Spanish Civil War

[Rumil]

I’ve been thinking about this issue after hearing a call on Catholic Answers Live. What should be the attitude of Catholics about the Spanish Civil War? I know it was a long time ago but it still seems relevant. there are still fascists around today and I think Catholics should think about how to respond to them. is fascism good because it is anticommunist? yes, communism is bad but must we support the evil of fascism to oppose communism? many traditional Catholics still admire Franco. Franco was brutal not just to liberals and leftists, but also to ethnic minorities like Gypsies, Catalans and the Basque, many of whom were Catholics. in Franco’s Spain, people were persecuted not just for their politics, but also for having progressive social or cultural views. for example, Frederico Garcia Lorca was murdered by the fascists for his modernist poetry. if Catholics realize they supported the wrong side in the Spanish Civil War, maybe they could better deal with political conflicts in the future (or the present). I know this post doesn’t have many historical specifics but I would love to answer questions.–Rumil

 

[Latinitas]

Well, maybe I can help answer this question. Fascism has some good in it, as in opposing communism, and many times, other injustices. Obviously, it also has many evils in it as well, but it has been a force for good at times, unfortunately. You have to remember that the Spanish government under the Constitution of 1931 was very anti-clerical. It expropriated property from Churches, forbade religious education, made civil marriage mandatory etc., all things hostile to Catholic doctrine. Furthermore, the republican Spanish government turned a blind eye to the murder of thousands of priests and monks and nuns, which deeply offended Catholics. Not to mention the gross disrespect that the communists and anarchists and socialists had for Catholic statues, as shown in this picture, for example: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SpanishLeftistsShootStatueOfChrist.jpg. So, as to supporting the “wrong side”, you must remember that the Republicans were no angels.

Many traditional Catholics, like me, admire Franco for his policies towards the Church, but not necessarily all of his policies in general. I, for one, agree that his lack of support of the Basques and his policy of conscription to be repugnant to Catholic social teaching. However, in giving the Church Her rightful place in Spanish society, he [Franco] did something right.

I would point out that in within the Nationalist camp there were two main parties: the Falange, the fascists proper, who were in fact somewhat anti-clerical, but supported Catholicism generally, and the Carlists, counter-Enlightenment monarchists who supported a monarchy, and were very opposed to anti-clericalism, and wished to see the Church restored to her former place of glory in Spain (Spain has a history of being a very devout country).

Catholicism has always had a problem with liberalism, not just revolutionary leftism, and that includes classical liberalism, libertarianism and even some of modern conservatism. So, yes, the Church did support the condemnation of liberals, even though they weren’t leftist revolutionaries per se, because they are also opposed to the influence of the Church, socially and religiously.

This is my stance on this, as you can see, heavily biased, but I hope it helps.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[Brendan]

. if Catholics realize they supported the wrong side in the Spanish Civil War, maybe they could better deal with political conflicts in the future (or the present). I know this post doesn’t have many historical specifics but I would love to answer questions.–Rumil

Your question presumes that there was a right side to Spanish Civil War. Each side was ‘the wrong side’ from a Catholic point of view’. But given the extremely anti-Catholic of the Soviet controlled Republican side, it would seem that the Nationalists were the lesser of two really bad choices.

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

I am interested in this subject, as a American, born of Spanish parents, having family on both sides of this terrible war.

 

[JimG]

I haven’t yet read historian Warren Carroll’s book “The Last Crusade–Spain 1936,” though I plan too. It is about the Spanish Civil War.

 

[Rumil]

Found a good Internet source for information on this subject is Spain then and now. It is a site for tourists so there is no explicit political bias.–Rumil

 

[sainthumbert]

What should be the attitude of Catholics about the Spanish Civil War?

The answer is obvious. The Republicans were godless communists thirsty for the blood of any believer. They burned Catholic churches and slaughtered priests. They had no higher goal than to eliminate religion.

The Nationals, and in particular Franco, proved their merit during the war and after. In all ways, Franco made sure Spain was a Catholic nation.

The Basque sided with the wrong team out of self-interest (seeking autonomy). They preferred to put their bayonets into fellow true Catholic men rather than rabid godless communists. Should we hold it against the Nationals and Franco for this? No.

Franco was a so-called fascist. Seems he was more a dictator with a strong sense of nationalism. Was he expansionist like Hitler and Mussolini? No. We can’t condemn or praise Franco’s government by analyzing fascist government in general. We need to analyze Franco’s specific government. In doing so, there are no material offenses to Catholicism.

