The spirit of Franco is alive and well - Page 2

Dauphin · January 10, 2003, 09:01

Actually, the last remnants of the empire are clinging to us.

C0ckney · January 10, 2003, 10:03

indeed. the spanish should just give it up, the people want to be british, we've owned the damn place longer than the spanish ever did and that should be the end of the matter.

Jay Bee · January 10, 2003, 11:07

Out of curiosity, how many of you guys have actually read the Treaty of Utrecht?

Surprise, surprise: Blair et al did.

Evil Knevil · January 10, 2003, 11:10

We should tax the bastards like we do on the mainland, make it a British consituency, that'll change their minds quickly. (Gibraltar is a miserable tax haven)

Dauphin · January 10, 2003, 11:13

Jay Bee, you mean this bit?

Quote:

The Catholic King does hereby, for himself, his heirs and successors, yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging; and he gives up the said propriety to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever.

Jay Bee · January 10, 2003, 11:22

Nope, no one has ever argued against that. Now find me please the passage where the future of Gibraltar is talked about in the event the UK relinquished sovereignity. I could post it in Spanish but I don't think it'd be of much use

Tolls · January 10, 2003, 11:53

"And in case it shall hereafter seem meet to the Crown of Great Britain to grant , sell or by any means to alienate therefrom the propriety of the said town of Gibraltar, it is hereby agreed and concluded that the preference of having the sale shall always be given to the Crown of Spain before any others. "

Which would have little to do with a referendum by the population for joint sovereignity...especially since that joint sovereignity would be with Spain. Maybe if we were to offer joint sovereignity with Morroco (or anyone else for that matter) this clause could be called upon, but I don't see quite how it applies in this situation.

Jay Bee · January 10, 2003, 12:09

Simple, the Treaty clearly states that future of the Rock has to be negotiated between the governments of Britain or Spain first, not by the population of the Rock. Please note that when the rock changed hands in the XVIII century the Gibraltarians were not asked either, they were just kicked out. Thus according to the Treaty the referendum was, strictu sensu, irrelevant. An entirely different thing is that the Gibraltarians want to be heard by their homeland.

The rock is British and will stay British as long as the British wish it so. I don't think anybody disputes that. However, the fact that the British and Spanish governments maintain periodic talks about it means that things might eventually change. The joint sovereignity was just an idea to get some things going.

Tolls · January 10, 2003, 12:16

The clause does not say anything about how the British government comes to its decision to grant/sell/.whatever Gibraltar...in other words it does not preclude the use of a referendum at all...simply because Utrecht did not involve a referendum, does not prevent one being used now.

Jay Bee · January 10, 2003, 12:40

Of course, isn't that, more or less, wat I just wrote? But the referendum was organized by the Gibraltarians themselves, not the British government.

Tolls · January 10, 2003, 12:49

"Simple, the Treaty clearly states that future of the Rock has to be negotiated between the governments of Britain or Spain first, not by the population of the Rock. "

Is what you said, but there is nothing in the clause that prevents the government from taking its decisions based on a referendum. In other words, the population are allowed to make their voice heard, and the government is allowed to act upon the results of that.

Bereta_Eder · January 10, 2003, 13:01

What does Franco have to do with Gibraltar?

This is simply an opportunity to say, go Argentina, go Spain and Go Marbles of Parthenon!

Bereta_Eder · January 10, 2003, 13:01

Now that I think about it, quit stealing peoples' things!

Palaiologos · January 10, 2003, 22:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Silpy
2) I hate Franco. How can you be positive about a reactionry military dictator who rose against the demacraticy elected goverment of the Republic!

The "goverment" you are refering too, were communists, and it was in a time communists were perceived as a threat.

Franco did not act alone or accompanied by a few fanatics. The majority of the people were with him.
Do not forget that the Soviet union, France, England, USA all backed up the sossialists and anarchists that opposed Franco.

Whereas Franco had only Italy and Germany to count on.

