The spirit of Franco is alive and well

[Palaiologos]

Greece was not a main opponent or target of the Axis, as were the Jews and the Brtish empire, and as such anti-german propaganda has not penetrated the thoughts of the people.

Churchil had made plans to invade the Soviet Union as well after the war, but his generals wisely advised him that they would fare no beter than the Germans before them. Germany did not attack Soviet Russia just because they were slavs and therefore inferior, but simply because as a pre-emptive strike.

In the long war, that seemed unavoidable, with the British Empire, the Soviet Union was a potential ally to the English. The Russians had made plans themselves for an eventual clash with Germany. A Russian General(whose name eludes me at the moment), stated that the Russian armed forces would be ready for an attack on Germany by 1946-7.

What better timing could be found for the clash with Soviets than the summer of 1941?
Germany had no continental opponents and the Soviet army was weakened by the Winter war and Stalin's cleansing of the officer corps.

In Manstein's "Lost victories", i think, it is stated that the war with Russia must find Germany on the attack, as allowing the Soviet hordes invade Germany would be catastrophic. And the man was no Nazi, but a Prussian aristocrat.

Guderian in "Achtung Panzer"(1937) warns against a war with Russia as they possesed 10.000 tanks and hordes of infantry. The only way to face them would be to cripple their armed forces in a surprise attack. He was not a nazi either.

[Ramo]

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

He was a mass-murderer. Considering the population of Spain at the time, his murder's were on the scale of Hitler's or Stalin's. He killed people because they believed in social justice. He killed people because they wanted to unionize so they could make enough money to survive. He commited countless atrocities in the Civil War and in the war in Morocco. He presided over a regime authoritarian in the extreme, where political opponents were locked up and executed.

I can't believe I have to explain why Francisco Franco was bad.

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.

This comment is bullshit, as everyone else has pointed so well well. But one thing to add is that not only did the West refuse to send aid to the Republicans, they embargoed the Republicans so they couldn't even buy any weapons or supplies. Furthermore, the only state willing to do business with the Republicans, the Soviets, demanded them to hand over a huge chunk of their gold reserve for far less than what the Nationalists were given by the Fascist states free of charge. The Republicans were in an infinitely worse international situation than the Nationalists.

[Palaiologos]

And just as to prevent Tacitus from asking about my point, with my post i wanted to emphasise that most of the people argueing with me have a prejudice against the axis, influenced perhaps by their nation's propaganda.

I analysed the strategical situation of the time to show that the attack on the Soviet Unnion was based on pure STRATEGICAL AND POLITICAL REASONS OF WARTIME, not on some obscure racist ideology.

HItler's Aryan race list started including Germanics only, then added Finnish, French, Croats(Slavs!!), Greeks, etc... as it suited the goals of the war.

The Nazi ideology was for internal consumption not a FACTOR OF FOREIGN POLICY.

[chequita guevara]

I see Ramo's got things in hand here.

[GeneralTacticus]

Fascism is not considered an argument against him IMHO.

You just don't get it, do you? Being a fascist constitutes an argument against a ruler because of the acts necessary to obtain the label - that is, mass murder, repression, etc.

Greece was not a main opponent or target of the Axis, as were the Jews and the Brtish empire, and as such anti-german propaganda has not penetrated the thoughts of the people.

Would you care to point out a few examples of 'anti-german propaganda'?

Churchil had made plans to invade the Soviet Union as well after the war, but his generals wisely advised him that they would fare no beter than the Germans before them.

Given that the Sopviet Union was America's and Britain's main rival for global dominance, I don't consider that very surprising.

Germany did not attack Soviet Russia just because they were slavs and therefore inferior,

Then would you care to explain Hitler's statements that the war was one of extermination, or the atrocities committed by the Eisanztgruppen (sp?) in occupied Russia, or the mass starvation of Soviet prisoners of war?

but simply because as a pre-emptive strike.

A preemptive strike against what, precisely? Stalin wasn't threatening the Germans; on the contrary, he was bending over backwards to avoid war, and dismissed the countless intelligence reports given to him indicating that Hitler was preparing for an invasion. If he ahd planned on an invasion himself, he would have struck before the Germans had gotten organized on the Eastern Front.

In the long war, that seemed unavoidable, with the British Empire, the Soviet Union was a potential ally to the English.

Now you're just repeating Hitler's own paranoia about the USSR. Stalin had no interest whatsoever in coming to the aid of a coutnry that had tried to drive him and the Germans to war, and the aiding of which could gain him very little anyway.

