!!!!! el caudillo

Spain indeed was very unstable country. However if you use this as an argument to defend crimes of the Republican government, then I don't buy it. Government is supposed to provide stability and failures of previous leaders don't justify them. Somehow under their rule priests, churches and right-wing politicians were on target. 300 political murders speak for itself. What kind of democracy it was if they killed even Jose Calvo Sotelo who was the leader of parliamentary opposition? So, you don't need to underline that they were democratically elected, so was NSDAP and this is a pity that nobody wiped them out from the face of the earth. No sentiments here, if you are democrat then behave like a democrat or sayonara.


I have provided more detailed statistics in one of previous posts. Opus Dei is a Catholic movement have a a lot of civilian members. At that time among them were also some liberal minded Spanish university professors. They did liberalize economy. I'm surprised that you think that economics science is so trivial and arrival of few tourists may change something radically.

The regime's "families" did not agree unanimously on the new economic policies, and there were clashes between the progressive and the reactionary forces. The Falange resisted the opening of the regime to capitalistic influences, while the technocrats of the powerful Catholic pressure group, Opus Dei, de-emphasized the role of the syndicates and favored increased competition as a means of achieving rapid economic growth. The technocrats prevailed, and members of Opus Dei assumed significant posts in Franco's 1957 cabinet(see Political Interest Groups , ch. 4). Although Opus Dei did not explicitly support political liberalization, it aspired to economic integration with Europe, which meant that Spain would be exposed to democratic influences.

Measures proposed by these technocrats to curb inflation, to reduce government economic controls, and to bring Spanish economic policies and procedures in line with European standards were incorporated in the Stabilization Plan of 1959. The plan laid the basis for Spain's remarkable economic transformation in the 1960s. During that decade, Spain's industrial production and standard of living increased dramatically.

workmall.com/wfb2001/spain/spain_history_policies_programs_and_growing_popular_unrest.html


Franco was not an angel and this is not my intention to make him look like one. I would say that he was the right man, in the right time and the right place.


Franco was not a fascist. We needed to explain something before I proof my claim. In left-wing rhetoric word "fascist" is nothing else but an offensive call.Conservatives don't accept such rhetoric, they know that every word has its meaning,a definition. Thus when they discuss they always try to stick to definition of the words that they use. According to definition of the word fascism, Francisco Franco is not a fascist! Here is a link to his site in wikipedia (and wiki have certain left-wing bias), they don't call him to be a fascist. (neither Spanish or Polish versions) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Franco

Franco was a moderate nationalistand not from those racist ones as I proved earlier.

Time to point out obvious differences between 1. fascism and 2. francism;

1. Ideology is the most is the most important thing. Everything is supposed to realize ideological vision.
2. Based on pragmatic policy, different groups gain the most of influence in different periods of Franco rule. Switched economic systems.

1. Socially revolutional, change the ruling elites to new "revolutionary". Hate traditional elites especially aristocracy. Oppose traditional institutions, especially monarchy.
2. This is reaction for social, political revolution. Has clearly conservative face, preserving traditional institutions. Franco blessed Juan Carlos to be the king of Spain, so he was an monarchist.

1. Has revolutionary legitimation, the power comes from the masses and the leaders rule in their name.
2. Traditional legitimation, God, fatherland, defense of property, tradition

1. The state is supposed to realize the will of the people. The charismatic leader always underline his 'social bottom' background, condemn aristocrats
2. Hierarchic character of the social order, respect for a traditional elites.

1. Ideology (nationalist racism) replace religion.
2. Defend traditional religion

1. Total mobilization of masses, private sphere of life don't exist. Acceptation of thid ideology is obligatory for everybody. Everybody works hard for the sake of ideology.

2. Social ideal is calmness. Good citizens is not political engaged, he cares for his job, family, leave monopoly for political decisions to ruling elites.

1. Expect internal subordination, massive propaganda and indoctrination in family and professional life.
2. Expect from citizens subordination to external law. Nobody is indoctrinated at home or when working.

1. Preventional massive terror, against true and illusionary enemies of the nation or race.
2. Small terror against groups contesting the system. Terror has pragmatic character and is not a crucial essence of the system.