And IMHO oppinion a working dictarship, is far more efficient than a democracy.

Evil Knevil · January 10, 2003, 23:04

Oh don't get started on the Spanish Civil War.....

Or the fact that only the USSR supported the elected Government in Spain.

Or the fact that the Roman Empire died in a ditch.

Or that you think dictatorship is a good thing.

Otherwise you wont get those East Freize Marbles back!

What are you going to do with them anyway? Stick them in another decaying museum, along with the other fragments.

We don't hear Turkey complaining about the Pergamon museum, do we?

Bereta_Eder · January 10, 2003, 23:09

yeth we will getdem back

Palaiologos · January 10, 2003, 23:15

Actually i am one of the few Greeks that do not want to get the marbles back. I think they are maintained better in England, and are exhibited to more people. The Greek goverment only claims they want them back for propaganda reasons.

And why the hell should Turkey complain about Perganum?

That is like saying Germany should complain for all those French cultural artifacts the Americans and Russians took when they invaded the Reich.

P.S Are you certain that only the USSR supported the Spanish gov.? I know that France send huge ammounts of aid, and that many American volunteers fought for the lefts.Enlighten me, please.

Evil Knevil · January 10, 2003, 23:35

Franco got troops(an entire Italian Army), weapons and unlimited loans.

The Republicans got no aid from the French Government, no aid from the British Government, and they had to buy their weapons from the USSR with gold buillion- -in advance!!

Seriously though, the French Government refused to aid the Spanish Government, due to right-wing riots and eventually due to a change in government. A few arms were smuggled, but that was it. The National Government overuled Leon Blums decision to export arms. Apparently he was weeping in the arms of the Spanish Ambassador

The British refused to aid the Government, claiming itself to neutral. Despite

1/ Treaties signed with Spain, offering defense of her legitmate Government.

2/ A League of Nations mandate.

Instead she eventually signed a non-intervention treaty with Italy and Germany. They immediately converted their combat forces into volunteers and started sinking Russian convoys with impunity.

Example: During the summer of '36 the British refused to aid a damaged Government cruiser by allowing it to dock at Gibraltar. Instead she went down with few survivors. This was even before Franco had unified the fronts and declared a new Spanish Government.

The British Ambassador sent a message to the PM at the start of the war " A victory for the Government, will be a victory for the Red Peril".

He later said "Our British interests lie with the Nationalists".

As far as the effectiveness of the volunteer services on the Government side.... Most were not combat experienced and were they were mostly gone by late 1937.

They had only really helped by being cannon fodder at the battle of Madrid...

Although their overall usefulness has been greatly debated, none of the Democratic governments gave their support to these volunteer services.

Serb · January 12, 2003, 08:26

Only USSR send help while GB, France and USA just turned away and whistle.
Saying otherwise is total ignorance. Esp I like this claim:

Quote:

Whereas Franco had only Italy and Germany to count on.

Poor, little Franco- every one was against him, he had no choice but to cooperate with nazis.
*throw up*

Palaiologos · January 12, 2003, 09:48

What about the "International brigades"? They were USA and French volunteers, were they not? Even some Greeks went.And among them the father of a notorious Greek terrorist(Giotopoulos). I guess that this is what all lefts become of. I know for a fact that the Russians sent armoured forces(the crews were Spanish though).

I know Germany sent the "Condor" airforce divission.
Italy sent, i think about 3.000 men along with weapons, money etc.

And anyway had Franco lost, Spain would be a pro-communist state.

Hueij · January 12, 2003, 10:37

Quote:

And anyway had Franco lost, Spain would be a pro-communist state.

Yep, anything better than a pro-communist state. Ask the people of Guernica...

BTW, I resent that remark about all leftists becoming terrorists...

Palaiologos · January 12, 2003, 19:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Hueij
BTW, I resent that remark about all leftists becoming terrorists...

Sorry for that. I did not mean it anyway, nor do i believe it.

It is just that in Greece ALL lefts are suportive of terrorism.

