E
estesbob
Guest
You mean like those arm chair generals I’m this thread who smear Francos troops?
- Status
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I don’t particularly doubt this statement, and acknowledge that it’s almost certainly true. But I will add that there’s a bit of an “apples and oranges” aspect to the statement. “What the Russians did to the Germans…when they crossed …into Germany until Germany surrendered” is not a comparable situation to “what the Germans did to much of Europe’s population from 9/39 until they surrendered”.
Possibly one could better compare “what ordinary German soldiers did from the initiation of Operation Barbarossa” to the end of the war, to “what ordinary Soviet soldiers did from the moment they entered Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Czechoslovakia, Rumania and Hungary” to the end of the war and the descent of the iron curtain."
Likely, there is little difference, man for man at least, when it comes to ordinary troops during actual conflict.
Nor is there any particular reason to think Einsatzgruppen people were, man for man, better or worse than SMERSH or MVD troops. All were murderers, and were meant to be.
What was notably different between the Nazi regime and the Soviet regime, was the deadliness of each when in actual occupation, including occupation of their own countries. In that comparison, the Stalin regime was worse in terms of numbers deliberately murdered (or more effective, depending on one’s point of view) notwithstanding the evil of the Hitler regime and its evil intentions that might have yielded even more dead than did Stalin’s regime. The Hitler regime was far less efficient in murdering its own than was the Stalin regime.
Now, in speculating (and it is speculating and can never be proved) whether the murderousness of Franco’s regime was worse than the communist regime would have been had it won, one has to reflect on the fact that communist regimes generally have no real rivals when it comes to murderousness. And one must also consider the fact that Franco had no real “ethnic” targets the way Hitler did with the Jews, Gypsies and Slavs; Basques perhaps partially being an exception.
Given the Stalins, the Maos and the Pol Pots of history, there is no particular reason to think Franco’s record was worse than a communist regime would have been, especially when at least some sources attribute approximately the same number of victims to both, and the communists’ power was always limited in space and far more limited in time than was Franco’s.
That’s not to say that the record of either is admirable, and I don’t say it, lest someone imagine that. And no, I’m not saying one regime is good because it murdered fewer than did another.
S
St_Francis
Guest
I odn’t usually post on a thread that I haven’t read all of, but I don’t have time to read all of it, and so I am sorry if this has already been posted.
I imagine that many of you are aware of how the Protestants and secularists have twisted history to put the Catholic Church in a bad light. In much the same way, the Communist Internationale used media to paint their enemies in a bad light as well. I have just finished reading *School of Darkness *by Bella Dodd, a one-time Communist and revert to the Catholic Church. In Chapter 7, she briefly discusses how the CPUSA marshalled its resources and created a campaign of disinformation about what was happening in Spain. Franco was fighting against Communist and Communist-infiltrated groups in Spain, people who wanted Spain to be like the Soviet Union, which, among many other heinous abuses against its people, outlawed any practice of religion, including of course the Catholic Faith.
In order to gain a full understanding of how the Communists operated and spread their “faith,” one would need to read the entire book, except maybe the first couple of chapters, which are quite short and detail her childhood. She goes into how the CP infiltrated many organizations, including conservative ones, and how they gained an influence quite out of proportion to their actual numbers or support among Americans in general.
All this is something that most Americans are really unaware of, and the CP has always tried to keep it that way. However, it is very important for our understanding of our own recent (past 150 years or so) history as well as how our political ideas on both sides of our current spectrum have been shaped. It also explains a lot about the virulence we see in politics.
I imagine that many of you are aware of how the Protestants and secularists have twisted history to put the Catholic Church in a bad light. In much the same way, the Communist Internationale used media to paint their enemies in a bad light as well. I have just finished reading *School of Darkness *by Bella Dodd, a one-time Communist and revert to the Catholic Church. In Chapter 7, she briefly discusses how the CPUSA marshalled its resources and created a campaign of disinformation about what was happening in Spain. Franco was fighting against Communist and Communist-infiltrated groups in Spain, people who wanted Spain to be like the Soviet Union, which, among many other heinous abuses against its people, outlawed any practice of religion, including of course the Catholic Faith.
In order to gain a full understanding of how the Communists operated and spread their “faith,” one would need to read the entire book, except maybe the first couple of chapters, which are quite short and detail her childhood. She goes into how the CP infiltrated many organizations, including conservative ones, and how they gained an influence quite out of proportion to their actual numbers or support among Americans in general.
All this is something that most Americans are really unaware of, and the CP has always tried to keep it that way. However, it is very important for our understanding of our own recent (past 150 years or so) history as well as how our political ideas on both sides of our current spectrum have been shaped. It also explains a lot about the virulence we see in politics.