1. The leader is a politician, like a God. Simply, cult of the leader.
2. Lack of the cult of the leader, Franco was a believer himself.

1. mono-party, fractions are not tolerated if appears are immediately destroyed.
2. Ruling party have not massive character, this is cadre of the state apparatus. Doesn;t play a political role itself. There is reduced political pluralism, different fractions push their views. It is like coalition of parties from one side of the political arena.

1. Etatism, interventionism, according to rule of Mussolini "everything in the country, nothing outside the country, nothing against the country". Total control of the state over economy. Central planing.

2. Economic system was changed with time. After Great Depression in the US, Europeans believed in socialisms. Franco was smart enough to change his mind and allowed people from opus Dei to liberalize economy.

1. Army is the tool of the state, without autonomy from ruling party.
2. Army is the pillar of the system. Army take over the power and established authoritarian regime.

Lesser it is simple.Mussolini offered the italian version,Hitler the german version and Franco the spanish version of the same thing.
If you compare nazism to italian fascism you will conclude that nazism was not fascism at all.

In other words everything is fascism what the left dislike. Even a fascist can be a monarchist! Sorry but this is laughable...

Warped right wing deluisional bottom feeder fellow travler of all deluded right wing monsters and paranoid psycho paths..
Is that better?I didnt call you a fascist.

You hate to be proofed wrong. I rather value people who like to learn.

You miss the point.There is difference between fascism,nazism,frankism etc.However it is like the difference between leninism,stalinism,maoism,Castrism etc.When you apply a system it takes different forms accodring to the country.

Of course Franco had to respect chucrch because catholic church was powerful in Spain.Hitler did not need to because german lutheran and catholic church had lost their power.

The Pope blessed Mussolini's troops,not only once.If some issues are opened,you will see many becoming extremely agitated.

Francism fundamentally differs from fascism on many aspects, what I pointed out above. Of course I realize that no matter what I would write some never change mind because for them 'fascism' is just an offensive call. Pure and simple.

Let's see how italian fascism differs from nazism.
1.Fascism does not have a strict racial theory.It depends more on heritage claims.
2.Fascsism does not prosecute Jews.There was no antisemitism at all in Dutse till Hitler pressed him to take measures against jewish properties.
3.Fascism does not propose a mystic religion based on blood and ancient thrills.It accepts the catholic religion.
4.Fascism does not use mass terror but only symbolic actions to terrify opponents
5.Fascism does not have an aggressive Lebensraum programm
6.Fascist army is fights for the land,not for the fascist ideals.
etc,etc.What does this mean?
Nothing since the german version collapsed.

i m with you lesser, have a look the book of franco by PIO MOA,
in internet is a lot of lies about Franco too.(probally for people like deise 07)

Deise o7 no wars are nice, franco was not an angel but what about the reds , one time in the town where is from my grandmum the bloody red waited for a pregnat women to have her baby.......if he was a boy they will kill him if he was a girl the baby will live .

franco didnt like hitler invading poland ,because poland was and is a catholic country.
franco not was very happy when the nazis pact with urss too
franco was a great diplomatic person , he knew what war was and he didnt want to see spain in another war. he did have the people for help the germans but not the materials to do that . (i m sure hitler could give the materials to franco but franco didnt want it)

franco saved us from the communists
viva Franco!!!! el caudillo

He was second in command of the Spanish Foreign Legion which committed atrocities in Africa. Vis a vis the atrocities he committed later in Spain were characteristic of him.

him.


Hitlers airlift of the Spanish African Army without which Franco would have been snuffed out.


Spain still had an Empire which the Nationalists wanted to retain. Aspirations towards Africa etc.


Rubbish, Franco supported Hitler with troops and the Spanish SS fought in Pomerania/Pomorskie. Franco helped Hitler in WW2

The suggestion that Opus Dei was responsible for the Spanish economies' renaissance in the 1960s is not a sustainable argument IMO. Firstly, it is a religious organisation which, as far as Im aware, has no stated economic goals. Perhaps you could educate me on that but Im unaware of any such economic policies. I know that it goes around universities attempting to recruit young people, a bit like scientology, so its possible that a group of members of Opus Dei held cabinet posts at the same time in Franco's Spain, Francos Spain being a country which would have been sympathetic to young ultra catholic university graduates. However, to suggest that their economic policies came about as a direct result of their membership of Opus Dei doent make sense IMO.

