Valle do los Caidos

I'm interested in visiting the Valle de los Caidos but the only way to get there seems to be by hiring a car. I know the bus to El Escorial goes past it but does nayone know a bus that actually stops there?

I have never gone by bus but there is a camping near so I guess it probably will. Anyway, I don't remember very well but I think you will have to walk for a while from the road. You better ask the bus company about it, I think it's Larrea, you can find it in paginas amarillas .

[This message has been edited by MadridMan (edited 02-08-2001).]

I think you'll get mixed opinions about Valle de los Caidos from most people. Many/Most tourists find it a Must-See for it's immensity, location, BIG CROSS, and "a testament to those who died during Spain's civil war". That which I just wrote in quotations is the "white bread", smoothed-out, and popular description. I, for one, have never gone there, mainly because of the views of my Spanish friends about it. Some of their fathers were against Franco and imprisoned for years because of it so they understandably have strong feelings against this place as it was built (mainly) FOR Franco supporters, and built (mainly) BY prisoners who opposed him. Many died in the construction. Anyone else want to give a more in depth description?? I'm sure many feel strongly about this topic as I do and I'm not even Spanish.

Saludos, MadridMan (P.S. Maybe this should also go in the ABOUT SPAIN forum??)

My first trip to Spain years and years ago I was literally dragged to Valle de los Caidos because the kids I was traveling with wanted to see it. It's a monolith to ugliness in every fashion - remember being horrified and crying a lot - best as I recall through very red eyes was that I would have given almost anything to have been anywhere else. Depressing - depressing - depressing - I still find it hard (as you might have noticed) to consider Valle de los Caidos a monument in any fashion. Sort of like going to Dachau (sp) without the history lesson!

Hope no-one is offended by my 'ranting' here!

When visiting another country, I think it's important to see both "the good and the bad." What's wrong with feeling some emotion? Valle de los Caidos is a part of Spanish history.

In answer to the question....Yes, there is a bus you catch from El Escorial that goes up to the monument. Then you walk up the long mountain staircase to the base or you can take a tram. It's so large and overwhelming that it's worth the trip. I know most modern Spaniards hate this place but it's still very interesting to see and walk inside the full size cathedral carved out inside the the rocky mountain.

Leche

Thanks. Now I think of it I remember hearing about this bus when I was in El Escorial but I don't think it was running the day I was there (should have planned ahead). It was probably a monday when things shut down.

I'm in the "won't go" camp, too. Franco did horrific evil to Spain--robbing her of her hard-won democracy for 40 years; inviting Hitler's bombs to murder her people; and indeed destroying far more history than this monument to himself and his reign of fascism could ever represent. Seeing the good and bad of Spain's history is one thing. Buying into Franco's self-serving propaganda and personal spin on history is something else entirely.

I'd go. It's a place that could be built in the 20th century only by a man with Franco's authority. Most countries don't build places like this anymore, and it's worth seeing.

I don't know that "many" died in its construction. But some did. I'm told that prisoners did work on it, but in return for their labor had their sentences shortened. At least that's what I was told when I was in Madrid occasionally during the years of its construction.

I find the anti-Franco argument to be less than convincing. Would you not visit the Escorial because you may not have liked the policies of Phillip II? It's part of history. Ignoring it won't make it go away. IMHO it's worth the trip. Both The Valley of the Fallen and Escorial can be covered in a single day.
Cantabene

[This message has been edited by cantabene (edited 02-09-2001).]

[This message has been edited by cantabene (edited 02-09-2001).]

I agree with Cantebane that you shouldn't miss it because of political reasons, as time has past since then, I think that almosts of the biggest constructions has been done under big oppresions, like pyramids in Egypt, etc..,
anyway I'm not sure of its artistic value. Of course it's impressive because of its size, but places of this category are still built I think, you just need money. The last faraonic building I remember is the mosque of Hassan II in Rabat, I don't find fair to spend so much money in such things when people is so poor, but anyway the mistake is done, your position has no effect.

I'll put myself in the "go" colum. It is a ruggedly beautiful place. It has a sad history, true. Over time the memory of repression and civil war will fade, but the monument will endure. Remeber, the men who died in its construction were vindicated in the end. Spain is a free and prosporous democracy now, thanks in part to thier sacrafices. So visit and remeber them, and say a prayer of thanks for thier souls.

I'm in the "go" (and "went already...twice") category. See my posts in the ETA thread to see what I think of Franco. I went anyway. It's not odd to me that Franco would build an elaborate church in which to be buried. The church in Spain became his ally, and from it he drew great power and validation (see the current ruling party: PP for a microcosm). The description of Valle de los Caídos as a monument to all the fallen is only recent (post-Franco), in a PC-type of move. The Falange gather there annually to honor the past, not the fallen Republicans.

Most who have studied Franco know that when he started, his rule was referred to as a "dictadura". By the time his days were numbered, it was already referred to as a "dictablanda", and that he was probably contemplating meeting his maker. He went soft(er). Throughout history, those who had the means desired burial close to the church with the thought that they would be closer to God in the afterlife. Check out where Franco and Primo de Rivera are in relation to the cross of the basilica next time you're there...

Artistically and from an engineering standpoint, V.d.l.C. is a marvel, without question. I think that cantabene's point is right on. How many millions have visited the Colosseum in Rome? How many Christians met their doom there? Apparently absence makes the heart grow fonder...because those things happened millennia ago, it's a "historical site". V.d.l.C. is too contemporary. We have family who we KNOW who suffered under Franco, and therefore choose to temper our appreciation of the architectural and historical significance of the shrine with feelings of hate and rancor, not to mention the sadness felt over who really built it.

Because many of us lived as contemporaries to the Franco regime, we feel connected and feel authorized to comment and vote "no" to going. I feel that you can go and still save your dignity and preserve your prejudices.

Franco was no different than any other murderer or Robber Baron who achieves an "eleventh hour salvation" because he fears what may be awaiting him in the afterlife. His masterful manipulation of the willing church to divide Spaniards and secure support from the wealthy was his greatest strength. The sycophantic Falange and those made rich by his leave would not be alongside him after death to assure him what a great Patriot and Caudillo he was. If Franco could convince those who came later how great he was perhaps he could convince God. Even so I will visit the Valley on my next trip to Spain.

People visit Dachau and Auschwitz to bear witness to history--to honor the memories of the murdered, not the murderers. But imagine if Hitler had won the war and the camps today were a place to gather to pay tribute to the gas chambers as marvels of German engineering or the operating rooms as the birthplace of advances in medical science--with a huge, gaudy shrine to Hitler in the midst of it all. THEN they would be obscenely analogous to El Valle de los Caidos.

My uncle fought with the International Brigades in Spain. I knew one of Franco's prisoners of war. So my contempt for this shrine to a fascist has personal as well as political roots. But I don't tailor my travel itineraries to my socialist tendencies any more than I avoid visiting churches because I'm an atheist. I simply prefer when I travel not to waste my time on sites that I know in advance present not history, but rather a shameful distortion of history.

