D
- Status
T
triumphguy
Guest
and Churchill isn’t up for sainthood, per the OP.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
I see you’ve derailed the push for that war criminal’s sainthood. fight on.
C
Cirdan_XII
Guest
The fact is, he knew by sending them home they were going to be killed. Just because he didn’t pull the trigger, that doesn’t make him innocent of their deaths.
T
triumphguy
Guest
T
triumphguy
Guest
D
devoutchristian
Guest
Because you keep setting inconsistent standards for what constitutes a good person.
L
lerapt78
Guest
#1 - He’s a war criminal in *your *opinion, and the opinion of those who didn’t like him.
#2 - I’m certainly not pushing for sainthood, as stated in my first post on this thread.
#3 - Though triumphguy and I clearly have differing opinions, neither of us is derailing anything - we’re sticking to the subject.
I don’t know that I’d call the Daily Telegraph a bastion of right wing journalism in *this *case – although the Francoist government wasn’t strictly a fascist one, it leaned about as far to the right as possible – so to slant an article so heavily against a far-right politician would suggest that the DT makes certain exceptions to an otherwise conservative tendency when printing about politicians it has no love for.
Regarding the article though:
Firstly: The article makes an implication using rather empty information. It mentions the graves of 2,000 people. In and of itself, this means very little. Spain had gone through a horrific civil war – *naturally *one would expect to see mass casualties and many graves. I imagine there were mass graves of Confederate soldiers littered all over the southern part of the United States after 1865 as well, but that doesn’t automatically equate Abraham Lincoln with being a brutal monster. The question is whether or not the people in those graves found in Spain were innocent of wrongdoing. Does the discovery of a grave automatically mean that the person contained within it was in no way personally involved in the conflict, and died not as a result of his/her participation in it, but because of remorseless brutality? I certainly don’t know, but the article implies it with no supporting evidence. Hence, it is propaganda.
Secondly: No offense to the Brits, but trying to get an accurate or at least objective history lesson on Spain from a country who historically has always had a great rivalry with (and often arrogant attitude toward) the nation and its culture is an exercise that would merit a large amount of time to weed out the inherent bias. Overwhelmingly, British historians are often the first ones to condemn the Spanish Inquisition – and thanks to current revisionism and the amount of information available on the internet, we know that a great majority of the facts they’ve claimed are absolutely bunk.
When fascist elements began to rise in Europe during the early decades, the anti-fascist propaganda immediately began to spill out of the newspapers in the countries whose governments condemned it (including the American government). Naturally, the people whose only exposure to the conflict came from what their governments were telling them ate it up – so much so that Americans even volunteered to fight against Franco in a war that had absolutely ZERO to do with them.
Thirdly: Sigh. Paul Preston, the economics professor who is a self-proclaimed “authority” on the Spanish Civil War, touted yet again in a media article intended to teach people all they need to know about it. I confess I haven’t read any of his books. And I don’t plan to, because a cursory look at the synopsis of his works (3 different books) on Amazon.com clearly shows he is a one-issue “historian” (bolding and editing mine):
Paul Preston sounds like a good little Marxist. I bet he wears a Che Guevara t-shirt underneath his suit when he lectures at university.
He takes the accusations that have long been attributed to communists everywhere and merely flipped them onto the man who valiantly fought them. No enticing mention to perspective readers of what atrocities committed by the Republicans they might find in his book, however – it’s almost as though they only existed as “victims”. Perhaps the Daily Telegraph editors should read a book by Antony Beevor for a change, who at least attempts to remain impartial.
L
lerapt78
Guest
This two-sentence paragraph, roughly translated, states that a newly appointed “Historic Memory” law opens a new chapter in the recognition of the war victims of Franco’s dictatorship. It tells visitors that by following the link, they can find “all the information they need” to understand how much work the government is putting into honoring “victim’s rights” and “healing old wounds”. Clearly, by reading the summaries of the links on the right side, we can see how the website devotes itself fully to focusing solely on the anti-Franco victims.Here’s the official Spanish Website listing the graves as they are discovered and excavated and the remains re-interred.
memoriahistorica.gob.es/index.htm
You know - horse’s mouth kind of sources.
Which kind of brings me back to the post I made (post #95). Why are government authorities hell-bent on reopening old wounds? Is anyone clamoring for “reparations”? Is it because of civil unrest and anger toward the current Spanish government? Are they trying to smash down a resurgence of nationalism by going on a fishing expedition? Isn’t it somewhat odd that the government has nothing better to do than to demonize the old system (which happened to provide economic stability to Spain) amidst current economic woes? Can Spaniards trust whatever “evidence” they come up with?
I don’t know how it is in Canada, but our government (American), who has shifted so far from the system our forefathers intended, loves to condemn any policies we previously had which (although they may have worked well for us) go against its current self-interests.