There were a number of reasons for Spains 1960s boom. Firstly, Francos policies were seen to have failed. His country was being held back by his ultra-consevatism and people were literally starving to death. They were worried that sedition could spread amongst the people so they looked to open their economy to trade. The USA provided an aid package, on the understanding that Spain ally with them against the Russians. In addition, Spain cannot be seen in isolation in this period. The whole of Europe was experiencing a massive boom and Spain benefitted - once it ditched Franco's ludicrous economic policies. Also, there were massive amounts of emigrants remittances arriving weekly from France and other countries from millions of Spaniards who had been forced to flee the country by Franco. Its ironic that the very people he sought to murder were the ones who propped up his mickey mouse economy.

Finally, the arrival of mass tourism from Northern Europe provided a massive boost to the Spanish economy, some have estimated up to 9% of GDP was created through the arrival of tourists. In addition, the influx of foreigners, especially in Andalucia and Costa Brava, opened many Spaniards eyes to new ideas and provided them with a reference to judge the regime under which they lived. Little wonder that within a few years the regime was subsequently history.


Sotelo was a member of the Falange and had been involved in many murders himself. If I remember correctly a member of the Government party had been murdered days before his murder, and he was suspected. He was a bad bastard but yes, a democratic government should not engage in such tactics and I never defended such tactics. However, they pale into comparison beside the crimes of Franco's junta. You also seem to miss the point that it was Franco who got into bed with the Nazis, not the Republican Governemnt.

Another point which you are missing is that people wanted change. They had voted for it and were entitled to it. Franco, Sotelo and others didnt like that change. They wanted to maintain the elite positions they had always held as landowners, bankers, priests etc and tey were willing to go to war with the majority of the Spanish people to maintain their position. You can justify it all you want but their actions were illegal under international law. End of story.

As for priests and bishops and the rest, if they engage in militaristic actions, why shouldnt they become a target like anyone else in a war? You seem to think that religious can do no wrong. If you had come from the country I grew up in you might have a different opinion on that but that is a different matter. I will say again that just because Franco was anti-communist does not make what he did right.


Look Espana, when I lived in Spain I knew people who suffered under Franco. I understand that war is cruel but what was worse than the war was what happened afterwards. That ws evil. I understand that your family may have been affected by events in the 1930s and im not attempting to lecture you on your own history but there are two sides to every story.

Also, there are many sources of information available (not the internet) - I would suggest reading Arturo Barea's "The forging of a rebel" , which gives an account of life for the poor of Madrid during the early years of the century and also his participation in the Legion's campign in Morrocco as well as his subsequent invovlement in the civil war for another perspective. Similarly, Mark Kurlansky's book "A Basque history of the world" provides an insight into life under Franco for the minority groups who did not meet his criteria for membership of the nation.

the other sides of the story,,,,, Arturo a comunist, a british citizen , (never spanish)
no thank!!!!!

OK, lets analyze this problem again. Yesterday I stated that in leftist rhetoric "fascist" means nothing else but an offensive call. Isthatu was so kind to quickly confirm my point naming Franco to be "Warped right wing deluisional bottom feeder fellow travler of all deluded right wing monsters and paranoid psycho paths..". He was not interested to describe his political stands, he was interested just to offend him.

In your case, I need to admit that from previous discussion I cannot classify you to leftists. So question for you is whether you recognize other modern undemocratic political systems outside of communism and fascism?

Francism is undemocratic but fundamentally differs from these two above. Franco was a traditionalist not revolutionist like fascists. Thus one could suspect that he was inspired by Spanish Catholic thinker Juan Donoso Cortes and his concept the dictatorship. Donoso Cortes was a monarchist who lost its fate in possibility that monarchical system prevail in traditional form. Thus he was in favor of temporary dictator to restore the old order. This could be said about Franco who restored monarchy in Spain. He did not try to proclaim himself to be king, because he had not royal legitimation. He did not trust Juan Carlos father and that is why he proposed that his son will raise among people who will teach him what was necessary.

