The spirit of Franco is alive and well

[Silpy]

Gibraltar is the last major piece of the British Empire. The rest are small, scattared islands left on Britains doorstep, and they have nowhere else to go.

Monserrat ?

Pitcarn Is. ?

South Georgia?

But Thessalonica still had ethnic Greeks, Bulgarians and Albanians in it. Gibraltar and the Falklands have a near 100% British population.

[Palaiologos]

Originally posted by Serb

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.

I must have made a mistake.Sorry.

I was reffering to the diference of the ITALIAN regulars with the volunteers. The italians were of the same low combat value as the volunteers.

[Palaiologos]

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

Yes.


I do not get it.
Have you all been brainwashed by anti-fascist propaganda?

Was Franco a bad governor? Did his country declined under him? I know that they were among the most economicaly backward nations in Europe, but that was also the case before Franco.

I know Hitler was hated outside Germany(although at first admired) but inside Germany he was revered-and NOT BECAUSE OF PROPAGANDA.

Musolini was a dictator for 20 years and would have remained for another 20, had Italy not entered the war. He did not base his power in the army but in his great popularity among the Italians.

[Palaiologos]

Originally posted by Silpy
Gibraltar is the last major piece of the British Empire. The rest are small, scattared islands left on Britains doorstep, and they have nowhere else to go.

Monserrat ?

Pitcarn Is. ?

South Georgia?

But Thessalonica still had ethnic Greeks, Bulgarians and Albanians in it. Gibraltar and the Falklands have a near 100% British population.

I thought the citizens of Gibraltar were of mixed arab-anglosaxon and iberian origins. With the arabian descent predominant.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Palaiologos




Yes.

Really nice views. Usually it calls- support of fascism.

I do not get it.
Have you all been brainwashed by anti-fascist propaganda?

Have you been brainwashed by fascist propaganda?

Was Franco a bad governor? Did his country declined under him? I

He was the FASCIST and DICTATOR. How fascist dictatorship could be better then even pro-communist but still- REPUBLIC is beyond me.

I know Hitler was hated outside Germany(although at first admired)

News to me, tell me more. At first he was admired outside Germany? By whom exactly? By Jews or Slavs perhaps?

but inside Germany he was revered-and NOT BECAUSE OF PROPAGANDA.

Next thing you gonna tell me is that he was nice dude, because he took care about his own citizens and his own population was happy under his rule.

[Palaiologos]

Sorry to say this Serb, but your arguments circle around the same notion-fascism.

As long as someone has any relation with fascism he is evil and should be hanged.
To your information being a fascist is NOT a bad thing by ITSELF. Franco did not persecute the jews like Hitler or wanted to revive the Roman Empire like Musolini, he even declined to enter the war because his country was in the proccess of rebuilding itself.

And yes Hitler was admired outside Germany. By British Prime minister Chamberlain, by the French even by the majority of the Greek population and leaders. It is characteristic that the Greeks wanted ONLY the Furher's personal intervention to stop the war with the Italians. They trusted his word.
But after the war, propaganda and discovery of his crimes made him the villain of our times.

[Palaiologos]

Moreover being a fascist a communist or democratic leader doesn't change he strategical interests of a country. WWII would happen-Hitler or not. Russia would invade Finland even if the Tsars were still in power. And Britain would declare war on Germany even if it was ruled by fascists.

[Az]

actually, Russia wouldn't invade Finland if the tzars would be still in power. It wouldn't have to, since it was the revolutionary government who gave them independence from the start.

[Serb]

Exactly.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Palaiologos


As long as someone has any relation with fascism he is evil and should be hanged.

Of course.

To your information being a fascist is NOT a bad thing by ITSELF.

Oh really?
That's what http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fascism says about fascism:
"1)
a) A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b) A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2) Oppressive, dictatorial control. "
Now, explain to me please how "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. " or "Oppressive, dictatorial control" couldn't be a BAD thing by definition?

And to your knowledge being pro-communist is not a BAD thig by itself. In any case it's much better then to be a fascist.

Franco did not persecute the jews like Hitler or wanted to revive the Roman Empire like Musolini, he even declined to enter the war because his country was in the proccess of rebuilding itself.

Stil he was dictator and fascist bastard. How fascist dictator could be better then republic is beyond me.

And yes Hitler was admired outside Germany.

Then we have different definitions of word "to admire".

[GeneralTacticus]

Was Franco a bad governor?

Yes.

Did his country declined under him?

Relative to the rest of Europe, yes.

