Interesting topic, I think. Living here in Japan there is great debate over the idea of re-writing the past. The Japanese government does not want younger generations of Japanese to know the involvement that Japan had in WW2. The attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese has been reduced to a claim that it was necessary for Japan to do this and from what I have read, the texts try to give the impression that Japan was more of a victim in WW2 than an agressor. Ri-freakin-diculous!

So, I think it is important to not re-write history, though I am certain that the history we read in textbooks in America (and other countries) has likely been re-written as well.

With regards to this monument, I think it is important to leave it as it is without trying to re-write it or justify it. Just leave it be and let individuals draw their own interpretations of it.

Barry, your point is well made and my only displeasure is with the inclusion of the word "aesthetics" with "Fascist Architecture". There certainly exists "Fascist Architecture" with all it's horrible psychological implications, kind of like the dream sequence in the old movie "The Closet of Dr. Caligari".

But as I read from my "Websters Dictionary" and my own possibly incorrect understanding of the word "Aesthetics", ( Aesthetics; the study or theory of beauty and of the psychological responses to it), I do feel it's use with the term "Fascist Architecture" is a real stretch.
It lends a sort of credence to a nightmarish monument to Franco/Fascism and all it's bizare ramifications and consequences concerning humanity, and western civilization.
I have a difficult time with the psychological implications of a mass grave, ugly architecture, the edification of a murderous fascist dictator, all overshadowed by an enormous Christian symbol the "Cross" and the term or use of "Aesthetic" ("sensitive to art and beauty" again "Websters").

On the other hand I would never suggest that the monument should be destroyed or altered in any way as I believe that Franco's monument to himself will become even more ridiculous and farcical as time goes by.
Also I would never want the death camps at "Auschwitz" and other places destroyed or altered as they also are showpiece's of "Fascist Architecture" of the most hideous example and again I do not think that "Aesthetic" is a word that can be connected to these monuments. As for your statement,( and I don't mean to sound shrill ), "The death camps didn't fit the bill, they weren't meant to last a thousand years", Barry can you be sure of that?, what if Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito, and Franco would have won?
Peace

Okay we're moving into semantic territory now and off topic - but the Oxford dictionary allows this definition of aesthetic:
noun: a set of principles underlying the work of a particular artist or artistic movement.
The root of the word means merely perception - there's no beauty in there. There are also many precedents for speaking of fascist aesthetics- see Susan Sontag on Leni Riefenstahl (New York Review of Books, February 6, 1975 and republished many times since). But I understand your reluctance to use the word. As for the camps, the Nazi death machine was efficient - look at the destruction of Hungary's Jewish population in the summer of 1944. Had Germany won the war, I fear it would have taken them little time to exterminate all those considered inferior.
Back to the topic. As I said before, Valle de los Caidos shoud be left intact, though digging up Franco and Primo de Rivera wouldn't be a bad idea. I'm also in favour, lest people think I'm partisan, of removing Lenin's mummy from Red Square.

Yea Alando, I think it's mindblowing that Japan is still, 60 yrs after the end of WW2 in denial and unable to appologize totally for the atrocities and unbelievable arrogance they were responsible for, especially towards thier neighbors in Asia.
I keep this quote in my wallet whenever I start to become a real "true believer" it was written by "Ambrose Bierce" a great but forgotten figure in US history and literature. He disapeared into Mexico during the Mexican Revolution.

"History is an account, mostly false,
of events, mostly unimportatant, which are brought about by rulers, mostly knaves,
and soldiers, mostly fools."

There is architecture that survived at Il Duce death, its is EUR. I been to Rome twice and I not interested in see it.

To me the Valley of the Fallen is not about architecture like the EUR which was propaganda for the Italian Fascists. It was designed to be a war memorial for the Spanish Civil War and the losers of that war built it.

I have not been there and I only saw it on TV programs and for me it is a skip it. On the other it is part of Spain's history and let them deicide what to do.

Bill

Fulano and Barry,

Ayn Rand does her usual excellent job defining aesthetics. And it has nothing to do with beauty. To Ayn Rand, and I paraphrase here, "aesthetics is used to turn an artist's concept into something perceptual." Using this definition of aesthetics, I believe the artist's concept(or undoubtably Franco's) of the outcome of the Spanish Civil War is accurately portrayed.

Now, I really don't believe that Fraco's victory meant the triumph of Christianity in Spain, but I'd be willing to bet if you were an artist while Franco was alive, that would be your concept. Or you'd be unemployed.

Anyway, I've been there, I've seen it, a long time ago. I even took the cable car to the top. I can't think of a reason to pass it up.

Besides, the mountains around are some of the most beautiful nearby Madrid

Did you know that a century ago all that mountains didn't have trees? It was another spanish extreme-right dictator (Primo de Rivera) who reforested all these mountains.

Fernando

You're right Fernando,

I remember the beautiful scenery. Also, this was the first time I ever saw snow in July. I must have seen it in 1979.

I was also there in 1979. I was only 14 but my overall feeling was one of sadness. It was part of my evolution over the horror of war. This is a very interesting debate nonetheless.

Gretchen,

I guess my feelings, although at the time, I really didn't know much about the Spanish Civil War, was one of much relief that it was over and settled, and Spain turned out to be a very nice place, even under Franco.

Can you imagine any "better" outcome for Spain than this outcome? I can think of many worse outcomes, for example, if Spain were to become another communist totalitarianism state. I'm not saying that this was inevitable if Franco had not won. I'm only saying it was a distinct possibility.

Who do you imagine, beside Franco, that would have brought about any better conclusion? Just curious. Anyone?