So, shortly differences once again, classical fascism and francism:

socialism vs toleration of liberal economy
revolutionary movement vs traditionalist, monarchist
social bottoms vs elitism
ideology vs religion
legitimation in masses vs legitimation in God, fatherland
idealogical fanaticism vs pragmatism

This is completely different system, few fundamental differences exist. What could be more fundamental that this above? I cannot agree with such thesis that everything undemocratic is either fascism or communism. The world is not so simple.

About Italy, I was not interested in this issue before. However this system look fascistic. I accept the argument that fascism in different countries have a bit different character but still resemble classical model.

I cannot accept this link between Mussolini and Catholicism. This is true that Mussolini officially did not reject Catholicism. What he tried to accomplish is to redirect the line of the Catholic Church to serve his particular interests. Such people are called heretics and such behavior should be seen as anti-church. Franco in Spain had the support of the church from beginning, he indeed considered himself to be Catholic. Below quote from wiki explain cynical stand of Mussolini.

Vatican City was recognised by the Italian state. In 1927, Mussolini was baptised by a Roman Catholic priest in order to take away certain Catholic opposition, who were still very critical of a regime which had taken away papal property and virtually blackmailed the Vatican. However, Mussolini was never known to be a practicing Catholic. Since 1927, and more even after 1929, Mussolini, with his anti-Communist doctrines, convinced many Catholics to actively support him. In the encyclical Non abbiamo bisogno, Pope Pius XI attacked the Fascist regime for its policy against the Catholic Action and certain tendencies to overrule Catholic education morals.

I will answer to others later, it is too much for once.


Generally most of mass media outlets and vast majority of mainstream have left-wing bias. From very long time they try to make everything traditional, conservative look bad. When Pinochet passed away in Chile they yelled how bad he was all the time. Wait for Fidel Castro turn and you will see damn double standards from the media. Mark my words!

Another example we witnessed when Germans in Euro-parliament tried to outlaw Nazi symbolic in whole Europe. Coalition of post-communist countries claimed that they will accept this proposal when communist symbolic will be outlawed as well. All this situation is childish but figure out that because of this demand finally this project collapsed. Commies (I mean those 'former') are untouchable, you cannot imprison them because this is against human rights.


Yes and you actually are aware what was characteristic and why? :)


I have already expressed my opinion about foreign help earlier.


Ok, but at this point they were not worse than other top European countries. What the French did in Algeria for example? Spain still have chunks in North Africa. British 'trolling' in Gibraltar and Falklands. France keep Guyana or islands on Pacific and Caribbean.


This was German territory before the war. According to article in wiki Franco stripped them Spanish citizenship. So they fought on their own account at that time.


I provided source, I know about this even from different source. They started in 1957 and you should realize that this influx of tourists was effect of their policy itself. Nothing more I can do to help you in this case.


I cannot find anything about Sotelo in Falange... He was a leader of Renovation Española and Falange was not part of it. Source about murders would be necessary.


I would be glad if you would provide a source for this claim.

I would say the opposite is true ie Rupert Murdoch ( Fox, Sky )


Interesting to see the socialist government of Spain removing Francos symbols and images.


A characteristic formed out of consistency in his approach to the villagers of Africa and villagers in Basque country.


And for the greater part of WW2 also. Doesn't excuse that Francos Spanish fascists fought for Hitler in Pomorskie/Pomerania or Gdansk/Free city of Danzig - whichever you prefer ;-)


LOL - what does that mean. They were acepted willingly when they returned. Many German fascists found a safe haven in Spain aftrer the collapse of Berlin.

I would be interested whether you think Hitler would have invaded Poland if Franco had been defeated.

I have not access to neither. But I know that Murdoch support neocons and they are not conservative. I have watched Republican debates on three different TV channels (FOX, CNN and MS...?) and basically this is all the same, neocons had the biggest amount of time and were clearly favourized. Someone posted on Youtube this time table, McCain (29min), Romney (26), Huckabee (15) and Paul (6!!!). Giuliani was also media favorite boy till he withdrew. Paul is the only true conservative in this company.


This is childish and undermine freedom of speech.