I know that they were among the most economicaly backward nations in Europe, but that was also the case before Franco.

And so, while the rest of Europe was busy enjoying the benefits of economic growth and democracy, Spain ramined much the same as it always had been, which was not a good thing.

I know Hitler was hated outside Germany(although at first admired) but inside Germany he was revered-and NOT BECAUSE OF PROPAGANDA.

No doubt you're going to point to the Autobahns and such, but the fact that Hitler solved Germany's current economic problems does not mean he was a good leader -especially considering that the economy he created would only have lasted for a few years if he hadn't started conquering places for their labour and resources.

Musolini was a dictator for 20 years and would have remained for another 20, had Italy not entered the war. He did not base his power in the army but in his great popularity among the Italians.

And had the Italians turned on him (which they did), he would have relied on the army to put them down. He was an extremely incompetant leader and he based his popularity on propaganda.

Sorry to say this Serb, but your arguments circle around the same notion-fascism.

As long as someone has any relation with fascism he is evil and should be hanged.
To your information being a fascist is NOT a bad thing by ITSELF.

Fascist ideology is based inherntly on dictatorship and the persecution of minorities and pretty much anyone else you happen to dislike. While being a fascist should not be illegal (that makes you the same as them), it doesn't make fascism good, and it does mean that fascists who try to take power do need to be shot, the same as any other thugs who try to take over a country.

Franco did not persecute the jews like Hitler or wanted to revive the Roman Empire like Musolini, he even declined to enter the war because his country was in the proccess of rebuilding itself.

Your point being? He persecuted his own political opponents and badly mismanaged his country. The existence of serial killers doesn't justify robbery - especially when he achieved power at the expense of people far better than himself.

And yes Hitler was admired outside Germany. By British Prime minister Chamberlain, by the French even by the majority of the Greek population and leaders.

Yes, and this doesn't make him him a good guy, it just makes those who admired him deluded and/or little better than him.

It is characteristic that the Greeks wanted ONLY the Furher's personal intervention to stop the war with the Italians. They trusted his word.

You'd think after Munich that they would have learned their lesson about that.

But after the war, propaganda and discovery of his crimes made him the villain of our times.

So are saying, bascially, that he's been unfairly demonized??? When he was responsible for a body count greater than almost anyone else in history?

Moreover being a fascist a communist or democratic leader doesn't change he strategical interests of a country.

Yes it does. Under fascism or (some forms of) communism, the strategic priotity becomes the replacement of the government with something better.

WWII would happen-Hitler or not.

No, it wouldn't. WWII was not in the interests of Germany - it made them the masters of Europe for 3-4 years, but it resulted in their being completely subjugated. In any case, WWII was not inevitable, but brought about by Hitler and his determination to conquer and extermiante all Slavs, Jews, and other assorted people he disliked.

And Britain would declare war on Germany even if it was ruled by fascists.

No, they wouldn't, because a non-fascist Germany would not have made a habit of invading British allies and provoking a declaration of war.

[GeneralTacticus]

Then we have different definitions of word "to admire".

Actually many people outside Germany DID admire him. Whether or not they were good people, or whether they should have, is another matter entirely.

[Palaiologos]

Originally posted by Azazel
actually, Russia wouldn't invade Finland if the tzars would be still in power. It wouldn't have to, since it was the revolutionary government who gave them independence from the start.

I had already thought of that, but i meant that both Tsarist Russia and Bolshevic Russia wanted to keep finland under their control.

[Palaiologos]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
No, it wouldn't. WWII was not in the interests of Germany - it made them the masters of Europe for 3-4 years, but it resulted in their being completely subjugated. In any case, WWII was not inevitable, but brought about by Hitler and his determination to conquer and extermiante all Slavs, Jews, and other assorted people he disliked.

What?

You people do not really believe that WWII happened because of Hitler's madness and his effort to wipe out Jews and others?

It was simply for political and strategical reasons- AS ALL WARS ARE-EVEN THE CRUSADES.
Poland had "illegaly" taken a part of Prussia after WWI and now under Hitler the Germans felt strong enough to reclaim it. They believed that British and French threats that such an action would force them to declare war were a bluff, and when negotiations failed they invaded.

Britain and France then declared war on Germany.

[GeneralTacticus]

You people do not really believe that WWII happened because of Hitler's madness and his effort to wipe out Jews and others?

technically, it was (partly) brought about by Germany's immediate interests at the time, because without more labour and resources to fill the shortages the German economy would have crashed and the Nazis would likely have lost credibility.

however, the conquest of the Slavs and other 'inferior' nations had always been Hitler's goal; that was why he seized Czeckoslovaki and invaded Polan proper rather than stopping with the Sudetenland and Danzig respectively.