As for aesthetics--time is in short supply on any vacation, and we all need to make choices about what we do and do not see. Would anyone on this board argue that this place simply cannot be missed because its beauty is unsurpassed by that of any other architecture Spain has to offer?

It's an aesthetic monstrosity, so for those to whom this appeals... You know, it is interesting, the culture/history/aesthetics intersection. I went to the Shrine of Guadalupe outside Mexico City (Basilica de Guadalupe). It is, architectually, one of the ugliest places on earth. The little moving sidewalk beneath the 'shroud' with the image of Guadalupe made me laugh. But I have a cultural thing about Guadalupe, and do lots of reading about her, think about her figure in myth and literature. When I went to Guadalupe (Spain) last summer, that Monasterio was so moving, so splendid, and when they turned the little statue of the black Virgen de Guadalupe around, I burst into tears. Well. I'm no Catholic, was not experiencing any religious extasy. It was aesthetic. But you knew that from the great Italian painters/sculptors who in the Reniassance started that transformation to the extatic secular/religious. che bella, la madonna!

I agree that there are (many) other wonders of architecture in Spain more worthy of a visit. That point is not in dispute. Nevertheless, this is a manifestation of a more contemporary part of Spanish history. Regardless of your political leanings, it is what it is: A testament to almost forty years of Spanish history. History is told through the eyes of the conquerer, and when the conquerer is vanished, then history is either retold, revised, revisited or (in the case of Stalin) erased. Spain has yet to nationally revise or retell that story on a wide scale, so places like VdlC still have a draw. Additionally, there are those students of history (like myself) that feel the need to take in as much as possible in order to accurately contemplate both sides of the struggle.

Franco hated certain things about what his Spain had become, and certain people and ethnicities in that Spain, and when placed in a position of power, he quashed them. His legacy is that of a dictator, regardless of the fact that he saw himself as a reformer, a restorer, and a "place holder" until monarchy was again restored to Spain. By letting ourselves see both sides of the struggle that was the civil war in Spain, we can truly make our own call. By letting someone else tell us the "official story", without experiencing or studying on our own, we mimic the behavior which allows dictators to come to power in the first place: indifference and ignorance. I personally feel that the information and experience that I gather first hand is more valuable to me than the belief in a second- or third-hand account. That is why I visited Dachau, that is why I have twice visited Valle de los Caídos.

CaliBasco, I don't question your motives or your sincerity, and I certainly applaud the intelligence you've brought to this debate. I suppose it's the absence of precisely this level of discourse that causes me to abhor El Valle de los Caidos. There's no balance to be found at resistance museum like Denmark's, no memorial to Dolores Ibarurri, no grave of any kind at which to honor the disappeared Garcia Lorca--only a grotesque monument to one man's immortal ego. I reiterate that Franco's legacy is the obliteration, not the preservation, of 20th-century Spain's history, and I want no part of that. But I suppose this is one of those issues about which people of good faith must agree to disagree.

Franco's impact on Spain and Spaniards will continue to be debated hotly. The irony is that even though American brigades fought against Franco, we benefited because he and not the Communists won.

There is little doubt that had Franco lost, Spain would have become a Communist country.
And distasteful as the Franco regime was to many, we in the USA were fortunate during the cold war that Spain was not a Communist bastion.

There was no hope that the Republic would have been restored after a Comunist victory. And it's probable that the life of Spaniards would probably have been even worse under Communism. Look at Cuba.
Cantabene

[This message has been edited by cantabene (edited 02-11-2001).]

[This message has been edited by cantabene (edited 02-11-2001).]

A communist country? onnnnk. Like France became after WWII? The excesses of the Republic would have been tamed just fine if Franco hadn't invaded. Had the U.S. intervened, it would have been all over.

[This message has been edited by rgf (edited 02-11-2001).]

France after WWII was a U.S. dependant, occupied by thousands of U.S. troops, so there was little chance of it going communist.

During the Civil War, the communists were the strongest element of the republican coalition, and the USSR was their biggest foriegn backer. I don't recall communists anywhere allowing a "correction" once they seized control of power. I think that Franco, for all his exceses and oppression, prevented a communist takeover of Spain in the 1930's. Franco's Spain was a valuable ally to NATO and the U.S during the cold war and beyond. Had it been a Soviet ally, the Cold War might have turned out much differently.

Nothing like ignoring truth and facts when discussing history.

The truth is that the Republic turned first to the US, England and France when fascism threatened. All three countries turned their backs on her just as they turned their backs on the millions of Jews they could have saved from the death camps run by Franco's allies. France and England weren't going to do anything to further the demise of monarchism, and the US, in its official language, considered it "premature" to oppose fascism until December 7, 1941.

Had ANY western power come to the aid of the Republic, Spain would not have been forced into the desperate step of accepting the USSR's decidedly inferior military power. Our failure to save Spain and then all of Europe from fascism in the 1930s was nothing less than shameful. THAT was our opportunity to ensure liberty and democracy throughout the continent. Instead of taking that opportunity, we allowed the Nazi boots to march from Germany, Italy and Spain across much of Europe, bringing death to tens of millions and decades of repression and agony to tens (if not hundreds) of millions more.

In the process, we created a military situation that demanded sharing of power with the USSR in the war's aftermath--and poor Spain was left to suffer under fascism for decades after it was vanquished on the rest of the continent. I doubt highly whether the Spanish people, during the 40 years when Franco's hands were around their throats, gave a damn about whether he was "valuable" as our ally--because we surely were not their allies when they desperately needed us to be.

No amount of vintage Cold War revisionist rationalization changes these facts. And no proclamation that Spanish fascism was "good" for the US does anything but slander the ideals of democracy and liberty on which this country is supposed to be founded.

Aphra, you as well as I know why La Pasionaria was not afforded any kind of shrine: She was half Basque.

Franco was an opportunist. When the Germans showed themselves to be the dominant military power, it was with them that he aligned himself. When they went down to defeat, he waited a while, since he had been publicly neutral during WWII, then in the 50s, when his own country faced the hardships caused by isolation, he turned to NATO and the US in order to enter the world stage again. It's the same two-step made famous by fascism's other former power: Italy, although they ended up better off since they did it before the end of WWII. Nonetheless, it's essentially the same.

That Franco got what he wanted (genocide and oppression for all his enemies) and then played the neutrality card was shrewd to say the least. What Spain got in return was 40 years of worldwide misundestanding and domestic oppression.

Anyway, I agree with Aphra: This is an issue where people must agree to disagree. I want to commend all of you for your opinions expressed, especially since the last heated debate was over ETA, and people seemed to take things too personally. I appreciate that we haven't had that to deal with here...

We can play would've and could've and should've all night. But I think there is little doubt that Spain would have come under Communist control if Franco had not won. This is not to suggest that a dictatorship under Franco was necessarily better than one might have been under Communism. We cannot know that. I do know that when I lived in Spain for a couple of years during the Franco regime, that I could not have been there had Franco lost and the country gone Communist.