You provided a source that claimed that members of Franco cabinet, who were also members of opus dei, contributed to a change in economic policy. Many politicians are members of various religions. It doesnt mean that the religions should take credit for the fact that these people commit acts which are good, bad or indifferent. Unless you can provide proof that Opus Dei has a specific economic policy then I will maintain that their membership of Opus Dei had very little to do with the fact that they may have studied economics at university. I could be wrong but I have never heard about that group having any specific economic policy and your link doesnt provide evidence of it either.


Quote
"In 1935 Calvo Sotelo unsuccessfully tried to gain control of the Falange Española from José Antonio Primo de Rivera. After the victory of the Popular Front in February 1936, Calvo Sotelo was a harsh critic of the new government.

On 12th July, 1936, José Castillo a lieutenant in the Assault Guards and an active member of the Socialist Party was murdered by a Falangist gang in Madrid. The following day a group of Castillo's friends took revenge by murdering Jose Calvo Sotelo. This event resulted in a military uprising led by Emilio Mola, Francisco Franco and José Sanjurjo and heralded the start of the Spanish Civil War".

spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPsotelo.htm


"We were winning the battle of Brunete until the German planes began to bomb us. Brunete was just flattened. There was a priest in the church steeple firing at us and when he came down he pushed the villagers to shield him while he kept shooting. One of the men from the American battalion shot him dead."

guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,395359,00.html#article_continue

In addition, just as an example of type of barbarism condoned by "Catholic" Franco see below account of his time in Morrocco,

"Despite fierce discipline in other matters, no limits were put by Millin
Astray or by Franco on the atrocities which were committed against the Moorish
villages which they attacked. The decapitation of prisoners and the exhibition of
severed heads as trophies was not uncommon. The Duquesa de la Victoria, a
philanthropist who organized a team of volunteer nurses, would receive in 1922
a tribute from the Legion. She was given a basket of roses in the center of which
lay two severed Moorish heads"

mcn.org/e/iii/franco.htm

In addition, I note that you make no reference to the many priests murdered by Francos men in the Basque country thereby making the argument that Franco was fighting to save traditional Catholic values sound really ridiculous. He was a power hungry maniac who used religion for his own purpose as most "religious" warriors have done throughout history. I've come across enough of them in Ireland to be able to speak with authority on that front.

I will state again, just because he was anti-communist does not make him a force for good.

I have read it, nothing about Sotelo being member of Falange. I have also read other article in Polish. As I understand this situation, Sotelo ran Renovation Espanola which consisted from few parties that he managed to unite. He also tried to bring Falange on the board but this attempt failed.


If he was not from Falange then this is hardly connection between him and this crime. The left could target him because of this but still this does not matter that he was responsible.


Who is claiming so? A fanatical communist.

Jack Shaw, now 83, was only 18 when he joined the International Brigades. The Jewish son of a Lithuanian mother and Russian father was a member of the Young Communist League and had fought the blackshirts.

So you still have not provided sources to confirm quote below:

So although he attempted to become leader of the Falange, he had no connection to that organisation?


A fanatical communist he may have been, but he was there, so his account of it is every bit as valid as quoting sources written by people who were born after the conclusion of the war.


Well obviously Franco thought that they should be targets as evidenced from the article attached belwo

Quote
"His documentation of the murder by Franco's men of 15 pro-Loyalist Basque priests after the fall of Bilbao is tragic proof that not all the outrages against the church in Spain were committed by the Reds".

time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,860852-1,00.html

He was a leader of big party which tried to bring Falange to wider coalition. He failed, it means that he was not connected to Falange.


You could also cite Pravda...


You are proofing that the church was a target? :) To some extend this might be true, large part of old Falange consisted from people whom had no sympathy to the church.

I note your selective quotation policy.


I never said it wasnt a target. What I said was that theres no reason that many of its members should not have been targets as many actively supported the revolutionaries, with some actually taking part in the fighting. You were the one who had objecetd to "communist" targeting of priests as being "insanity", and I quote


But of course, you omitted any reference to Franco's forces targetting priests who held a different political viewpoint. Double standards?

The substance of your argument seems to be that Franco's actions were positive because they were anti-communist and had the backing of the Catholic Church, an organisation which you also credit with Spain's economic progress later on.