T
triumphguy
Guest
Now it you said Franco was a necessary evil I might agree to a point (the point being when the war was won).
F
Fairwinds
Guest
I never met Frank, so I can’t say I’d like him or not. probably not, he was a thug who murdered anyone in his way, including those Basque Catholic priests. I know he’s a war criminal though.
I think your boy’s sainthood chances are circling the drain.
L
lerapt78
Guest
To be honest, if I knew Francisco personally I probably wouldn’t like him much either.
You don’t reach a position of such power by being what we would term a “nice guy”. If I had to guess, I’d say most likely he was opinionated, hard-headed, stubborn, arrogant, unforgiving, and undiplomatic. These character traits though, while making an individual hard to get along with on a personal basis, can be remarkably effective in times of crisis where a strong leader who won’t concede defeat is necessary. And no doubt about it - Franco was an ardent patriot who saved his country from the horrors that befell the less fortunate entire European eastern bloc. For that he’s got my respect.
Who deems him a “war criminal”? By any chance is it. . . . .
. . . Paul Preston???
You don’t reach a position of such power by being what we would term a “nice guy”. If I had to guess, I’d say most likely he was opinionated, hard-headed, stubborn, arrogant, unforgiving, and undiplomatic. These character traits though, while making an individual hard to get along with on a personal basis, can be remarkably effective in times of crisis where a strong leader who won’t concede defeat is necessary. And no doubt about it - Franco was an ardent patriot who saved his country from the horrors that befell the less fortunate entire European eastern bloc. For that he’s got my respect.
Who deems him a “war criminal”? By any chance is it. . . . .
. . . Paul Preston???
C
Cirdan_XII
Guest
It’s interesting that this discussion is going on here right now as I just finished reading an interesting article by a Spanish historian in which he looks at British attitudes to Franco during the Civil War period. He says that the British government and establishment didn’t like Franco much, and obviously the left disliked him even more. But interestingly the moderate and far right didn’t like him either. The article had some interesting Moseley quotations that basically deride Franco as a silly fool. The only bloc worth mentioning in Britain who were sympathetic to Franco were to be found inside the Catholic Church, and especially the more upper-class and aristocratic shade of the Catholic Church, with one bishop being quoted as drawing parallels between the age-old and historic anti-catholicism of the British establishment, which was still very much alive at the time, and anti-Francoism in Briatin, moving people who otherwise had little sympathy for communists to suddenly root for them in Spain. It is interesting to consider the present opinion of the Telegraph in that light.
The Catholic support Franco received obviously had sufficient influence on him so that, for example, throughout his reign, he sought to downplay the Gibraltar question. So Franco was more sympathetic towards Britain than most of Britain deserved.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
I don’t like Obama. he’s arguably the most powerful man on the planet and he’d have to murder Americans at a prodigious rate starting from his current zero to match Frank’s scorecard of killing Spaniards. Frank murdered for the Republicans, then he murdered the Republicans, POWS, political opponents, average people, as well as Catholic priests who got in his way. he was a third-rate version of Stalin, or adolph.
not really saint-material.
F/
L
lerapt78
Guest
I’m interested - do you have a link to share with me? You can PM me if you’d like.
But the difference between Obama and Franco being: Obama does not have to choose immediate action against his countrymen because the U.S.A. is not currently in a civil war. I have no doubt though, that if internal conflict of such magnitude as that which had reached the Spanish territory ever broke out here, people would fall left and right.
I think that distinction partly contributes to the ease in which people in certain countries can sit back from the sidelines - in the comfort of relative political stability and having no direct experience with the horrors of a civil war - and neatly judge a ruler as “great guy” or “an absolute monster”. Better still to look at the outcome of conflict before deciding whether what occurred **during **the conflict was necessary or not.
Again Fairwinds, I’ll state for the fourth time that I have not nominated Franco for statehood. Have you read a previous post of mine in its entirety?
T
triumphguy
Guest
You haven’t - but some have.I’m interested - do you have a link to share with me? You can PM me if you’d like.
But the difference between Obama and Franco being: Obama does not have to choose immediate action against his countrymen because the U.S.A. is not currently in a civil war. I have no doubt though, that if internal conflict of such magnitude as that which had reached the Spanish territory ever broke out here, people would fall left and right.
I think that distinction partly contributes to the ease in which people in certain countries can sit back from the sidelines - in the comfort of relative political stability and having no direct experience with the horrors of a civil war - and neatly judge a ruler as “great guy” or “an absolute monster”. Better still to look at the outcome of conflict before deciding whether what occurred **during **the conflict was necessary or not.
Again Fairwinds, I’ll state for the fourth time that I have not nominated Franco for statehood. Have you read a previous post of mine in its entirety?
