D
devoutchristian
Guest
What do you mean by “concentration camp”? If you merely mean imprisonment without the Nazi connatations, then there could be reasons to put someone into a concentration camp.
- Status
F
Fairwinds
Guest
Hitler, Stalin and Mao were also heroes to their people. So was Castro. Pol Pot probably had his fans.
Would you consider it a privilege and honor to serve the Caudillo as a concentration camp guard?1.
F
F
Fairwinds
Guest
a concentration camp is a place where prisoners are worked to death, or shot, or held because of political beliefs. you know, like the other fascists in Germany did.
if you want to split hairs, the Spanish fascists spoke Spanish, the ones in Germany spoke German.
F
D
devoutchristian
Guest
Franco wasn’t fascist. He was more along the lines of the traditional Right.
G
George_Stegmeir
Guest
For all of you who think Generalissimo Franco is some kind of hero, you obviously do not know your history, nor have any of you experienced life in Spain during his regime. I find it apalling that any person raised and educated in the US could defend such a ruthless Fascist dictator. Yes, I said Facist, and not in the sense that socialists use the word. Franco was an ally of Hitler and Mussolini. It was Facist Italian and Nazi arms and the Luftwaffe that allowed Franco to win the Spanish Civil War. And the Franco side killed almost as many Catholic clergy as did the Republican side. The hallmark of the Spanish Civil War was the anti-clericism of both sides.
I was a sailor during the 1950’s and '60’s. A sailor does not see a country like a tourist or business traveler. He sees the country through the eyes of a workingman of that country. Largely because that is who he associates with when in port. During that time I made port in Spain many, many times.
And yes, the Church supported Franco, largely because he was not as anticlerical as the Socialists/Communists of the former so-called Republican Government. He supported the Church because the heirarchy of the church helped him to control the population.
When I was in Spain, it had not yet recovered from the Civil War. One still saw un-repaired buildings all over the place, and the Guardia Civil which was a military police force answerable only to Franco was everywhere.
There were many times I accompanied US Naval Officers to the local jail to retrieve US sailors who were arrested for nothing more than making a political remark…and not even a remark about Spanish Politics! And yes, I do speak and understand Spanish having grown up in Miami. So I knew what was being said and what was going on.
The reason that Franco has a rehabilitated reputation today is that he refused Hitlers demand to let the German Army travel through Spain to get to North Africa to save it from American and British forces. Franco did not want his country further trashed by entering WW II on the side of the AXIS.
The second reason was in the 1950’s when DeGaulle, who actually hated and despised the US, came to power in France and without warning, demanded back the French Gold reserves that had been loaned to the US just before they were invaded by the Nazis.
this gold was used to back the dollar during WW II and made victory possible. The sudden, unanticipated return of this gold to France would have collapsed the dollar, which would have made Paris the financial Capitol of Europe Which is what DeGaulle wanted.
Franco bailed us out by loaning the US Spains gold reserves and shipped it to the US. We, in return, then established American and NATO military bases in Spain which poured millions and millions of dollars a year into the Spanish economy. The third thing that re-habilitated his reputation is that he provided Spain with an orderly return to the Monarchy upon his death. It was not until well after Juan Carlos was crowned King that Spain returned to the mainstream of the European economy and that civil rights as we know them were restored to Spain…And, believe it or not, the Church has not suffered for any of this. Perhaps the Church had to work a little harder to retain their congregations, but they did it, and the Church in Spain is indeed healthy and all without the coercion that was the hallmark of Franco!
I was a sailor during the 1950’s and '60’s. A sailor does not see a country like a tourist or business traveler. He sees the country through the eyes of a workingman of that country. Largely because that is who he associates with when in port. During that time I made port in Spain many, many times.
And yes, the Church supported Franco, largely because he was not as anticlerical as the Socialists/Communists of the former so-called Republican Government. He supported the Church because the heirarchy of the church helped him to control the population.
When I was in Spain, it had not yet recovered from the Civil War. One still saw un-repaired buildings all over the place, and the Guardia Civil which was a military police force answerable only to Franco was everywhere.
There were many times I accompanied US Naval Officers to the local jail to retrieve US sailors who were arrested for nothing more than making a political remark…and not even a remark about Spanish Politics! And yes, I do speak and understand Spanish having grown up in Miami. So I knew what was being said and what was going on.
The reason that Franco has a rehabilitated reputation today is that he refused Hitlers demand to let the German Army travel through Spain to get to North Africa to save it from American and British forces. Franco did not want his country further trashed by entering WW II on the side of the AXIS.