The same is true of the Mexican Revolution civil war. There was a clear cut favorite for Catholics in that conflict as well.

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

The answer is obvious. The Republicans were godless communists thirsty for the blood of any believer. They burned Catholic churches and slaughtered priests. They had no higher goal than to eliminate religion.

The Nationals, and in particular Franco, proved their merit during the war and after. In all ways, Franco made sure Spain was a Catholic nation.

The Basque sided with the wrong team out of self-interest (seeking autonomy). They preferred to put their bayonets into fellow true Catholic men rather than rabid godless communists. Should we hold it against the Nationals and Franco for this? No.

Franco was a so-called fascist. Seems he was more a dictator with a strong sense of nationalism. Was he expansionist like Hitler and Mussolini? No. We can’t condemn or praise Franco’s government by analyzing fascist government in general. We need to analyze Franco’s specific government. In doing so, there are no material offenses to Catholicism.

The same is true of the Mexican Revolution civil war. There was a clear cut favorite for Catholics in that conflict as well.

Thanks for putting it better than I could.

I wish to clarify here a bit about what I meant about having relatives on both sides: one side of my family held the title of “Count”, and were Royalists. They never became either Republicans nor Nationalists, but remained loyal to the deposed king. The other side came from peasant stock, and they were Nationalists and supporters of Franco.

 

[weller2]

What should be the attitude of Catholics about the Spanish Civil War?

The truth is very simple and very brutal. The Church was threatened by the communist forces, so it allied with Franco. Franco helped the Church, so the Church turned a blind eye to his crimes… And that’s all there’s to it.

As for claims that one side was bad and one side was good… Spare me. I know enough testimonies of people who have lived through civil wars. The way this works is that one day troops come into your village, and if you are a male in the right age, you are given a choice between joining them or being shot on the spot. That’s all the choice you have.

If you join, then you will spend most of your time robbing villagers for food (it’s an irregular army, so it must feed itself), shooting civilians suspected of enemy collaboration (well, frankly, it is done to show them who is the boss so you can get food) and raping women… oh, and maybe, sometimes, you will engage the enemy. Like, once a week. From a distance.

After the war, you will make up a legend that you were fighting for something good against someone else who as pure evil. You will live this lie until the end of your days, because otherwise you would hate yourself for what you have done.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The truth is very simple and very brutal. The Church was threatened by the communist forces, so it allied with Franco. Franco helped the Church, so the Church turned a blind eye to his crimes… And that’s all there’s to it.

As for claims that one side was bad and one side was good… Spare me. I know enough testimonies of people who have lived through civil wars. The way this works is that one day troops come into your village, and if you are a male in the right age, you are given a choice between joining them or being shot on the spot. That’s all the choice you have.

If you join, then you will spend most of your time robbing villagers for food (it’s an irregular army, so it must feed itself), shooting civilians suspected of enemy collaboration (well, frankly, it is done to show them who is the boss so you can get food) and raping women… oh, and maybe, sometimes, you will engage the enemy. Like, once a week. From a distance.

After the war, you will make up a legend that you were fighting for something good against someone else who as pure evil. You will live this lie until the end of your days, because otherwise you would hate yourself for what you have done.

Some truth to this, undoubtedly, though i’m not sure all civil wars are like all other civil wars. Certainly, the American Civil War wasn’t as you describe except at the margins.

And there is certainly truth to the assertion that after the civil war, Franco’s regime was repressive toward some, though not toward all that many as compared to post-revolutionary circumstances in other communist regimes.

What would it have been like had the Nationalists not won? Well, we can look at the Soviet history and if Spain under the Republicans had been like that, it would have been a far worse outcome for Spain. And we know the communist wing of the Republicans slaughtered the anarchist wing of the very same group; exactly as the Bolsheviks did with their allies, the Left SRs, the Trotskyites, and others. So I think it’s reasonable for us to believe Spain under Republican government would have followed the Soviet model.