I
inocente
Guest
The links you gave are blocked by Norton anti-virus. Rightly or wrongly it says the site contains malicious encoders and phishing attacks.
J
John_of_Woking
Guest
Phishing? Sounds like he got you hook, line and sinkerThe links you gave are blocked by Norton anti-virus. Rightly or wrongly it says the site contains malicious encoders and phishing attacks.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
No, like those who denigrate the heroism displayed by the Red Army in repulsing the Germans, and who pooh-pooh the atrocities committed by Franco’s army.
I
inocente
Guest
Sorry, it’s a technical term meaning fishing for passwords, credit card info, etc. - a phisherman thinks mega-bites means lots of catches.Phishing? Sounds like he got you hook, line and sinker
E
estesbob
Guest
I have not pooh-poohed any atrocities by Franco-nor did I describe his troops as heroic and rationalize their raping of women. As I said in the end this thread is all about ideology. Communists who rape and loot are heroic-facists who do so are brutal thugs. I dont try and justify the actions of either.
As an example of justifying atrocities one need only read your post-systematic rape and opression of the defeated German populace is descibed as" heroism" in repulsing Germans, Note that the Russian “heroes” were commiting these “heroic” acts with the full approval of their superiors.
E
estesbob
Guest
I am adressing the double standard of praising those who commit brutality when they are in line with ones idealogy but condemining those who do the same thing when they disagree with their idealogy, I have witnessed in this thread people who had vapors over the waterboaring of three terrorists praising the the Red Army, who did far worse.
I never in my wifdest dreams thought I would run across people in a Catholic discussion group describing the Red Army as “heroic”
I never in my wifdest dreams thought I would run across people in a Catholic discussion group describing the Red Army as “heroic”
I
inocente
Guest
There’s a maelstrom on this thread, sucking us into an alternate history where everything is as clear as night and day.
One sub-plot seems to be (a) True Christians must have right-wing politics and turn up for church regularly. (b) All who don’t are secularists. (c) Secularists are immoral commies intent on the downfall of civilization. (d) Ergo, Franco was obviously a really nice fluffy guy.
Well, no. I’ve lived in many places and chose to settle in Spain because they are the best and the worst people on Earth. With all the problems here they’re still much happier without Franco, even if they do tend to yawn when monochromatic historians say they’re all destined for hell.
After the transition, many Spaniards turned away as democracy and secularism became synonymous. – from the OP (hint
).
One sub-plot seems to be (a) True Christians must have right-wing politics and turn up for church regularly. (b) All who don’t are secularists. (c) Secularists are immoral commies intent on the downfall of civilization. (d) Ergo, Franco was obviously a really nice fluffy guy.
Well, no. I’ve lived in many places and chose to settle in Spain because they are the best and the worst people on Earth. With all the problems here they’re still much happier without Franco, even if they do tend to yawn when monochromatic historians say they’re all destined for hell.
After the transition, many Spaniards turned away as democracy and secularism became synonymous. – from the OP (hint
).
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
And Nazis committed similar atrocities with the full approval of their superiors.
What does any of that have to do with Franco?
E
estesbob
Guest
Franco is condemned by the very same people who praise the Red Army. That leads one to believe that their main beef with Franco is he kept the “heroic” communists from taking control.
E
estesbob
Guest
Translation “I cant defend the double standard I have advanced”
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Dream on. The Red Army was heroic in its defense of the motherland, in stopping the German horde, and in forcing the Germans to retreat, retreat all the way back to Germany.
Numbers of Red Armymen were looters and rapists and murderers. Of those, some did it out of a desire for revenge, to make Germans “pay” for what the Germans did to their women and their country, and some did it because they were criminals, men who would have robbed and raped in killed even in peace time.
But, I can see the difference between what the army did, and what numbers of soldiers did.
Your argument is no different than saying that the Catholic Church as a whole should be condemned because of those in its clergy who were sexual predators. No! There’s a profound difference, and everyone who isn’t fiercely anti-Russian, or fiercely anti-Catholic in the second instance, should be able to see that difference.
Бог благословляет героические солдаты Красной Армии.
E
estesbob
Guest
More ratinalizations of communist atrocities. Whats next-the heroic army of Pol-Pot?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I don’t know that the heroism of individuals in anyone’s army is the topic of the thread. Likely, almost every army that ever fought had heroes. The topic, as introduced, is whether Spain’s failing religious observance has anything to do with Franco’s rule. I maintain that it’s an unproved proposition either way, and likely never to be proved, but with one caveat. Since the decline in religious observance is virtually the same in every developed country, attributing its occurrence anywhere to Franco seems a bridge 'way too far.
Nor, in truth, has anyone demonstrated that religious observance among ordinary individuals during the Franco era was somehow insincere.