The second reason was in the 1950’s when DeGaulle, who actually hated and despised the US, came to power in France and without warning, demanded back the French Gold reserves that had been loaned to the US just before they were invaded by the Nazis.
this gold was used to back the dollar during WW II and made victory possible. The sudden, unanticipated return of this gold to France would have collapsed the dollar, which would have made Paris the financial Capitol of Europe Which is what DeGaulle wanted.
Franco bailed us out by loaning the US Spains gold reserves and shipped it to the US. We, in return, then established American and NATO military bases in Spain which poured millions and millions of dollars a year into the Spanish economy. The third thing that re-habilitated his reputation is that he provided Spain with an orderly return to the Monarchy upon his death. It was not until well after Juan Carlos was crowned King that Spain returned to the mainstream of the European economy and that civil rights as we know them were restored to Spain…And, believe it or not, the Church has not suffered for any of this. Perhaps the Church had to work a little harder to retain their congregations, but they did it, and the Church in Spain is indeed healthy and all without the coercion that was the hallmark of Franco!
F
Fairwinds
Guest
let’s not quibble over slippery definitions that carry all kinds of baggage.
Franco was a brutal military dictator who received military aid from, and supplied troops to Hiltler on the Eastern Front, indulged in his own personality cult (Q.E.D.) overthrew his government, executed political opponents and POWs, tolerated no political dissent, used slave labor, ran his own concentration camps and killed lots and lots of other Spanish people. he was also kind to dogs.
you can call him anything you want. under what label are his crimes lessened?
F.
F
Francoist
Guest
That’s a black lie and an utter fabrication. I am extremely saddened that someone would disseminate such falsehoods against a Catholic ruler on a Catholic site.
The Republicans massacred 80% of priests and religious in their zones. The Nationalist side was, in absolute and utter contradiction to what you have said, pro-clerical. The Church supported the Nationalists and the Nationalists supported the Church.
F
Filii_Dei
Guest
Not to be pedantic, but having studied this topic previously, I would like to jump in here and make a few corrections of what you have just stated.
Strictly speaking, a concentration camp is a place where large numbers of prisoners detained for similar reasons are housed in a high density (hence the name). All the others are merely additional characteristics which may or may not be seen in concentration camps. Japanese Americans were interned in concentration camps too, but it had none of the characteristics you mentioned. Interestingly, the same went for the Francoist concentration camps too.
Firstly, the prisoners were not detained simply because of ‘political beliefs’. These concentration camps were set up in the midst of a civil war. All civil wars will have prisoners of war, and those prisoners need to be held somewhere. The same went for the American Revolutionary War, and the again during the Civil War. I also highly doubt the Americans let captured Japanese or Germans roam freely. (As a side note, the Jews were not held because of their political beliefs, mind you. They were held simply for being Jews. It does not fit your definition of a concentration camp, but everybody agrees that that is part of the true horror of the Nazi concentration camps.)
Also, the prisoners were not ‘worked to death’, neither were there mass killings of prisoners after detention (however, one must remember that they did execute many Republicans they thought beforehand could not be ‘rehabilitated’). Those that died in prison did not die of the hard labour itself, but rather of poor hygiene and poor nutrition. This was less due to being deliberately deprived of food, but it was part of the general shortage across the country due to the over-exportation of agricultural products, which was one of the many failed economic policies of that regime. Naturally, the detainees ranked lower on the list of priorities than the other citizens.
To top it all off, the Spanish fascists also closed the concentration camps by themselves after the war. They also protected the Jews from the Nazis. This by no means rationalises their actions, but those certainly mitigates them from your comparison with the Nazis. There is so much more to the differences than just language.
Anyway, I have no wish to use this to defend the killings and human rights abuses that went on during the regime. The point I want to drive across is just this: Stop comparing Franco with Hitler. It’s a tired topic, and it does little justice to all the work historians do into researching the events of the Franco regime, just to have people blithely toss it all aside and get away with a vague idea that it was exactly the same as the Nazis. Also, don’t make assumptions about all other circumstances simply because it was called a concentration camp. Not all concentration camps are the same. The Japanese Americans who still continue to work in the US despite before detained and distrusted by the very same country can testify to the faith they still have in America.
D
devoutchristian
Guest
George, no offense, but this post shows a lack of understanding of both history and the modern world. And you can drop the “Americaner-than-thou” schtick.