 

[thedavidwilson]

I’ve been thinking about this issue after hearing a call on Catholic Answers Live. What should be the attitude of Catholics about the Spanish Civil War? I know it was a long time ago but it still seems relevant. there are still fascists around today and I think Catholics should think about how to respond to them. is fascism good because it is anticommunist? yes, communism is bad but must we support the evil of fascism to oppose communism? many traditional Catholics still admire Franco. Franco was brutal not just to liberals and leftists, but also to ethnic minorities like Gypsies, Catalans and the Basque, many of whom were Catholics. in Franco’s Spain, people were persecuted not just for their politics, but also for having progressive social or cultural views. for example, Frederico Garcia Lorca was murdered by the fascists for his modernist poetry. if Catholics realize they supported the wrong side in the Spanish Civil War, maybe they could better deal with political conflicts in the future (or the present). I know this post doesn’t have many historical specifics but I would love to answer questions.–Rumil

A fascist is what a communist calls a socialist who wants socialism based only in his country; communism is international socialism. That is why we absurdly refer to the National SOCIALIST Worker’s Party (Nazis) in Germany as “right wing”. Stalin invented that because Hitler wanted a German based socialism rather than an international socialism such as soviet communism.

I don’t think we will ever get an unbiased look at the spanish civil war. Any study that seeks to take balanced look at it is shut down by the liberal left (the new communists) as not accurate and “fascist”. We hear stories of the persecution by Franco. How much of this was done at Franco’s direction? If someone came into my village murdered my priest and drug the local nuns into the street and raped and shot them, I would be inclined to revenge. How many of these killings were this type?

You should remember civil wars are messy and communism is a true evil. You should also consider that Franco prevented Hitler from taking over the straits of Gibraltar, giving access to the allies to the Mediterranean. If Franco was such a buddy to Hitler, as the communists say, he would not have done this and WWII would have gone a different way. Also consider that Nazisim/fascism was somewhat popular in the 1920s/30s (as was communism) and consider the fact that communists (in the US and Europe) LOVED hitler up until he attacked the USSR. The administration of FDR had more in common with Hitler’s government than Franco did (e.g. eugenics, concentration camps, etc).

 

[Kaninchen]

A fascist is what a communist calls a socialist who wants socialism based only in his country; communism is international socialism. That is why we absurdly refer to the National SOCIALIST Worker’s Party (Nazis) in Germany as “right wing”. Stalin invented that because Hitler wanted a German based socialism rather than an international socialism such as soviet communism.

I know that the idea that the NSDAP was a left-wing organization is, of course, official American Conservative doctrine but, actually, it wasn’t National Socialist Workers Party, it was “Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei” - note the compound - and Socialism in One Country was Stalinist policy.

The NSDAP wasn’t interested in state control of the means of production, distribution and exchange which was why its money came from private enterprise and why big business prospered so much. The NSDAP was deeply interested in returning to a (largely mythical) co-ordinated German Folk Culture of independent artisans, shopkeepers and farmers which was more a vision of pre-Capitalism than post-Capitalism.

 

[Kaninchen]

I’ve been thinking about this issue after hearing a call on Catholic Answers Live. What should be the attitude of Catholics about the Spanish Civil War?

Might I suggest that, perhaps, the important thing would be to try to understand what part the Church might have played consciously and/or unconsciously in creating the kind of society and economic conditions that produced the War?

For example, were people cross with the Church because ‘thedevilmadethemverynaughty’ or because the Church - which owned about a third of Spain’s wealth - was a major factor/supporter of a sclerotic social/economic system?

 

[Kaninchen]

I’ve been thinking about this issue after hearing a call on Catholic Answers Live. What should be the attitude of Catholics about the Spanish Civil War?

Might I suggest that, perhaps, the important thing would be to try to understand what part the Church might have played consciously and/or unconsciously in creating the kind of society and economic conditions that produced the War?

For example, were people cross with the Church because ‘thedevilmadethemverynaughty’ or because the Church - which owned about a third of Spain’s wealth - was a major factor in/supporter of a sclerotic social/economic system?

 

[weller2]

You should remember civil wars are messy and communism is a true evil.

No my friend, WAR is a true evil, and civil war is an epitome of Hell on Earth. However, since 4th century AD the Catholic Church has accepted war as a respectable business wherever it suits its Earthly interests.

Communism is labeled “true evil” for one precise reason, and this is because it sought to eradicate the Church and/or take its wealth.

Meanwhile the fact that fascism originated in Catholic countries (Italy, Spain, Austria/Bavaria) is consistenly being overlooked.

 

[marymary1975]

Your question presumes that there was a right side to Spanish Civil War. Each side was ‘the wrong side’ from a Catholic point of view’. But given the extremely anti-Catholic of the Soviet controlled Republican side, it would seem that the Nationalists were the lesser of two really bad choices.