Some people think Franco was the devil incarnate and some think he was a hero. But nobody has given the slightest foundational basis for a connection between him and current religious observance in Spain.
Nor, in truth, has anyone demonstrated that religious observance among ordinary individuals during the Franco era was somehow insincere.
Some people think Franco was the devil incarnate and some think he was a hero. But nobody has given the slightest foundational basis for a connection between him and current religious observance in Spain.
S
St_Francis
Guest
I am extremely sorry about this. I would not have linked it had I known.The links you gave are blocked by Norton anti-virus. Rightly or wrongly it says the site contains malicious encoders and phishing attacks.
I
inocente
Guest
No biggy, they’re probably unaware and it may even be a false positive. If there’s a way to contact cogia.net, could you email them the following link so they can remove the offending code and get Norton to retest them. I’d like to read the articles but it won’t let me near the site
.safeweb.norton.com/report/show?url=http:%2F%2Fgenus.cogia.net%2Fchap7.php
I
inocente
Guest
*]For a long period under Franco the Church enjoyed large subsidies, rights of censorship, etc. (it has to be admitted that left-wing priests agitated against).
*]The 1978 constitution re-established religious freedom but maintained a special place for the Church, including subsidies (largely removed now - there are two check boxes on my income tax return allowing me to opt to contribute to the Church and/or secular charities).
*]Franco’s time still hurts and raises passions, and isn’t mentioned in polite society to an unhealthy extent.
*]The Church is seen as politically aligned with the right-wing PP, making it unavailable to the left-wing and those who think it should stay out of politics.
*]Increased wealth, movement from rural to urban centers and influence of immigration.
*]The Church’s policies on marriage for priests, divorce, contraception and homosexuals.
The last two points may apply to many countries, but the others are somewhat unique. Catholicism has rapidly gone from the only religion in a monoculture to one force amongst many in a pluralist society. People in any new democracy will contrast the repression of the old regime with their new-found freedom, and many Spanish associate the Church with Franco’s dead past. Perhaps this is just perception, an issue with brand image, but right or wrong it’s the reality. I still maintain that distancing as far as possible from Franco will be far more successful than the uphill job of trying to rehabilitate him.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I am certainly not trying to rehabilitate Franco, and cannot be rightly accused of doing it. Never have I seen the Church try to do it either.
But again, all of what you have said above about the decline of religious observance in Spain being due to Franco is pure conclusion. No foundational information at all. Nor has any been provided in this thread by anyone.
But I do think you have hit some things that are likely true, because they are true elsewhere. Increased immigration, largely Islamic, certainly may have some effect on the observance of some, and definitely would as a percentage of those engaging in Christian observance. In any event, Europe seems supine to what truly does threaten to be their ultimate cultural extirpation by Islam.
One might question the effect of state subisides. Some churches, including the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church are subsidized in Germany, and German religious observance is in decline. Whether there is a cause/effect relationship, though, has never been demonstrated to me, and it is also occurring in places that subsidize no religions at all.
As to marriage of priests, homosexuality, abortion and all of that, the Church really has to remain faithful to its teachings, whether it is counter-cultural and, therefore, unpopular, or not. All religions run some risk that a culture may reject its tenets. Since lots of people, unfortunately, derive their morals from popular culture, it’s bound to have an effect. Let’s just face it, popular culture in the west largely embraces self-indulgence (sin, if you will), and can naturally be expected to resent anything that purports to disapprove of it.
But it also has to be recognized that some degree of anticlericalism, and anti-Catholicism in particular, has roots that vary from place to place. The communists who ultimately became ascendant in the Republican side of the Spanish Civil War were communists because they bought into communist ideology. Some of that could have had religious motivations. But generally speaking, acceptance of communist ideology does not seem to. It seems more likely the result of persuasion by very ambitious, very clever power-seekers; some of whom actually believe in a leveling of society and some of whom simply believe in their own magnificence and right to dominate others. It is a profoundly corrupting ideology when in power.
Personally, as I have said before, I think some of the decline of religion in Europe is due to the notions of the Enlightenment and later, of the Existentialists like Sartre, Camus and others. Combined with the really significant influence of communism (or it’s less savage twin, socialism) in Europe, it’s a pretty deadly brew.
America, outside its elites, really were not much affected by the lure of either communism or atheist existentialism. (Yes, I know, there’s a “Christian” version too, but it’s very different.) It’s possible, though not certainly so, that the greater observance of religion in the U.S. (still woefully low) is due to the fact that America really never bought into those philosophies. Europeans, in very large numbers, did.
It’s possible that Europe and America will become more religious. One can hope so. But if so, it will not be because religions have given up their claim to truth or their disapproval of sin.
- Status