The Russians had made plans themselves for an eventual clash with Germany. A Russian General(whose name eludes me at the moment), stated that the Russian armed forces would be ready for an attack on Germany by 1946-7.

And would the Germans have known that, do you think? How would they have? Moreover, the 1946-47 leaves a gap of five years, at the very least, between the German invasion and any kind of Soviet threat to Germany. Claiming that the Nazi attack was justified because in five years time they could have invaded is like saying that the US should have nuked Russia after WWII because in a few years time they would have the A-Bomb and hence be able to nuke America.

What better timing could be found for the clash with Soviets than the summer of 1941?
Germany had no continental opponents and the Soviet army was weakened by the Winter war and Stalin's cleansing of the officer corps.

Why attack at all? You're pointing out reasons why the attack was considered practical at all, and why it was so successful. You're not pointing out the reaosns why it was considered desirable: the fact that Russia had huge amounts of land and resources that Hitler wanted to seize for the Aryan 'master race'.

In Manstein's "Lost victories", i think, it is stated that the war with Russia must find Germany on the attack, as allowing the Soviet hordes invade Germany would be catastrophic. And the man was no Nazi, but a Prussian aristocrat.

So he stated an obvious reality. Big f*cking deal. Now what relevance does that have to why the Germans invaded?

Guderian in "Achtung Panzer"(1937) warns against a war with Russia as they possesed 10.000 tanks and hordes of infantry. The only way to face them would be to cripple their armed forces in a surprise attack. He was not a nazi either.

No, he wasn't, and once again, you've pointe dout that some Germans recognised reality when they saw it and pointed it out.

And just as to prevent Tacitus from asking about my point, with my post i wanted to emphasise that most of the people argueing with me have a prejudice against the axis, influenced perhaps by their nation's propaganda.

Is uppose you consider the six million plus murdered in the Holocaust, along with the tens of millions who died in WWII, which the Axis started, are propaganda as well?

I analysed the strategical situation of the time to show that the attack on the Soviet Unnion was based on pure STRATEGICAL AND POLITICAL REASONS OF WARTIME, not on some obscure racist ideology.

A proper analysis of the situation would show that an attack on the USSR was about the stupidest thing Hitler could have done. They had far more resources avaiable, and they had the winter on their side. The attack at that particular point in time was a strategic decision caused by Soviet weakness and developments in Greece and Yugoslavia, but the original decision to attack in the first place had already been made on the basis of Nazi ideology.

HItler's Aryan race list started including Germanics only, then added Finnish, French, Croats(Slavs!!), Greeks, etc... as it suited the goals of the war.

The Nazi ideology was for internal consumption not a FACTOR OF FOREIGN POLICY.

If it was for internal consumption, then why bother conducting colossal atrocities which gained the Germans nothing in military terms and had no effect on public opinion, being concealed from the German public?

[Az]

You just don't get it, do you? Being a fascist constitutes an argument against a ruler because of the acts necessary to obtain the label - that is, mass murder, repression, etc.

not necessarily.
Still, you guys are right. keep fight poor greek who probably misses his junta or something.

[GeneralTacticus]

not necessarily.

How so?

[Sirotnikov]

Look, guys, you're missing the point. As always, you fail to find the critical differences between you and your opponent in debate / flame.

For the sake of arguement with Pala(*snip*), you should accept expansionism and militarism as viable and reasonable strategies, even though you think they aren't.

Then you should explain what they did wrong : racism, opression, genocide.

Pala, you're arguing with people who see expansionistm and militarism as inherently evil. They can't possibly understand your points.

I agree that if one accepts expansionism and militarism as viable options, the military actions undertaken by the axis in WWII, was logical and can't be judged as "evil".

As to what was wrong with the fascists-nazis in WWII: they mass murdered people who were of no threat to them, just because of having a different opinion, sexual preference or race.

They tried to impose a "super race" and create a genocide of the jewish people, and some other groups such as gays. They assassinated political opponents.

That is what was inherently wrong with them.

[Sirotnikov]

How so?

Fascism is an ideology, based on the unity of the state and it being above the citizen. Furthermore it sees war as the natural state. Beyond that it sees the crowds as 'minions who flock after leaders'. These minions have no right to decide.

It's use as a synonim for "cruel dictator" is IMO wrong.

True, cruel dictators have been fascist. but also conservatives, aristocrats, theocrats and communists.

[GeneralTacticus]

How many fascist leaders have there been that weren't cruel dictators?

[Sirotnikov]

How many fascist leaders have there been that weren't cruel dictators?

How many communist or theocrats?