While there I talked with natives of Madrid who had their business collectivized by the Communists during the Civil War. Too, early in the war, all Spanish gold was shipped to Russia for safe keeping, never to be recovered--adding power to Russian domination. (Huge Thomas, "The Spanish Civil War.")

I have no doubt that the Communists would have remained in control had they won. What I cannot venture to say is for how long. Given the history of the cold war in Eastern Europe, perhaps quite a while.

I am aware that feelings on these emotional issues remain strong among many older Spaniards. I speak only from a US viewpoint when I suggest that Franco was better for us, if not necessarily better for Spaniards, than a Communist Spain would have been.
Cantabene

The last post contains as many would-have/should-have's as it critiques. Which goes to show the obvious: an in-depth analysis of history must take into account a multiplicity of factors. Why don't people post the historical readings they recommend to understand the Spa. Civil War in the context of WWII, the USSR, the USA, etc? More light.

I have been to the place and found it in typical dictatorial poor taste, much as EUR near Rome or any public edifice in former communist countries. I mean, was there a law against taste?

Anyway, this is a part of history like it or not. Go there and see it and be disgusted or impressed or spit on it or whatever, but don't ignore it.

rgf:
Let me ask you this. Had Franco lost the war, would that not have left his opponents the victors? Who do you believe to have been his opponents?
Cantabene

A radical thought: perhaps this is a debate that ought not be dominated (even on this board) by those of us in the States? Contrary to the prevailing opinion here in the US, everything is not always all about us.

Just today my friend Valerie Collins, who was born in England but has lived in Spain for decades, sent a link to her recent article about life under Franco. The link will take you to her site for ex-pat writers, Worlds Apart Review.
http://www.worldsapartreview.com/franco.htm

Read it and learn.

Aphra- The US in the '30's possesed armed forces that totalled perhaps a half-million and was in the throes of the Great Depression. We were in no position to "stop" facism in Spain or anywhere else. To suggest otherwise is itself vintage Cold War revisionist rationalization.

Hitler was not seen as a universal threat to the world then. In fact, he was seen as a bulwark against soviet and communist expansion, which was a real threat to European stability then.

The idea that this nation "turned its back" on the Jews of Europe must be comforting to the tens of thousands who lost loved ones in France and the Pacific in WWII. Also, it was the USSR itself that created a situation which "demanded" that we share power with them in the post=war world. They did that by destroying about 75% of the nazi army. Now those ARE facts.

Was Spain better off under Franco? Who knows, but the post-franco situation looks alot better than the post-communist situation in Europe.

1938: Hitler is so little recognized as a universal threat that 32 countries attend the Evian Conference in France, convened by FDR, to discuss the European refugee problem. Inexplicably, nearly all the conference participants decide against increasing quotas on Jewish emigres.

1939: A Senate bill that would have allowed 20,000 German children to enter the US does not even make it out of committee.

1939: 930 Jewish refugees on the SS St. Louis are refused entry to the US and are returned to death in Europe.

1939: Britain, which controls Palestine, issues an order that caps Jewish refugee emigration to Palestine to a 5-year total of 75,000.

1940: Hitler's campaign against the Jews and the existence of the death camps is so little known that they are the subject of a major motion picture, Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator.

"We didn't know" is a tired old lie. We knew. We just didn't give a damn. In that respect, we were just the allies Hitler, Franco and Mussolini needed to do their evil.

Thank you for sharing the link, Aphra. My first time in Spain more-or-less fit the time and economic frame she was refering to- cash poor, adventure hungry - idealistic and impressionable. Valerie Collins caught the essence - heart and soul - of what Spain was like then in the still unjaded eyes of someone that age. Thanks again for sharing.

Thanks, Puna! Here are Valerie Collins' thoughts on our exchange on this thread--and again, she has lived in Spain for decades:

"Spain was mercilessly excluded from the US Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of Europe BECAUSE of the fascist dictatorship, which was why the post-war starvation and misery lasted for so long (as I say in the article, long after it had ended in the vaniquished countries). Even Portugal, despite being under a (relatively benign) dictatorship, got Marshall Plan aid. Spain repeatedly applied for membership of what was then the Common Market, and was repeatedly turned down because they did not
have democracy. Spain was used by the German Luftwaffe as a trial run for WWII
and then punished by the US because the wrong side won.

"The Spanish civil war was not fought between democrats and communists. It was fought between Franco's *rebel* forces and the legitimate, democratically elected government of the Spanish Republic. This government was weak, and there was so much infighting between the different communist and in particular anarchist groups that the country was sinking into chaos.

"A wonderful book which also evokes very deeply and painfully what it was like to live in Spain under Franco is A Woman Unknown by Lucia Graves (the daughter of the poet Robert Graves, who lived on Mallorca). I recommend it to anyone who wants to go beyond the posturing of politicians and historians who have never been here and to understand what the dictatorship meant to the lives of ordinary people in Spain."

[This message has been edited by aphra (edited 02-13-2001).]

[This message has been edited by aphra (edited 02-13-2001).]

This reminds me of one of my first posts ever, if not my first one-
Has anyone ever seen the movie "Bienvenidos Mister Marshall"?
It's about a small, Andalucian village preparing themselves for aid from the Marshall Plan.... It's a great movie.

Aphra says:
"We didn't know" is a tired old lie. We knew. We just didn't give a damn."

Well, we certainly gave a damn after the war, didn't we? We had Truman recognizing the new state of Israel even after Sec. of State George C. Marshall (of Marshall plan fame) advised against it.

A half century later we are still pouring $3 billion a year into Israel, having failed utterly to bring peace to the region. In the process we have gratuitously alienated almost the entire Muslim world and had the Arabs (who sell us 58 percent of our oil) boost the price a thousand percent--adding enormously to the cost of our aid.

Perhaps we were less than diligent during WW2. But we have certainly paid--and are still paying--an enormous price for that oversight during the past half century.
Cantabene

Friends, I love this discussion and go directly to this page at least twice a day. I do wish (as Aphra suggested) that there was some Spaniards involved but this is basically an English speaking site. Such an exchange of viable ideas and philosophies is rarely if ever seen on a travel site.I did not live during these times but gained whatever I know through my readings. I am convinced that Franco did much more harm than good. If Spain is in a better spot now it is not because of his foresight.He was a hero worshiper of Hitler and Mussolini (thus he needed a suitable leaderlike name as they had)Caudillo was his self anointed handle.Rather than oppose the Catholic Church as his heroes did because of his mothers ferverant Catholocism, he cultivated them and manipulated their Bishops and Cardinals as well as the Pope. The Depression which ravaged the US had a worldwide effect and in most European countries it was much more devastating.All the world was toying with Communism and inroads into governments were very deep.The difference in the US was that we did not kill those who thought differently.(At least not on a mass scale.FDR was elected to lead the US not the world.We were not the power then as we are today.The 2nd WW mobilized our industry as well as our military. Truman was convinced by a grade school buddy who was Jewish to recognize Isreal or watch them perish becaus the Arab world was poised to anihilate them. George Marshall did not see it this way but Truman was boss.This does not distract from Marshall's brilliance.Monday morning quarterbacking is a favorite of mine but it will not solve anything. Anyway, please keep up the good work friends and keep those ideas and observations coming in.They are mesmerizing. Thank You, Bill Ski

i have nothing really to contribute, besides saying, once again, that I truly adore this site and its participants. I ALWAYS learn something - this post being no exception. thanks to everyone for a great, educational discussion!