Tolls · January 13, 2003, 08:25

...and the Republican government was not communist at the start of the civil war...it was leftist (no denying), but not communist. Indeed it was the civil war itself that let the Soviet Union infiltrate many of the organisations and eventually destroy the other republican elements...without the civil war I seriously doubt they'd have made gains.

C0ckney · January 13, 2003, 09:20

Quote:

Franco got troops(an entire Italian Army), weapons and unlimited loans.

yes but being italian troops they were of about as much use as you might expect

KrazyHorse · January 13, 2003, 09:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Palaiologos
What about the "International brigades"? They were USA and French volunteers, were they not? Even some Greeks went.

They went on their own, most of the time having to sneak their way in. The Canadian government, for instance, issued passports during that period that were valid anywhere in the world except Spain.

The Italians actually sent regular forces. There's a big difference.

Franco was a scum-sucking Nazi who should have had his ass kicked by the Allies while they were over there. His supporters were fascist thugs, and he was a smaller fascist thug.

On topic, I wonder where Spain of all places got the balls to demand that somebody else return something taken in the 18th century. The UK should tell them to complain to somebody who cares. Gibraltar's been British for 250 years, and should remain that way as long as its people want to. The Spanish government has no legitimate interest in getting it back.

KrazyHorse · January 13, 2003, 10:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Palaiologos
P.S Are you certain that only the USSR supported the Spanish gov.? I know that France send huge ammounts of aid, and that many American volunteers fought for the lefts.Enlighten me, please.

The French sealed the border, and international volunteers had to sneak across the Pyrenees at night.

French aid ceased on August 8, 1936. It had barely begun by that point. Italian and German aid continued through the end of the war.

Palaiologos · January 15, 2003, 12:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger

The Italians actually sent regular forces. There's a big difference.

On topic, I wonder where Spain of all places got the balls to demand that somebody else return something taken in the 18th century. The UK should tell them to complain to somebody who cares. Gibraltar's been British for 250 years, and should remain that way as long as its people want to. The Spanish government has no legitimate interest in getting it back.

What's the diference?

250 years?

Are you serrious?

Thessalonica was under Ottoman control for over 450 years, before the Greek army liberated it in the 1912 blitzkrieg. So were other cities. Smyrna for instance was claimed briefly in 1922 and was Ottoman for more than 600 years.

Of course in all those cities there was a large greek population wanting to unite with Mother Greece.

Serb · January 17, 2003, 02:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Palaiologos
What about the "International brigades"? They were USA and French volunteers, were they not? Even some Greeks went.And among them the father of a notorious Greek terrorist(Giotopoulos). I guess that this is what all lefts become of. I know for a fact that the Russians sent armoured forces(the crews were Spanish though).

They were volunteers while Soviet Union sent its REGULAR forces equiped with tanks and aircrafts. You don't understant the difference between volunteer movement and military help programm launched by government?
Then hint for you: volunteers usualy don't have tanks, planes, feild guns, etc. They usually don't receive ammunition and supplies from government that send them to war.

Quote:

And anyway had Franco lost, Spain would be a pro-communist state.

And you consider that it's worse then being a fascist state, which it was after Franco's victory?

KrazyHorse · January 17, 2003, 02:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Palaiologos

What's the diference?

250 years?

Are you serrious?

Thessalonica was under Ottoman control for over 450 years, before the Greek army liberated it in the 1912 blitzkrieg. So were other cities. Smyrna for instance was claimed briefly in 1922 and was Ottoman for more than 600 years.

Of course in all those cities there was a large greek population wanting to unite with Mother Greece.

Spain only controlled Gibraltar for the 250 years prior to that. The Moors had it before the final reconquista. So the Spaniards really have no claim to it, and certainly not as much a claim as the British. It's just them trying to strut their stuff 250 years after the fact.

Tolls · January 17, 2003, 05:48

"...while Soviet Union sent its REGULAR forces ..."

I'm guessing that was a typo...