[GeneralTacticus]

That's not the point. I agree that 'fascist' shouldn't be a catch-all term for dictatorships, I just think that fascism cannot be seperated from dictatorship.

[Az]

That's not the point. I agree that 'fascist' shouldn't be a catch-all term for dictatorships, I just think that fascism cannot be seperated from dictatorship.

It depends on what you describe as dictatorship. besides, Being a dictator wasn't the thing that was wrong about Franco, Hitler, Franklin D. Roosvelt. (A little something for David Floyd )




(OMG, I SOOOO hate defending fascism. )

[GeneralTacticus]

Well, of course it does. So does anything. However, as Siro pointed out, fascism as an ideology glorifies the state over the individual, i.e., dictatorship.

[Palaiologos]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus


You just don't get it, do you? Being a fascist constitutes an argument against a ruler because of the acts necessary to obtain the label - that is, mass murder, repression, etc.



Would you care to point out a few examples of 'anti-german propaganda'?



Given that the Sopviet Union was America's and Britain's main rival for global dominance, I don't consider that very surprising.



Then would you care to explain Hitler's statements that the war was one of extermination, or the atrocities committed by the Eisanztgruppen (sp?) in occupied Russia, or the mass starvation of Soviet prisoners of war?



A preemptive strike against what, precisely? Stalin wasn't threatening the Germans; on the contrary, he was bending over backwards to avoid war, and dismissed the countless intelligence reports given to him indicating that Hitler was preparing for an invasion. If he ahd planned on an invasion himself, he would have struck before the Germans had gotten organized on the Eastern Front.



Now you're just repeating Hitler's own paranoia about the USSR. Stalin had no interest whatsoever in coming to the aid of a coutnry that had tried to drive him and the Germans to war, and the aiding of which could gain him very little anyway.

1.How absurd!!
Greece had a fascist regime at the time as well. General Metaxas was a dictator and had Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy as examples of governing. A Fascist youth(EON or NYO-National youth organization) in which ALL youths were obligated to participate, a Faschist Hail etc.
But Metaxas was no mass murderer or oppressor. Churchill said after the war that the country best prepared for the war was Greece(In 1936 Metaxas in a press conference said that a war was coming in which the British would be victorious, having on their side the "Jews and the Democracies").

2. I have seen British documentaries(is this the word?) on television where propaganda is clearly visible.For example the characterization of a stout German defence(f.e Normandy) as "fanatical", while a British one(Dunkirk, Anzio) as "heroic".

3. I find it surprising that you understand British aggression against the Soviet union, but not Germany's. England was not less anti-communist than Germany.

4. They were indeed treated as inferior, BUT THAT WAS NOT THE REASON THEY INVADED IN 1941.

5. The only reason Stalin did not do it first, was because he could not. The Soviet military was in a bad shape. Anyway it was not Hitler's paranoia. The thought that Germany was surounded by a multitide of enemies existed in the mind of the common German man. That was the reason they developed tank warfare anyway.
Guderian in "Achtung Panzer" says that the only way to make up for Germany's "chronic affliction in manpower and ammunition" is use tanks to destroy one enemy before others could intervene.


6.A thorough study of military and political history will show you that this is simply not true. A common enemy has united even the most diverse of nations.

[Az]

Well, of course it does. So does anything. However, as Siro pointed out, fascism as an ideology glorifies the state over the individual, i.e., dictatorship.

was that pointed at me? if so, I don't understand your question.

[Palaiologos]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Look, guys, you're missing the point. As always, you fail to find the critical differences between you and your opponent in debate / flame.

For the sake of arguement with Pala(*snip*), you should accept expansionism and militarism as viable and reasonable strategies, even though you think they aren't.

Then you should explain what they did wrong : racism, opression, genocide.

Pala, you're arguing with people who see expansionistm and militarism as inherently evil. They can't possibly understand your points.

I agree that if one accepts expansionism and militarism as viable options, the military actions undertaken by the axis in WWII, was logical and can't be judged as "evil".

As to what was wrong with the fascists-nazis in WWII: they mass murdered people who were of no threat to them, just because of having a different opinion, sexual preference or race.

They tried to impose a "super race" and create a genocide of the jewish people, and some other groups such as gays. They assassinated political opponents.

That is what was inherently wrong with them.

You are right.


I am not defending the Nazi persecutions but Nazi political actions. I believe that party politics do not influence foreign policy.

And why should one see expansionism as evil?
In that respect, the Persian invasions-490Bc and 480Bc-
of Greece and the Ottoman attack on Constantinople-1453Ad- were "evil".