What on Earth is 'Monday morning quarterbacking?'

A choice between Spain controlled by Franco or Spain controlled by the Russian communists? Franco, though a pompous fool, would be better any day of the week. The suffering perpetrated in Russia and Eastern Europe was amazing in its thoroughness - almost every aspect of life and nature was destroyed. While Franco was quite harsh, (especially with the Catalans and Basques) it was a question of the lesser of two evils. In the communist countries life was a hollow shell in a totalitarian, Orwellian state, ruled by cruel, vicious people.

Not that I support rebellions against elected governments, however if we are looking objectively at the past, and what was better or worse then the answer is clear.

After visiting Franco Spain, at first in 1956, and frequently during the 60s and early 70s, I had to revise my thinking about freedom. I was, of course, a privileged person as an American tourist--permitted to enjoy the pleasures of Spanish culture and society without having to endure the restraints of the regime.

But I, along with many Americans in Spain, found it vastly pleasurable to be able to walk any street at any time without fear of being mugged or shot.

Coming from a large eastern city, (at the time, Philadelphia) where downtown after dark was not a place you dared to be, this freedom of movement and freedom from fear of attack was liberating. Ironic, wasn't it?

This was a police state, of course. But the other side of the coin was that as long as you remained neutral and benign in regard to the Government, (I'm still speaking about tourists, here) you enjoyed a personal freedom of movement that we did not--and do not now--enjoy in our American democracy.

In the USA we have little to fear from the government. But much to fear on the streets of our large cities.

The opposite was true in Franco's Spain. While you had to be wary of the Government, one was free from fear on the streets.

It got me to thinking that perhaps we in the USA have more freedom than we are mature or skillful enough to be able to manage.

I've not suggesting in any way that we adapt a form of Government similar to Franco's. But I did respect his ability to maintain order and safety in the streets for the vast majority of people.

As a resident of Baltimore with its 300 murders a year, I think I'd swap a measure of political freedom to be free of the constant fear of attack and the freedom to walk where I want--when I want--without putting my life at risk.
Cantabene


[This message has been edited by cantabene (edited 02-14-2001).]

[This message has been edited by cantabene (edited 02-14-2001).]

I feel that I must address the following quote from an earlier post:

"A wonderful book which also evokes very deeply and painfully what it was like to live in Spain under Franco is A Woman Unknown by Lucia Graves (the daughter of the poet Robert Graves, who lived on Mallorca). I recommend it to anyone who wants to go beyond the posturing of politicians and historians who have never been here and to understand what the dictatorship meant to the lives of ordinary people in Spain."

I own a copy of this book, and have read it. Yes, it's an excellent book, and I recommend it, but I'm afraid the implication that it's all about Franco's Spain, and how painful it was to live there at the time, is very misleading. There is a little about it, but most of it has little to do with the political situation, and more to do with the characters of the people described. It's not a book I would recommend to those interested in arguing what life was like under Franco, because that's just not what the book is all about. Surely there are other books that would be more appropriate.

I am going to join my Spanish friends on this board and refrain from comment on the issue being discussed in this thread (and I don't mean whether or not to visit VdlC!). But as I am into books as resources, I'd like to recommend Travellers' Tales for some insight into Spaniards' feelings today about Franco. I don't have a copy with me now, but there are some excellent articles in it that are worth reading.

Asterault asks: What the hell is Monday morning quarterbacking? My understanding is that it is Applying presant day knowledge to situations in the past. It doesn't work! Not on a football field or in International Politics when the time is past it is past. Not the day after the big Sunday game or when the Iron Curtain comes down.Importing Moors from North Africa to slaughter your countrymen because they disagree with you or your idea of "The Patria". Inviting murderous Nazis in to try out their weapons and destroy a village such as Guernica or having Black Shirts from Italy ravage and rape your fellow Spaniards in Malaga and Andalusia is no worse than killing Ukrainians or sending fellow Russians to Siberia. It is quite the same and no worse because you have a different Party Line. Of course we always see things from our own vantage point.It is human nature and helps for a healthy discussion but some people are less than human and resort to weaponry or evil tactics. I don't know if Franco fits in the same class as Hitler or Stalin. But perhaps if he had the oppurtunity. Stalin said,The death of one man is a tradgedy; the death of millions is Statistics. Is millions better than hundreds of thousands? I ask you because I can't answer it. In response to Diana's book suggestation. I just ordered it and look forward to it greatly.Thank You all for listening.Regards, Bill Ski

Sorry Asterault but you did say What on Earth and not What the H-ll. I apologize. Billy Ski

Understatement of the year: "Franco was quite harsh, (especially with the Catalans and Basques)" -please don't be offended...nothing personal is implied by this response.

Ask the Basques about "the lesser of two evils" for a treatise on what they thought of Franco and why they never backed him in the first place. By the way, you can thank Franco for ETA. He created it, not Don Sabino.

Whithout venturing into the hypethetical realm of what would have been better for Spain, a Soviet satellite nation or a fascist dicatorship, I will attempt to steer my posting toward El Valle de Los Caidos. As I am still trying to determine the number of faires on the end of pin, I do not have the time to play historical what-ifs.

It is undoubtably true that the large cross and massive basilica were constructed for at least in part self-promotion by Franco. However, the monument itself as we all recognize was the labour of his political prisoners, many of whom gave their lives in its building. When we trek to El Valle de Los Caidos, we are fully aware of the sacrifices by countless Spainards in its construction. Hence, as at least moderately educated visitors to the site we are able to render homage to those who toiled under terrible conditions to see it completed. The visual shortcomings of the monument are drowned out by the voices of those who made it possible.

Those who have travelled to Nazi death camps do so not to honour the SS, but rather to connect with those who were victimized by them. I have seen the remains of the Manzanar(sp?) relocation camp, where many Americans of Japanese ancestry were intered during WWII, I went not to dignify this sad chapter of American history, but to view first hand the prison environment that so many endured. I had read about these camps, but the more powerful and lingering memories came from visiting one. In visiting El Valle de Los Caidos, I believe my comprehension of the consequences of the Spanish Civil War is more vivid than before.