As a Catholic, is that the best way to look at history, or current events?
D
devoutchristian
Guest
Judging from his posts on this and other threads, I don’t think that Fairwinds is actually interested in having a serious debate.Again Fairwinds, I’ll state for the fourth time that I have not nominated Franco for statehood. Have you read a previous post of mine in its entirety?
L
lerapt78
Guest
Well, I think the words “fascist” and “dictator” invoke an immediate and automatic negative gut reaction in most westerners; the instinctive reaction is, therefore, to discuss the person/leadership from an angle of ceaseless attack.
I’m still interested in seeing the evidence that Franco killed “average” people. Some anarchists? Yes. Some political opponents involved in the opposition? Yes. But “average” people? And the comparison between Franco and Stalin? I’m stumped as to how that juxtaposition could possibly be an accurate one.
S
SelecusNicator
Guest
This thread is terrible,
Franco was defiantly not a fascist, he took the extreme fascist elements and assimilated them into his more moderate nationalist right wing party.
Franco was a conservative reactionary he was fighting for the established order that had been in place in Spain for centuries. Fascists like Hitler wanted to radically change society, where as Franco was fighting to keep it how it had always been.
Secondly In the 1930s Hitler and the Nazis had not shown their hand, Hitler deceived the entire German nation with promises of peace and prosperity. Noone would had voted for a murderous lunatic who wanted to start another war. We should also remember that the alleged “good guys” the western allies appeased Hitler and allowed him to annex the surrounding German countries.
The allies who “saved” the world committed just as many war crimes as the axis forces did. No one put allied commanders on trial after the war. The Americans and British bombed German cities into dust and obliterated two Japanese cities full of civilians with nuclear weapons.
These same nations today condone terrible crimes such as abortion. Hitler murdered about 6 million Jews, whereas hundreds of millions have been murdered in abortion clinics in “liberal free democracies”.
Thirdly there is the reality of war Franco being commander in chief was responsible for the general war strategy. The conduct of troops on the ground level is the responsibility of their commanding officer. The blood is on their hands, assuming Franco had turned a blind eye or directly ordered these crimes he would also be responsible. It is unfair to say Franco was responsible for absolutely everything that happened in Spain.
Fourth the cause was true, it was a morally justifiable war fought for the right reasons, I say. In my opinion better to stand up for what is right and fight a war to death, than let evil take over. Better to kill evil men than stand back and let them destroy everything that is good.
The left-wing idiots in Spain and other European countries deserve to be dragged out of office and hung from the nearest tree. How hypocritical of them that they condone mass murder and every kind of immorality and perversion but condemn Franco
Franco hero or villain was still a far better man than Cameron, Churchill, Truman, JFK, Obama and all the other political goons society idolises.
Franco was defiantly not a fascist, he took the extreme fascist elements and assimilated them into his more moderate nationalist right wing party.
Franco was a conservative reactionary he was fighting for the established order that had been in place in Spain for centuries. Fascists like Hitler wanted to radically change society, where as Franco was fighting to keep it how it had always been.
Secondly In the 1930s Hitler and the Nazis had not shown their hand, Hitler deceived the entire German nation with promises of peace and prosperity. Noone would had voted for a murderous lunatic who wanted to start another war. We should also remember that the alleged “good guys” the western allies appeased Hitler and allowed him to annex the surrounding German countries.
The allies who “saved” the world committed just as many war crimes as the axis forces did. No one put allied commanders on trial after the war. The Americans and British bombed German cities into dust and obliterated two Japanese cities full of civilians with nuclear weapons.
These same nations today condone terrible crimes such as abortion. Hitler murdered about 6 million Jews, whereas hundreds of millions have been murdered in abortion clinics in “liberal free democracies”.
Thirdly there is the reality of war Franco being commander in chief was responsible for the general war strategy. The conduct of troops on the ground level is the responsibility of their commanding officer. The blood is on their hands, assuming Franco had turned a blind eye or directly ordered these crimes he would also be responsible. It is unfair to say Franco was responsible for absolutely everything that happened in Spain.
Fourth the cause was true, it was a morally justifiable war fought for the right reasons, I say. In my opinion better to stand up for what is right and fight a war to death, than let evil take over. Better to kill evil men than stand back and let them destroy everything that is good.
The left-wing idiots in Spain and other European countries deserve to be dragged out of office and hung from the nearest tree. How hypocritical of them that they condone mass murder and every kind of immorality and perversion but condemn Franco
Franco hero or villain was still a far better man than Cameron, Churchill, Truman, JFK, Obama and all the other political goons society idolises.
K
Kamaduck
Guest
The allies didn’t commit genocide. I imagine that makes a difference.
You’re right that abortion is rampant here, but we don’t nominate abortion providers for sainthood, now do we?
- Status