What I have shown is that Franco was no more a good Catholic than Fidel Castro, that his actions were not in keeping with Catholic doctrine and that, although promoting himself as being on a Christian "reconquista", he saw no problem with murdering priests who held a different political belief to him. In this regard he may be compared to Hitler and Stalin. I presume you are not going to defend their actions.

I have responded to your argument that the Catholic Church, through Opus Dei, had any great bearing on progressive economic policy. The Church has been a common denominator in keeping the Catholic countries of Western Europe its poorest for many, many years. Only since they have begun to remove it from political life have they begun to develop anywhere near their potential. Citing its influence on economic matters displays a lack of appreciation of its negative influence in Spain, Portugal, Ireland and southern Italy.

You have also said that he was not a fascist - and while you can argue the semantics all you want - the brutality of his actions did not differ greatly from Hitler or Mussolini or indeed Stalin. He was a totalitarian military dictator who waged war on the democratically elected government of his own people. However I dont think you will accept that most salient of points.

I have never said that Franco forced did not commit any crimes. You confuse two situations, when elected government commits crimes during the peace and when the side (in fact alway both sides) of the conflict commit crimes during civil war. Of course this is nothing to be proud however seems to be inevitable. Finally Franco brought stability to this country, something that some many failed to archive before. By the way, could you name one civil war where both sides did not commit any crimes?


Because you don't want to acknowledge this. You are from Ireland but you know very little about the Catholic church. Before Vaticanum II the Catholic church was very friendly to liberal economy and Opus Dei as a ultramontane movement always sticked to the line of Vatican.


Nope. This is you the one who just claims that he was a fascist. I provided a lot of evidence that he was not. Somehow you do not argue with these facts which back my point.

No I couldnt and I havent attempted to say that there were not crimes committed on the other side. However, IMO Franco was the main criminal in the conflict based on his actions both in initiating an illegal Coup d'Etat and especially through the persecution he inflicted on people after the war.


From my less extensive (than yours) knowledge of Catholic doctrine I have always understood that the Church has emphasised the primacy of the individual and the family. Most genuine Catholic teaching will define that as a man having the right to a fair wage in order to feed and clothe his family (fruits of his labour), as well as the right to own private property. I see the Church's defence of a society which perpetuated a system where the vast majority of peasants worked in slave type conditions for the benefit of rich landowners as being in blatant contravention of that doctrine.

The stated ideals of the Catholic Church are noble for the most part and it has provided some great historical figures such as your own Polish pope. However, the reality is that the Church has been used as a vehicle by many individuals in countries such as Spain, Ireland and elsewhere to further their own selfish interests as well as the interests of elites within those societies, normally at the expense of the poor. I would liken it to any establishment organisation which allows people solidify their own social elitist tendencies such as masons or even the communist party in the old Eastern Bloc. Thats not to say that many individual priests or religious were not good people. Just the organisation has very often been rotten.


Yes again, we will disagree and I will point to the fact that as a right wing military dictator who went against the democratic wishes of his people, Franco displayed fascistic tendencies. You have made some interesting points about the actual definition of fascism and whether he may be called a fascist on that basis, but irregardless of the semantics, the extremist far-right tendencies and his association with other fascist leaders means that, irregardless of whether he may be described as an "official" fascist or not, he may not be described as a force for good IMO.


There was stability eventually but I would argue at a huge human cost for Spain. For example, Poland was stable for many years under the communists but I would be surprised if you felt that Polish stability was a fair price for many years of a communist regime. IMO all extremism is bad and only serves to create a reaction against itself in the long run, thereby perpetuating a never ending circle of hate.

OK, we are balancing around the same arguments from a while, there is no sense to continue. I'm convinced about my rightfulness on these matters. I already provided enough of evidence. You have the right to be wrong, I'm glad at least that you learned about this problem from different perspective. :)

Yes - you are right - we should stop (apologies to Skotja if it went off topic) - however Im not sure if you proved me wrong - selective quotations prove very little!

Just as a final thought on this, I am genuinely interested in the points you have made about the Catholic Church's take on economic matters as I dont know much about this topic. If you could provide any other good sources where I could find out more about this I would be grateful.

No Pasaran! ;)

Thanks to all who contributed to this thread.
I have read a bit more through the course of this thread and learned a bit more too.