My sole visit the site came in 1989 with my fellow high school classmates. It was the most singularly powerful memory I had from that 10 days of touring Spain. The year marked the 100th birthday of Hitler and our April trip coincided with date. As our tour bus ascended the road toward the monument we saw a small group of blue shirted Falangists marching under their vile banner. By the time we exited the coach the fascists had caught up with us. We entered the structure together and had to endure fascists salutes over the gravestones. One of my classmates reacted to this display with a near hysterical outburst, she had had an granduncle who was killed in a Nazi death camp and this episode rekindled the horrors that the brown-shirts had inflicted to her family two generations prior. This described the nefarious Nazi better than any high school text book could.

I wanted to tell about Cantebane's freedom in the streets that this is not related with Franco, you still have freedom to move in the streets, you have it in any european city, I think that is just a problem of USA and maybe other countries.
About Franco I havn't lived that time and havn't study enough history. I don't know how much undeveloped was Spain before the war, but I think that isolation during Franco era helped to left Spain out of the development of the rest of Europe.
When I watch a film like "Bienvenido Mr.Marshal" (it's incredible how it escape censorship) my tears drop just seeing the dreams and the necesities of the people.
There are a lot of Spanish films, of course made later, that make a good picture of the situation in that time, and how often "caciquismo" was implanted and abuse of power was made to satisfy personal interests (I dude that this was different before, but I think that in a democracy it's more difficult to keep).
About the war I think almost of the people fighted just because their town was in one zone or other and they hadn't any other possibility, a very funny and realistic film about it is "La vaquilla", one soldier wants to be interchanged with one of the other side because his girlfriend is in that side.

Billy ski asks:
"I don't know if Franco fits in the same class as Hitler or Stalin."

Having experienced some years of Franco Spain, I would say that Franco was not Hitler. Hitler was inherently evil. I do not Believe so of Franco. He seems to have been guided by his own visions of what Spain should be rather than by the genocidal instincts of Hitler and Stalin. Frnaco was also shaped by his need to hold power-which he attained slowly and methodically rather than by a dramatic overnight coup. He had a tiger by the tail, sometimes requiring extreme measures to ensure against being bitten by it.

While one may find some things in commmon among those dictatorships--all were police states-- I think it a bit of a stretch to turn Franco into either a Hitler or Stalin.

I thnk it true, however, that Franco Spain was an economic backwater and that Franco did keep Spain out of the mainstream of economic development as it occurred around him in Europe.

But I think even here this was a result of his own incompetence and fear of being deposed rather than the desire to deprive his people. I recall that he seemed more tolerant of economic strikes than political strikes. The former were sometimes permitted--the latter were harshly smashed.

I recall, too, that people were afraid to discuss politics anywhere. The only place you could get a Spaniard to express his thoughts about the regime was in a moving car.

Fiscal policies kept workers at articially low wages. Bakers, for example, were not permitted to charge more than a fixed amount for bread.

You could always get a "pistola" for a few pesetas, but probably could not afford what a baker had to charge for an apple tart to make up his loss on the bread. Import duties were very high. Anything imported cost a fortune.

This was why Spain was such a terrific bargain for tourists during the postwar era. With first class hotels costing only $2 a night, and taxis starting at only a few pesetas. The extraordinary tourist bargains of those days were a by-product of the Spanish worker's inability to command a fair price for his labor.

But still, Franco had one of the longest runs of any dictator in history. I doubt that he could have survived had not the cost of deposing him appeared to Spaniards to be greater than that of letting him simply die in office.

My impressions only--one viewpoint shaped from the experiences and observations of a single visitor.
Cantabene

[This message has been edited by cantabene (edited 02-15-2001).]

[This message has been edited by cantabene (edited 02-15-2001).]

No offense taken Calibasco, I am well aware of what happened here and in Euskadi.

However I stand by my earlier post, even though it is from hindsight. (American football - I 'pass' on that game ja ja ja ja...)

[This message has been edited by Asterault (edited 02-20-2001).]

When a simply inquiry about the Valle de los Caidos led to a spasm of America bashing I was angered and saddened. It appears to be an accepted fact that this board, and in particular this thread, is dominated by a US perspective, though no one uttered a word in defense to refute, in part, the bashing.

There has been a call for “light” to be shed on the subject by people “post(ing) the historical readings they recommend to understand the Spa. Civil War in the context of WWII, the USSR, the USA, etc?”

I’ll take up the challenge of “light” (trying to keep MY emotions in check) at the risk of being branded a
“…vintage Cold War revisionist…” while setting forth my “…rationalization…” in the narrow area of the lack of intervention by the US at the onset of the SCW (Spanish Civil War).

Assumptions:

Evil exists (it is palpable, it has a smell and a texture).

Man, the only animal with free will, at times chooses to embrace evil like a lover and do its bidding.

Franco took evil as his lover and was vile; the only argument about him on this thread is who hates him the most.

War is the final political solution when diplomacy fails.

It is naïve to be surprised at the ferocity and brutality with which wars are fought.

The goal of war, for political leaders, is control (over money, gold, land, people etc.) by conquering the enemy through ANY means possible.

The goal of war, for those who actually fight it, is survival. Generally, by killing the other person before he has a chance to injure/kill you.

Historical perspective:

America has had her own experience with civil war. Between 1861 and 1865 about 1,556,000 soldiers served in the Federal (North) armies and suffered 359,528 dead and 275,175 wounded; about 800,000 men served in the Confederate (South) forces and suffered about 258,000 deaths and perhaps 225,000 wounded. Brother killing brother, cousin killing cousin. The effects of the Civil War are still with us. In some circles the arguments as to why the war was fought persist to this day. As to the excesses of this war I point to, as only one example, Sherman’s march through Georgia and the burning of Atlanta. http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/0/0,5716,121260+30+111233,00.html

I can only assume that the veterans of this war had had their fill. I’ll make another assumption; some of them were the grandfathers of those who were eventually called to fight in the Great War (W W I). You know the one I’m talking about, the war that was fought, in Europe, to “end all wars”, but I’m getting a little ahead of myself.

It is now 1913. Europe is in turmoil. The drums and bugles of war in Europe can be heard in the US. Our allies are arguing amongst themselves. They are in a position that they can’t resolve for themselves. The issue of coming to the aid of our allies is hotly debated here. The charges of “isolationist” are made. I wonder what position some of the veterans of the Civil War held when there was talk of calling their grandsons to fight? A political decision is made, result = between 1914 and 1918, US forces mobilized 4,355,000; 116,516 killed and 204,002 wounded. I wonder how the veterans of the Great War felt about war in general, the war they fought and how they would react if/when their sons are called to fight. You see there was STRONG sentiment that it wasn’t Americas’ war to fight. http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/single_table/0,5716,126556,00.html

It was first called the Great War because there wasn’t supposed to be another one! Trench warfare! Mustard gas attacks! Evil found another lover!

Germany bristles at the Versailles Treaty. The huge reparation payments. Inflation is out of control in Germany! A “corporal” rises to political power by makeing unrealistic promises to the German people.

