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