It was simply for political and strategical reasons- AS ALL WARS ARE-EVEN THE CRUSADES.

Of course, but those reasons aren't always good ones.

Poland had "illegaly" taken a part of Prussia after WWI and now under Hitler the Germans felt strong enough to reclaim it.

I'm glad you put "illegal" in quotes, ebcause there was nothing illegal about it. Germany lost WWI, and Poland was created out of their territory, including West Prussia (not that I think it was a good idea, btw, because it left the Germans resntful and ensured that they would try to get it back). The Germans signed it away in the Treaty of Versaille. Coerced, yes, but not illegal.

They believed that British and French threats that such an action would force them to declare war were a bluff, and when negotiations failed they invaded.

Yes.

Britain and France then declared war on Germany.

Yes. Now explain how this supports your point?

[Palaiologos]

I placed "illegal" in quotes exactly for what you said. The Poles had no historical right to take Prussia, but the Germans lost the war and couldn't do otherwise.

I think that by stating the reasons behind the initiation of WW2 i somewhat proved that it was not some madness on Germany's part or some obsession to acquire lands and kill slavs, but shrewd political calculation. They thought they could reclaim their lost territories and get away with it. But they did not.

[Zkribbler]

The Western Mail quotes a Foreign Office source as saying that Spain then backed away from a commitment to put the deal to the people of Gibraltar in a referendum.

Hmm, if you got to vote or whether to be a part of the UK or Spain, which would you choose?

I wonder how the referendum would have come out if the citizens of Hong Kong had been allowed to vote on whether they should be returned to the mainland.

[GeneralTacticus]

I think that by stating the reasons behind the initiation of WW2 i somewhat proved that it was not some madness on Germany's part or some obsession to acquire lands and kill slavs, but shrewd political calculation. They thought they could reclaim their lost territories and get away with it. But they did not.

WWII [i]DID[/u] result from the Nazis' drive for conquest. Had their intention been merely to regain the land they had surrendered after WWI, they would, as I said, have stopped with the Sudetenland and Danzig rather tahn conquering most of Europe.

[Palaiologos]

Conquer most of Europe?

To my knowledge apart from Denmark and Holland, the rest were justifiable conquests along the objectives of war.

France was attacked for it was their main continental opponent, Norway to prevent the English gaining a foothold there thus repeating the naval blockade of WWI, Belgium for diversion against the Anglo-French armies, Greece to save the Axis prestige after the Italians had fuc*d it up there, Yugoslavia because Adolf considered its depart from the Axis as treason, and because an attack there would outflank the Greek defenses, and the Soviet Union as a preempive strike.

And i do not think that someone really believed that after the war, had the Axis been victorious, Germany's borders would extend from Berlin to Athens. These countries were OCCUPIED, not conquered.

[Serb]

You must take your medication miss. Such logic could justify everything, any type of aggression. A Nazi regime can’t exist without constant wars and conquests. War was Hitler’s goal and mean at the same time. Next thing you gonna tell me that nazi’s atrocities toward “inferior” humans were some kind of pre-emptive actions too?

[GeneralTacticus]

Conquer most of Europe?

Yes. This had always been Hitlers goal; the acquisition of 'lebensraum' for the Aryan 'Master Race'. Read Mein Kampf if you don't believe me.

To my knowledge apart from Denmark and Holland, the rest were justifiable conquests along the objectives of war.

The fact that they could be vaguely justified by a general war does not mean that said general war was not started in order to achieve those conquests. Moreover, nations such as Greece, Yugoloslavia, or for that matter russia, had given Hitler no casus belli at all.

France was attacked for it was their main continental opponent, Norway to prevent the English gaining a foothold there thus repeating the naval blockade of WWI, Belgium for diversion against the Anglo-French armies, Greece to save the Axis prestige after the Italians had fuc*d it up there, Yugoslavia because Adolf considered its depart from the Axis as treason, and because an attack there would outflank the Greek defenses, and the Soviet Union as a preempive strike.

None of this reasoning justified their conquest, or refutes the main point that the conquest of these nations ahd been the Nazi aim all along and that the war was precipitated in order to achieve it.

And i do not think that someone really believed that after the war, had the Axis been victorious, Germany's borders would extend from Berlin to Athens. These countries were OCCUPIED, not conquered.