NOTHING is resolved!

The SCW and World War II:

A civil war is brewing in Spain! A civil war? Yes, the fascists against the communists/anarchists/socialists.
“Hobson’s Choice!”
What the he** has that got to with us! Don’t you remember, WE did that and look what happened to us! WE had OUR civil war! WE’RE STILL arguing about it!

Don’t you remember what happened the last time we went to fight in Europe!

Evil is on the prowl! It MUST be satisfied. Evil has taken more lovers; Hitler in Germany, Mussolini in Italy, and Franco in Spain.

Europe is out of control again!

The European answer is appeasement!

Evil is still playing the role of seductress; Stalin in Russia and Tojo in Japan.

The WORLD is out of control

A CALL TO ARMS!

It turns out that the Great War was only prelude to World War II as prologue. The 20 odd years between the two wars served only as a respite between them. A brief period for the combatants to catch their breaths, rearm and to grow and train another cadre of warriors. The US was ill prepared to wage war both in terms of material and manpower prior to and at the onset of WWII.

I can only imagine what the veterans of the Great War said and thought when their sons were called to fight in Europe again.

During W W II, between 1941 and 1945, the US forces suffered 292,131 killed; 671,801 wounded and 139,709 prisoners of war. http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/single_table/0,5716,126559,00.html


I’m tired now.

I didn’t address all of the issues that I had intended and the issues that I did address could have been done in a more cogent manner.

I don’t know why I wasted my time trying to explain to a socialist/atheist why we may not have conducted ourselves as she sees fit.

Why is it that OTHER people want US to fight THEIR battles THEIR way.

How DARE you madam! How DARE you!

flame away-

Sol

Can't we all just get along?

-Sincerely,
Reginald Denny

On a serious note, though, I'm intrigued by the different viewpoints expressed here. PLEASE keep posting, continue being civil, and DON'T shut this post down, MM!!!!

By the way, Shawn...very good post. I'm glad you got back on topic, and expressed an honest, personal view, apparently unfettered by prevailing sentiment or 'what you read somewhere'.

Miguelito says (of the USA)
"...you still have freedom to move in the streets...,"

The fact is, yes, we are legally entitled to move in the streets. But in many of our large cities that right has been proscribed by criminals. Here in Baltimore we often dare not move in the streets. Especially at night. One would be a fool to stray from Baltimore's few main streets after dark. Rarely a day goes by without someone being killed here.

Yes, I'd give up a bit of political freedom to achieve some freedom from criminals in the streets.

Sorry if that offends the libertarians here. But thats how you are shaped when the criminals tell you where you can go and when you can go.

I'd take a bit of Franco here any day.
Cantabene

In NYC we had a serious crime problem and you had to be careful in certain parts of town.The tonic for NYC was the election of Rudy Guiliani.He appointed a forward thinking Police Comm. and crime began to fall.Some people compared the Mayor to a Franco or at least a Faschist.Amazingly enough people in the inner city approved of his new tactics because crime fell drastically.I don't say he was loved by all but if you were on the recieving end of a criminal act you were on the side of the Mayor.He is not lovable but he could clean up Baltimore.He is despised by some but overall he is a success and thats all he claims to care about.I would seek him out rather than wishing for Franco.His term ends this year and he cannot seek re-election.The only problem is he is not an Oriole fan.I hope you take this in the manner it is intended Cantabene.

CaliBasco:

Reginald Denny never had, nor will he ever have, an original thought in his life.

He merely quoted Neville Chamberlain(of course he didn't know it).

Sol

I think Miguelito referred to freedom to move in the streets in European cities, not in the US. In fact, in most of the major European cities the crime rate is far lower than in American big cities, and this without fascist dictators in charge any more. For example, go out in Vienna at night, I have never felt threatened there ever, even going out alone as a woman. I have never heard things like you would not want to enter this part of the town etc. about European cities to a comparable extent than about US cities.
I have my problems in praising the security aspect of a life in a police state. It comes at too high a price.
One could say the same about the Nazi regime, if you did not belong to any persecuted class and were not opposing the regime, you could make a nice and pleasant living. But if you somehow seemed suspicious you could find yourself among the victims quickly. How can you control that you just lose a bit of your political freedom, and not your basic right to life in the end?
There must be a way of ensuring security for the population without intruding on the rule of law. The police must act in accordance with the law, legal provisions must be in accordance with fundamental freedoms, and an independent judiciary must be the guardian of legality.

Why is it that people would think that the United States would have intervened in a European civil war? The US was not a power in 1936 - it was very isolationist with a tiny military. And why would they have 'intervened' in the first place? Why doesn't the US intervene now in Congo, Sierra Leone, or any other of the dozen civil wars now raging on the planet? And why should they? I think the US should worry about the many people hungry and homeless on its own streets first.

And I vote P.S.C. and don't go to church either.

[This message has been edited by Asterault (edited 02-16-2001).]

Connie says:
"How can you control that you just lose a bit of your political freedom, and not your basic right to life in the end?"

Almost one person each day here in Baltimore--(population around 625,000)-except for one day each week--loses his right to life by losing it to criminals. Police themselves are sometimes targets.

I'ts hard to imagine a municipal government, no matter how repressive, that would execute one person almost every day.

Almost ten percent of Baltimore's population is either on drugs or selling them. Those on drugs steal millions of dollars worth of goods each week to pay for their habits.

At this point I'm a bit confused about which is the greater evil--too much or too little control. I think I'd be more comfortable with a situation in which I might lose a few civil rights but could walk the streets without fear until the time when the loss of those civil rights incovenienced me. Somehow that seems to me more remote than the almost certain possibility that if I walk too often in the wrong streets I may die at any time.

At least in NY the police managed to implement zero tolerance. That's been blocked here in Baltimore by people terrified of being inconvenienced even slightly by police.

This viewpont is apalling isn't it? To consdier that someone might prefer to lose a measure of political freedom to gain some physical safety and greater freedom of movement?

But that's what we come to when we have so much freedom that criminals determine what rights you will have and not have in the end. Which are more free here in Baltimore, the criminals or the citizens?
Cantabene

[This message has been edited by cantabene (edited 02-15-2001).]

[This message has been edited by cantabene (edited 02-15-2001).]

Sol- And Prime Minister Chamberlain added about as much to world peace in the 20th century as Mr. Denny did. Mr. Appeasement...er...Chamberlain was a wuss...and I'm sure Hitler loved it that way.

There is obviously no excuse for the propensity to violent crimes in the U.S. There is equally as much crime in European cities, but it isn't gun related or typically as violent. There is also the obvious tie to how many crimes are actually reported. When discussing crime with my spanish senora she said that pedophelia (sp?) and rape didn'thappen in Spain, and I said that I suspected that it was something that was not discussed or reported, like domestic abuse. Much like the states even 15-20 years ago.

