As controversial as it is... Spanish Civil War

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ioana
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why did the computer catch on fire? To me, the reason seems to be the following: while the computer was not doused in gasoline, it felt forced into not being on fire and associated lack of fire with a lack of gasoline. Once the lack of gasoline was fixed it threw out not being on fire as well. It seems logical enough.
 
General form:

Why did X cease to be the case? To me, the reason seems to be the following: while Z was subject to Y, it felt forced into X and associated X with Y. Once Y ceased Z threw out X as well. It seems logical enough.
 
There is a significant difference. Don’t pretend that you don’t understand the argument.
 
I understand it. An argument being hilariously bad doesn’t make it incomprehensible.
 
When a certain course of action is known to have a given result, the blame for the result lies with those who took the course of action in question, not with those who vigorously resisted it.
 
To put it more simply, here’s why I am against Communism. I am not against Communism only because of pure reason or what the Church says, I am against it because of the experiences of my parents, because it was bad for them under it and now every mention of it gives an adverse reaction. What is so bad about that argument? It is true enough that if you associate something with something negative you will flee it when given the chance.
 
That’s because Communism consistently creates ****holes that people are literally willing to die to get away from. Ordinary Spanish people weren’t against the Franco regime until it was already gone and being against it was the established consensus.
 
Last edited:
Arkansan said:
There’s nothing wrong with executing malefactors.
Click to expand...
So you contend that 400,000 plus people were criminals just because they opposed Franco.That is stupid and false.
Also these people were not tried. They were simply forcibly taken away from their families and killed.

You also did not respond to my earlier post. You contend that the end justifies the means. That contradicts Church doctrine.
 
Can we just agree that both sides were pretty terrible, but that obviously Catholics would have to back the side that wasn’t killing priests and religious en masse and trying to destroy the Church, as that side would be the lesser of the two evils.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Can we just agree that both sides were pretty terrible, but that obviously Catholics would have to back the side that wasn’t killing priests and religious en masse and trying to destroy the Church, as that side would be the lesser of the two evils.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And can we also admit that fascism is sometimes justified to prevent the democratic process from voting in communism.
 
All political parties and ideologies are always going to be horrible and evil, such is the nature of this world.

Politics is the realm of the ambitious, and a good person has no way to compete with more morally dubious rivals. All the saintly world leaders I can think of right now were either ineffective rulers, or they were murdered by a rival.

People will always be oppressed by their rulers, even if it is to different degrees, and the people must choose which freedoms to do without. As Catholics, we may renounce every freedom that we have, except the freedom to practice our religion. That’s why it was just and right for Catholics in Spain to support Franco, and not because Franco was a good guy.
 
Saxum said:
I don’t know any fascist regime that has sought to replace the Catholic Church. The Marxists have done so. The western democracies oppose the Church. Putin is a quasi-fascist leader and he has enacted godly laws.
Click to expand...
Hitler sent Catholic priests to the concentration camps. He brutally suppressed the Catholic Church in Poland.

And Putin is not a facist (or quasi-facist) he is a Russian nationalist. Calling Putin a facist (or quasi-facist) is almost as inaccurate as calling Donald Trump a facist.
 
Last edited:
Saxum said:
Exactly. And can we also admit that fascism is sometimes justified to prevent the democratic process from voting in communism.
Click to expand...
What in the world are you talking about? Do you understand what you are saying?
 
Just to be clear most historians do not regard Franco as a fascist. He was best described as a Nationalist, Traditionalist, and Catholic and in fact somewhat defies classification, this requiring his own word: Francoist. The Falange (Facists) in Spain were basically marginalized during the war and during Franco’s rule after.

Doesn’t make him a great man. Doesn’t make him a hero. But let’s not pretend the other side was the “good” side. The so called “White Terror” killed more people than the “Red Terror” only because they won the war. This was an ugly situation all the way around.
 
I think what he’s trying to say is sometimes the mob makes stupid and immoral decisions and it takes an authoritarian figure to check the impulses.

For example, the recent legalization of abortion in Ireland. It was legalized democratically, but it’s still wrong, whereas if a non democratic elected leader did not legalize abortion against the wishes of the majority they would be the ones in the right.
 
Exactly. It’s easy to sit back and arm chair quarter back 70 years later. I think he was patriotic man who did what he thought was right in the face of a grave danger to his country.
 
Have you heard of Pol Pot?

He could easily give Hitler, Mao and Stalin stiff competition on the title of most evil.
 
Last edited:
The ends justifies the means?

Putting in a brutal fascist regime in order to prevent the installation of a brutal communist regime.

It’s like saying to someone, “I see that you intend to drown yourself so I will burn you first to prevent you from drowning yourself.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top