^^^^ this is right on the money first let’s not forget that we are talking about a war. As all wars born out of hate and desire for power. Franco just won that war. There was no right side on this war. Both were wrong. Then Franco was a DICTATOR! It amazes me how many people forget he was a dictator hence all he actually care was being in power and do things his way. The catholic church was only a mean for him to achieve his objective. The church didn’t “ally” with Franco. Again he was a dictator!!! The church had to obey Franco and if they didn’t he would have killed them all in a split second. An alliance made out of duress is not a real alliance. He only used the catholic church as a means to benefit himself. He himself cared very little about religion. I don’t think there is anything to admire on Franco as all he did was to destroy the faith in Spain and his actions caused that 90% of the spaniards today are non practicing Catholics. Franco’s actions didn’t bring any fruits to Catholicism quite the opposite so

 

[Ridgerunner]

Socialism in One Country was Stalinist policy.

Well, Stalin SAID that as a slogan against the Trotskyites and other “left deviationists”, but he was hardly a “socialism in one country” person in reality.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Might I suggest that, perhaps, the important thing would be to try to understand what part the Church might have played consciously and/or unconsciously in creating the kind of society and economic conditions that produced the War?

For example, were people cross with the Church because ‘thedevilmadethemverynaughty’ or because the Church - which owned about a third of Spain’s wealth - was a major factor in/supporter of a sclerotic social/economic system?

Indisputably various Church and Church-related institutions owned a large segment of the wealth of the country. Nevertheless, Spain prospered early in the 20th Century and through World War I, as it sold products to the war materiel hungry countries. After the war, the economic decline in Europe made things very bad for Spain, as European countries cut back on their buying and, indeed, raised tariffs against Spanish goods.

Up until then, and even early in the Republic, the Church was not the target of expropriations or killings, either one. It was only after the interregnum of a right wing government for two years and the subsequent accession of the Popular Front that those things became the hallmark of the Republic.

Ultimately, of course, the Stalinists in the Front began killing off its allied parties, and would have, if they could have, created a Bolshevik state. And, of course, the communists in the Front sent the Spanish gold reserve, then the fourth largest in the world, to Moscow. Were Spaniards not to resent that?

So, as between Church related institutions owning 30% of the assets and the Bolsheviks owning 100%, there’s a fairly clear choice. And nobody can deny that, in that time, Church institutions all over Europe, whether Catholic or Protestant or Jewish, were the primary providers of charity. Now, governments own massive assets, control more and claim the right to be the providers of benefits to the fortunate and the unfortunate alike. Maybe the world is better off for that, but maybe not.

And it wasn’t as if Franco had no supporters in Spain. He certainly did, and not just among Church people or the wealthy. If he had not, he would not have had a sizeable army, which he clearly did. True, his main support was in the countryside. But the majority of Spaniards lived in the countryside at the time.

I’m not justifying everything Franco or his supporters did (which was not always the same thing, either) but to justify the murder of clerical people by citing the pre-republican wealth of the Church is to misunderstand the bigger picture.

 

[weller2]

So, as between Church related institutions owning 30% of the assets and the Bolsheviks owning 100%, there’s a fairly clear choice.

No, it’s not. If you have no assets, then you don’t care who owns the assets.

Imagine a situation where 70% of assets is owned by aristocracy, 30% is owned by the Church, and the populace owns 0%. If communists come around and say we will take assets from aristocracy and church and convert them into schools and cheap rental housing, an average member of the populace has nothing to lose by supporting them, because he has no assets anyway. The only group which has something to lose is the group which has the assets, but this group is a minority.

Communist revolutions were popular revolutions, and they did not happen without a cause.

 

[Hobbes42]

No, it’s not. If you have no assets, then you don’t care who owns the assets.

Imagine a situation where 70% of assets is owned by aristocracy, 30% is owned by the Church, and the populace owns 0%. If communists come around and say we will take assets from aristocracy and church and convert them into schools and cheap rental housing, an average member of the populace has nothing to lose by supporting them, because he has no assets anyway. The only group which has something to lose is the group which has the assets, but this group is a minority.

Communist revolutions were popular revolutions, and they did not happen without a cause.

Ahem, if I may.
A peasant revolution is hardly a communist one, in fact it cannot be as by definition Communist revolutions require a large industrial workers class.