To the topic at hand, in Salamanca, our sociology professor asked us to do a group project in which we asked different age groups about the Franco regime and what they thought about life before and after. Unequivically, the more an individual had lived under his regime (the older the person), the more afraid he or she was (even now) to discuss it. Some people made the same comments that Cantabene did, that they missed the safety of the streets in those days. the same has been said about Communist USSR. You pick your poison I guess.

In any country that had a dictatorship as such, certaintypes of crimes were not as prevalent. And as long as you agreed with the political powers that be, you were okay. Unfortunately it creates another kind of fear, where the government is the perpetrator of the most heinous crimes. I have studied Cuba quite a bit and worked with cuban refugees (among other refugee population). What that kind of situation created for them, and in every other in the same situation, is a culture of extreme paranoia and mistrust. people told me they didn't even trust their spouses or children with their thoughts. In different opressive regimes you have numerous occurences of one's own children, other family members and neighbors turning indivuduals in to the authorities for not supporting the gov at hand.

Although I am saddened by the violence in this society, I will still choose the freedom to educate myself and think the way I choose- though it may differ from my neighbors, co-workers and even friends -without the fear of torture or violence for having an opinion. I see the problems we have here as resulting from very complicated socio-economic situations and from a history of extraordinary violence, beginning with the first steps our ancestors took on this ground.

What an interesting thread this has turned out to be. Started as a query on the Valle de los Caidos, turned into an intense excahange on European history, and now has become a discussion on the merits of freedom vs. security in a free society. I love this Board!

Well, Cantabene, the basic problem with losing political freedom "for a time" is that one rarely, if ever, regains that freedom once it becomes 'inconvenient.' You end up with neither security or freedom. If the state would allow people 'freedom' to protect themselves without reliance on state institutions (police), you would probably be able to move about with a great deal less fear without sacrificing freedom. Of course, state institutions are not in the business of making people LESS dependant on them. As it stands now, only the criminals have the freedom and security to move about without fear and without losing their political rights. Sad. Too bad the Governemnt won't trust the law-abiding.

Kurt:
Let me guess. You are an NRA enthusiast and are in favor of "right-to-carry" gun laws.

I agree about loss of freedom. We in Baltimore have already lost much of it to criminals. And at this point I am forced to consider that I would probably have preferred to lose it to a government than to killers. Governments, at least, are accountable to someone or something, and kill less randomly.

As I said before, it's difficult to imagine a municipality executing one person every day except one. That's what the criminals do here in Baltimore, and the local government is incapable of stopping them. I don't believe that even Franco executed one person in Madrid on an average six out of seven days a week.

But we get what we insist upon. NY succeeded in reducing its crime rate with the help of zero tolerance. That initiative has been stymied in Baltimore by people who prefer being killed to being bothered.

I am more and more convinced by my experience in Spain under Franco and my experience here in crime-ridden Baltimore that a city run by police can be more liveable than one in which criminals determine where you can go and when.

But that idea actually frightens me. It was through some of the same circumstances of civil disorder that Hitler came to power. I fear we may be on the same downward course.
Cantabene


[This message has been edited by cantabene (edited 02-17-2001).]

[This message has been edited by cantabene (edited 02-17-2001).]

I wouldn't call myself an NRA "enthusiast". I believe all guns should be registered (hey our cars are, after all) and anyone applying for a right-to-carry permit should ahve to pass a skills and training test. Semi-Auto. rifles should be banned.

But, yes, I do believe in the Second Amendamnt and I beleive there is a reason its the SECOND of the gauranteed rights under the Bill of Rights, behind only the right to freely express ones self. This is not an accident. There are many governments that are not accounatable to the governed. Having a populace able to resist tyranny is the purpose of the 2nd Amd. Now, we face a tyranny of fear and criminality on our streets. The 2nd Amd. is there to help us resist this. Law abiding citizens should not be made into de facto criminals because they want to protect themselves, where the powers-that-be who say "don't worry, we'll take care of you", clearly cannot. Yes, I beleive in the right for law-abiding citizens to carry weapons. So did the Founders of our nation.

[This message has been edited by Kurt (edited 02-17-2001).]

First, I must state that I make no personal offense with posting on this site. I am debating objectively and sincerely hope not to offend, but just to debate.

Having said that, I find the previous post preposterous. There is no reason anyone living in a country at peace and prosperity should have any reason to carry a firearm. A hunting rifle is one matter. Pistols and automatic rifles are another - they are not for hunting, they are for killing other people.

The reason the American constitution has a firearms provision is because a standing militia was needed. The 'founders of our nation' were more concerned with the British Army than personal freedom. In the year 2001 nobody in America should have a pistol or assault rifle. Being able to 'resist tyranny' as the previous post defines means the definition of such tyranny lies with mob rule and vigilante justice.

'We face a tyranny of fear and criminality on our streets.' Why is there no such 'tyranny' on the streets of Barcelona, Vienna, or Dublin? Because nobody has a gun.

Well, It seems this thread has finally ended and I for one will miss it a great deal. To me it was the best I've ever seen on any site.Thanks to all that have contributed.I have learned much especially from those who poured out their hearts as well as their minds. To hear anothers beliefs described so passionately at times was very enlightening. Thank You all.

I know this is off the (initial) subject but I can't*not* respond.

Kurt, are you crazy? Yes, the Bill of Rights provides for guns. It was also written over 200 years ago. Things change. Hence amendments.

Regardless of the fact that I grew up in Littleton Colorao, I have always felt strongly about this issue. Does it not faze you that elementary school children are bringing handguns into school or finding them in the home? It doesn't bother you that a surprisingly large percentage of US citizens keep handguns in the glove compartment of their car? What with the road rage these days, I find that very scary...

I don't care what people say, we *do NOT* have a right to keep handguns lying around the house. And if you think we do, I think you're irresponsible and a little insane. The next time my livestock are threatened by an oppressive government, I may reconsider...
In the meantime, pepper spray will be my self defense..

Your right to carry pepper spray is not guaranteed by the constitution. Therefore, pepper spray is unconstitutional. If you spray me with it, I may just have to sue you...

By the way, where did the discussion on Valle de los Caídos go...yoo hoo, Valle? where are you?

CaliBasco, I guess all GREAT threads must come to an end and it seems everyone has given their opinions and happy with that. Oh, it will pop up again from time to time, but hey, that's life & death of threads on a message board.

BTW, my ladyfriend was here with me this 3-day weekend and was reading the thread with GREAT interest. She was surprised that so many people (mainly about those from the USA) had such strong feelings about this place. She was also impressed with the amount of activity. Thanks to everyone who opened their hearts and brains to this very controversial & passionate topic.

Saludos, MadridMan

Well friends, As suggested I am reading "A Woman Unknown " by Lucia Graves and I'm 1/2 finished. I think Aphra originally suggested it and it's wonderful as well as an informative insight into The Civil War and mid-20th century Spain. The mailman just dropped at my door " Homage To Catalonia" by George Orwell. It is supposidely the best book written on The Civil War. But again this is a western outsiders view into Spain's internal problems. I'll be back to comment I'm sure. This thread is too good to end in my opinion.