The occupied areas were not to be annexed to Germany; they were to be governed by puppets propped up by the Gestapo and Wehrmacht and used as sources of raw materials, land, and slave labour.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
Conquer most of Europe?

To my knowledge apart from Denmark and Holland, the rest were justifiable conquests along the objectives of war.

France was attacked for it was their main continental opponent, Norway to prevent the English gaining a foothold there thus repeating the naval blockade of WWI, Belgium for diversion against the Anglo-French armies, Greece to save the Axis prestige after the Italians had fuc*d it up there, Yugoslavia because Adolf considered its depart from the Axis as treason, and because an attack there would outflank the Greek defenses, and the Soviet Union as a preempive strike.

And i do not think that someone really believed that after the war, had the Axis been victorious, Germany's borders would extend from Berlin to Athens. These countries were OCCUPIED, not conquered.

You some kind of Nazi apologist?

[GeneralTacticus]

It sure looks like it, considering that he refers to us being 'brainwashed by anti-fascist propaganda', and implying that Hitler wasn't such a bad guy, but was 'demonised' after the war. Damn right he was - but there was no propaganda involved, the facts saw to that.

[KrazyHorse]

I tried reasoning with him earlier when he was "only" asking "so what's wrong with Franco?"...

[Palaiologos]

What you see as "reason", i see as prejudice.

I AM NOT A NAZI APOLOGIST, i just do not believe that Germans were the villains of the war.

The German man fought heroicaly and died for his family and his homeland, not for Hitler.

AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THE AXIS WAS DEMONISED AFTER THE WAR.

That happens to the defeated after every war. Hannibal was the villain of his times, and so was Philip V. The victorious it seems, need to ease their conciense.


The aged Hannibal was persecuted by the Romans up to his last days, and decided to commit suicide to at least have a peacefull ending.

The Roman people, according to their Senate's propaganda, believed that Philip V counterattack in illyria against the Roman possesions there, was to be followed by an invasion of italy and then the rest of the world.


The Allies, in WWII, believed they were fighting a crusade to rid the world of evil and bring democracy.

[Palaiologos]

Apart from the "he was a faschist" argument i have not heard any other arguments to convince me why was Franco that bad.

[Az]

I AM NOT A NAZI APOLOGIST, i just do not believe that Germans were the villains of the war.

rrrrrrrrrriiiiight.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THE AXIS WAS DEMONISED AFTER THE WAR.

Six million Jews and a few million other undesirables were systematically exterminated. Is that a fact or just a demonisation in your opinion?

[GeneralTacticus]

The German man fought heroicaly and died for his family and his homeland, not for Hitler.

Perhaps you would care to explain how they were 'fighting for their homeland' by invading Russia, murdering millions of prisoners of war, murdering civilians left, right and centre, and in general trying to destroy an entire nation.

And that's not even going into them fighting against partisans in obscure parts of Eastern Europe, or their activities in the death camps.

AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THE AXIS WAS DEMONISED AFTER THE WAR.

Demonisation implies that it was not deserved.

That happens to the defeated after every war. Hannibal was the villain of his times, and so was Philip V. The victorious it seems, need to ease their conciense.

Your point? The Allies committed atrocities too, no-one was innocent in that war, but thje atrocities of the Germans were in a far greater league.

The aged Hannibal was persecuted by the Romans up to his last days, and decided to commit suicide to at least have a peacefull ending.

The Roman people, according to their Senate's propaganda, believed that Philip V counterattack in illyria against the Roman possesions there, was to be followed by an invasion of italy and then the rest of the world.

Your point?

The Allies, in WWII, believed they were fighting a crusade to rid the world of evil and bring democracy.

Well, they did rid the world of a horrific evil, and restore democracy to a few countrie. Although they then went on to oppose democracy and commit atrocities elsewhere, that does not change the fact that WWII was entirely justified.

Apart from the "he was a faschist" argument i have not heard any other arguments to convince me why was Franco that bad.

Yes, you have. You just ignored them because they were inconvenient.

1) The fact that he was a fascist *IS* an argument against him, for reasons already explained.

2) As a follow-on from #1, he was a brutal dictator.

3) For much of his time in power he caused significant economic problems; it was not until he was pushed into adopting freer economic policies in the 1960s that the economy made much progress.

[Palaiologos]

If argument No3 is valid then i concur that Franco was a
bad GOVERNOR.

Fascism is not considered an argument against him IMHO.

In that respect one could say that the Ukranian President is a bad one as well, being a communist.