[Az]

I am not defending the Nazi persecutions but Nazi political actions. I believe that party politics do not influence foreign policy.

so don't you think that the nazis attacked all over europe because of the Nazi ideology?

And why should one see expansionism as evil?
In that respect, the Persian invasions-490Bc and 480Bc-
of Greece and the Ottoman attack on Constantinople-1453Ad- were "evil".

for me, an action that creates more happiness worldwide is evil. did Nazism create more happiness worldwide, on any scope of things? NO.

[Tolls]

"I am not defending the Nazi persecutions but Nazi political actions. I believe that party politics do not influence foreign policy."

Considering a large chunk of their ideology was based on ocerturning the result of the previous war how could it possibly NOT influence foreign politics? The military build up, the Sudetenland (and then Czechoslovakia as a whole), Austria, Danzig?

Throw in a racial ideology that allowed them to view the east simply as a convenient place to expand into...after all, they were only Slavs, hardly human. The concept of lebensraum...

These were all part of the ideology of the party, and they all influenced (significantly) the foreign policy they pursued.

[Palaiologos]

It is my belief that WWII would happen anyway, Nazis or not. Every German dreamed of the time the accursed treaty of Versalies would be overturned.


It was not the nazis that fought all over Europe, but THE GERMAN ARMY. Since when the army identifies itself with a party?

I know that the nazi party had identified itself with the state, but the campaigns of the german army in 1939-1945 were based on MILITARY THINKING, not on party ideology.

[Tolls]

The German army followed orders...it was apolitical (sort of). So whoever controlled the state (ie the Nazis) controlled the army...and whatever foreign policy they had (based on their ideology as I have just pointed out) was carried out by the army under their orders!

As for "(e)very German dreamed of the time the accursed treaty of Versalies would be overturned", that is an exaggeration. There were large elements that didn't really care.

[Palaiologos]

I admit that i have no direct knowledge of what the average Germans thought of the the treaty of the Versalies. I have only read books about it, by German officers(Guderian etc.), but i suppose they were among the elements that did care. However judging by the Turkish reaction(war continued anew) i speculate that the Germans thought the same.

I again state that the german foreign policy of 1937 and on, was not because of the nazi party, but because of a revival of the German strength-which indirectly was because of the nazis.

Had less able rulers been in power, Germany would follow the same policy, just less agressively and in a longer period of time.

[Ramo]

Franco wasn't a fascist. He adopted an international persona of a fascist, largely to insure German and Italian support, but his internal policies were actually quite different from Germany and Italy. He co-opted and undermined the Spanish fascist movement (the Falange) within the Carlists. Fascists primarily act in the interests of powerful industrialists, but Franco primarily acted in the interests of more traditional forms of authority - wealthy landowners and the church. As such, Franco is better categorized with the ultra-right Latin American authoritarians like Somoza, Pinochet, etc. than with the Hitler or Mussolini.

[Sirotnikov]

so don't you think that the nazis attacked all over europe because of the Nazi ideology?

The direct reason was the Nazi ideology.

However I completely agree with Pala here, that if it weren't the nazis, it would have been some other, perhaps more moderate and non-racist ideology, that would have had the same expansionist tendencies.

The feelings were all there. It was a mere coincidence and luck that the nazis were the ones to employ it.

I think that the german foreign policy would have followed a very similar path, had it been any other arisocratic or army general, ceasing power. For instance Putch.

Though they might have had less success and were more isolated. Hitler abused the european appeasement and american apathy to the limit, and was greatly empowered by it.

[Silpy]

Ok Children.

Before we go any further, please read any book written during the Spanish Civil war. My recomendation is Geroge Orwell's 'Homage to Catalonia'.
He states that Franco was reactionary not Fascist. Franco was supported in the coup by the nobility of the recently deposed monarchy, generals, clergy, and landowners wishing to restore feudalism. Most of the 'human dust' (Trosky's term) which forms Fascism (poor middle classes threatened by becoming working class, rich busnessmen, etc) mainly supported the Republic! They would of defently supported Fascism if it had appeared in an Italian or German form, but because Franco was appealing for 'turning the clock back', they resisted.

NB The USSR actully stopped the Spanish revolution! Stalin told the CP to become supporters of the republic, and to target actual socalist organisations who wanted a revolution (POUM, Anarchists) And Stalin only sent arms to help against Franco when the Republic promiced they would remain capitalist.

I feel better now.

Apart from the person who said Fascism is OK. How could you? We know it does not work!

[Palaiologos]

I did not say that fascism is OK, just that being a fascist can not be used as an argument against anybody.