Short Answer: Find the bus and go! Do not miss this historic site.

I have been there four different times and have traveled over much of Spain.

It is a place that will cause you to catch your breath. In fairness, learn the history and acknowledge the value of this monument; although it now stands for something quite different than Franco intended.

I should let you all know it wasn't Reginald Denny who said 'can't we all just get along' it was Rodney King.

Thump...thump...that's the dead horse being beaten.

Billy ski:
May I suggest that you add to your reading list "The Spanish Civil War" by Hugh Thomas. Objective, thorough, and most enlightening. Probably the book and author I respect most on the topic.
Cantabene

Cantabene: I will go and get it today based on your powerful recommendation. I finished "A Woman Unknown" and for that I must thank Aphra. It was a moving story with many insights from the common people in Spain prior to and during Franco's regime .It substantiates all I have read rgarding Franco.I am presently working on Homage to Catalonia by Orwell.By the time I am finished with this topic I'll know more than the American Civil War. Anyway, Thanks Cantabene and I'll be back to report to the board when done. Regards,Ski

In the 1930s, the US government was nearly overthrown in a Fascist attempt to sieze control. Included in the conspiracy were those who controlled most of America's wealth and industry. One of the people allegedly involved was Charles Lindbergh.

To help them in their attempt to wrest control of the government from FDR, they tried to get retired Marine Corps General Smedley Butler to march on Washington, DC, with an army of veterans from previous wars. He would march, then they would sieze control, and dictate US policy.

Smedley stepped forward and told his story to FDR and his people, who immediately took action to "mend fences" and stop the Fascist movement from taking shape. The threat was so real that they even kept it out of the newspapers... which were aligned with American Fascism.

It was just months later that the Spanish Civil War started, and the Fascists in Italy, Franco, and Hitler, all knew that the US would not intervene. In fact they knew that the US would not support the Republican stand against the Fascist takeover directed by Franco out of Morocco, and two other Spanish Generals whose forces were garrisoned on the mainland. They also knew that the US would "demand" neutrality by our sensitive allies in England and France.

Why did we do this? The reports out of DC indicated that we felt that Fascism & the Nazis would actually turn against the Soviets and put an end to Communism. This may be partially true but the strengths that the Fascists had with the near overthrow of our government and the fact that FDR was now catering to them had more to do with it than anything else. Face it. None of the conspirators were ever brought to trial, or even charged for what happened.

In the US, if you belonged to any labor union, or even were a farmer who was part of an organization that was trying to get help so you could survive during the depression, the American newspapers, definitely swayed in favor of Fascism, would denounce your group as Communists.

In 1934 or 1935, a group of farmers marched on Madison Wisconsin in an attempt to get fair prices for their products. They were aided by the American Legion. The entire Hearst newspaper chain, along with all the rest, immediately branded them as Communists, and that position stood, even though the American Legion was involved.

So... simply put... we supported Fascism.

Meanwhile... in Spain... prior to the revolution that was to begin (or should we call it an invasion since the Italians & Germans were also deeply involved), there were absolutely NO COMMUNISTS holding high positions within the government. Of course, according to the reports, anyone who was a union member was automatically a Communist.

The US position on Spain allowed Josef Stalin to step in and offer support. Of course his price was steep. The entire gold reserve of Spain was sent to Moscow for "safe keeping," and to pay for any military aid he sent.

After talking to dozens of people who actually fought on both sides of the issue in Spain, it was evidently clear that the only way a Republican could get a weapon and ammunition to carry on the fight after the beginning was by declaring their allegiance to the Communist party. They did it only to get weapons, and would have never allowed the party to control them or the country after the war was over.

For those who didn't take an oath, they were sent into battle situations that were no better than suicidal. A message to others, that joining the party was the only option.

It's a shame we didn't support the Republicans with US equipment and advisors. There is little doubt that they would have become a Republic just like we are. Please don't say we're a democracy, we are a Republic. We elect people, and those people make the decisions. That is a Republic. Just like Spain would have had, if we'd helped them when we should have.

When you're in Madrid, visit the museum (Sofia) where the Gernika, by Picasso hangs. Then, if you will, a trip to the city itself, located in Basque Country. The pictures at the Basque assembly tell a story of an atrocity that was so damnable that even some of the Italian soldiers who marched into Gernika shortly after the bombing took place were grief stricken, and some shed tears.

"No Pasaran!"

Wolf

I visited this "monument" earlier today - err... yesterday (Wednesday) and it was my first time. I'd sort of wanted to see what all the hoo-haa was about and finally I saw it for myself. I have mixed feelings about visiting it in the first place but now I'm glad I did. I thought I'd feel something but I really didn't. The large cross is impressive. Apparently it's the largest in Europe. Fine. The mausoleum/tomb of General Francisco Franco is pretty basic but large, deep, and apart from the underground dome it does certainly have a 1960s or 1970s feel to it.

When we arrived, at about 12:30pm, it was closed because they were clearing some ice from the access road and putting down salt. For this reason we decided to go to the nearby town of El Escorial. I'd been to the monastery before, last summer, so I didn't go back in but others did. Instead, I walked around the town with my buddy Steve, looked over the countless nativities/Belenes, and finally stopped for a drink/coffee and a bowl of sopa de marisco to warm us up. We then met up with the rest of our party and then found a place for a Menú del Día. I had the lentil soup to start and then the lamb steak for the main dish.

Luckily, we'd JUST arrived to get the LAST funicular (required - 2.50€ per person) to get to the top, to the stone cross up top. Then we went back down below to the mausoleum. It's set back into the top of the mountain, underground, and the temperature stays constant, comfortable. You don-t see anything more than your standard cathedral interior but also the flat panels of Franco AND Primo de Rivera on the ground.

All in all, I'd say the experience, the visit was worth it. Is it worth a daytrip from Madrid, by bus? I'd say no. But we had a car and so it was easy and could walk around El Escorial a bit too. That was nice.

I didn't feel that it was your typical church or cathedral. Knowing what I know about General Francisco Franco and what happened with his part in the Spanish Civil War and his subsequent 40-year dictatorship I didn't feel it was really a religious place. I had mixed feelings but was glad to see it all for myself.

Saludos, MadridMan

MadridMan,

I'm really surprised you opened this post back up, reading the comments.

I visited this site a long time ago, and I must have been unimpressed because I remember almost nothing about the great boogeyman's burial place. But then I wasn't very knowledgeable about Spanish history back then. I had no idea what their civil war was all about. We were told at the time, the late 70's, that it was a very sensitive subject for many Spaniards, but none of my American friends knew much about the war.

America really is isolated from world events.

Hi gazpacho!

I didn't want to open it as a new thread since one already existed - albeit from NEARLY 7 years ago.

You can also read more detail about this on today's blog entry, " El Escorial - Valle de los Caidos ".

What a lovely image!!