R
RPRPsych
Guest
Very interesting thread with some fascinating replies.
And to change the topic from the late Gen. Franco: I voted “constitutional monarchy”. And I write this as an Anglophile Indian who has seen more than enough of the self-serving mess that democracy has become for us today. (Heck, I even work for the Government.)
And to change the topic from the late Gen. Franco: I voted “constitutional monarchy”. And I write this as an Anglophile Indian who has seen more than enough of the self-serving mess that democracy has become for us today. (Heck, I even work for the Government.)
M
markomalley
Guest
I voted “absolute monarchy” as it was the closest to my preference.
I would prefer monarchical rule, provided the monarch is ratified by the Holy Father (with the option for the Holy Father to depose him if needed for due cause).
Such a government does not exist today, nor has it existed for many centuries.
(Oh, and for the record, I am American. Served in the military for 21 years. And, no, I do not renounce my oath)
I would prefer monarchical rule, provided the monarch is ratified by the Holy Father (with the option for the Holy Father to depose him if needed for due cause).
Such a government does not exist today, nor has it existed for many centuries.
(Oh, and for the record, I am American. Served in the military for 21 years. And, no, I do not renounce my oath)
D
devoutchristian
Guest
My preferred form of government would be a technocracy, governed in accordance with Catholic principles, and which could be deposed or altered by the Holy Father.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
I asked you a few posts back, after you said you’d be honored and privileged to serve Franco, whether you’d be honored and served to be one of his concentration camp guards. Since you might have missed it, let me add, would you want to honorably serve on one of the firing squads for Republican POWs, slave laborers, gays, political dissenters and dissenting Catholic priests?
F
Fairwinds
Guest
we’re debating Franco because someone put the issue on the table, claiming his form of government was ideal.Not to be pedantic, but having studied this topic previously, I would like to jump in here and make a few corrections of what you have just stated.
Strictly speaking, a concentration camp is a place where large numbers of prisoners detained for similar reasons are housed in a high density (hence the name). All the others are merely additional characteristics which may or may not be seen in concentration camps. Japanese Americans were interned in concentration camps too, but it had none of the characteristics you mentioned. Interestingly, the same went for the Francoist concentration camps too.
Firstly, the prisoners were not detained simply because of ‘political beliefs’. These concentration camps were set up in the midst of a civil war. All civil wars will have prisoners of war, and those prisoners need to be held somewhere. The same went for the American Revolutionary War, and the again during the Civil War. I also highly doubt the Americans let captured Japanese or Germans roam freely. (As a side note, the Jews were not held because of their political beliefs, mind you. They were held simply for being Jews. It does not fit your definition of a concentration camp, but everybody agrees that that is part of the true horror of the Nazi concentration camps.)
Also, the prisoners were not ‘worked to death’, neither were there mass killings of prisoners after detention (however, one must remember that they did execute many Republicans they thought beforehand could not be ‘rehabilitated’). Those that died in prison did not die of the hard labour itself, but rather of poor hygiene and poor nutrition. This was less due to being deliberately deprived of food, but it was part of the general shortage across the country due to the over-exportation of agricultural products, which was one of the many failed economic policies of that regime. Naturally, the detainees ranked lower on the list of priorities than the other citizens.
To top it all off, the Spanish fascists also closed the concentration camps by themselves after the war. They also protected the Jews from the Nazis. This by no means rationalises their actions, but those certainly mitigates them from your comparison with the Nazis. There is so much more to the differences than just language.
Anyway, I have no wish to use this to defend the killings and human rights abuses that went on during the regime. The point I want to drive across is just this: Stop comparing Franco with Hitler. It’s a tired topic, and it does little justice to all the work historians do into researching the events of the Franco regime, just to have people blithely toss it all aside and get away with a vague idea that it was exactly the same as the Nazis. Also, don’t make assumptions about all other circumstances simply because it was called a concentration camp. Not all concentration camps are the same. The Japanese Americans who still continue to work in the US despite before detained and distrusted by the very same country can testify to the faith they still have in America.
why be pedantic? why debate over the meanings of words. Franco gets a pass because slaver laborers died of poor hygiene and poor nutrition, and this is somehow not being worked to death? what’s the difference between a political dissenter or Republican POW put against the wall and shot in one of Franco’s incarceration stations and a political dissenter or a Jew gassed in a nazi penalty box? I don’t want to be unfair to Hitler.
F.
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
Closed pending moderator review.
- Status