Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    First of all, the "democracy" of the radical leftists is not a good thing, so it was good that they opposed that.
    .
    Well at least you honestly admit not believing in democracy - or at least in the Spanish people's right to democracy.

    The democratically elected government of Negrin was not particularly radical - except by the extremely reactionary standards of the Spanish clergy and military. They were enacting the kinds of reforms that had been done in the UK and France and North West Europe - in some cases decades earlier.

    The real radicalism erupted after Franco's rebellion - as did the anti-clerical crimes (which the Republic suppressed eventually). So they cannot justify Franco.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by juanmodesto)
    Well at least you honestly admit not believing in democracy - or at least in the Spanish people's right to democracy.

    The democratically elected government of Negrin was not particularly radical - except by the extremely reactionary standards of the Spanish clergy and military. They were enacting the kinds of reforms that had been done in the UK and France and North West Europe - in some cases decades earlier.

    The real radicalism erupted after Franco's rebellion - as did the anti-clerical crimes (which the Republic suppressed eventually). So they cannot justify Franco.
    There is no "right to democracy".

    And the Second Spanish Republic was very anti-clerical, so it isn't a suprise that anti-clerical crimes were so rampant among it's supporters.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Divine Right of Kings then, eh?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Divine Right of Kings then, eh?
    I thought that you as a classical liberal would agree with me that there is no such thing as a "right to democracy".

    One, because such a thing is very abstract.

    And two because "democracy" isn't particularly well defined.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I'll quote a famous article.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    There is no "right to democracy".
    We are going to disagree on that. Clerico-fascism doesn't appeal to me. Neither does the system of "Velayat-e faqih" that they have in Iran.

    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    And the Second Spanish Republic was very anti-clerical, so it isn't a suprise that anti-clerical crimes were so rampant among it's supporters.
    The 2nd Republic was attempting (with the support of the majority of the Spanish people) to create a secular state like the USA or France.

    If you support and conspire with the enemy in wartime you can't really complain about the consequences.

    British Fascists were locked-up during WWII and some were executed. As were Catholic conspirators against the Protestant realm in earlier times.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    I'll quote a famous article.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
    And I would agree with that, the difference is that I think it's quite clear that there is a difference between the "right to democracy" and the right to property.

    The first is very badly defined.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by juanmodesto)
    We are going to disagree on that. Clerico-fascism doesn't appeal to me. Neither does the system of "Velayat-e faqih" that they have in Iran.
    Franco wasn't a fascist.

    I don't support fascism at all. I support the liberal parliamentary institutions of Britain, for example.

    All I'm saying is that I reject an abstract "right" to democracy, not parliamentarianism.

    (Original post by juanmodesto)
    The 2nd Republic was attempting (with the support of the majority of the Spanish people) to create a secular state like the USA or France.

    If you support and conspire with the enemy in wartime you can't really complain about the consequences.

    British Fascists were locked-up during WWII and some were executed. As were Catholic conspirators against the Protestant realm in earlier times.
    They didn't just try to create a secular state but an anti-christian one,

    And the last two paragraphs of yours are irrelevant. I suppose the thousands of nuns that were killed, deserved it according to you?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Franco wasn't a fascist.

    I don't support fascism at all. I support the liberal parliamentary institutions of Britain, for example.

    All I'm saying is that I reject an abstract "right" to democracy, not parliamentarianism.


    They didn't just try to create a secular state but an anti-christian one,

    And the last two paragraphs of yours are irrelevant. I suppose the thousands of nuns that were killed, deserved it according to you?
    You reject parliamentarianism in Spain. The people voted for Negrin's programme.

    As for it being "anti-Christian" - well I suppose you realize that the RC church in Spain says the same about the current government? They are upset about the legalized abortion and gay marriage. So would you support a coup by some latter-day Franco?

    Either you believe in democracy or you don't. Fairly obviously - you don't. There is nothing abstract about that right. The people of Spain elected a government in a free election. That government was overthrown by force - with the help of Mussolini, Hitler and the Catholic Church.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by juanmodesto)
    You reject parliamentarianism in Spain. The people voted for Negrin's programme.

    As for it being "anti-Christian" - well I suppose you realize that the RC church in Spain says the same about the current government? They are upset about the legalized abortion and gay marriage. So would you support a coup by some latter-day Franco?

    Either you believe in democracy or you don't. Fairly obviously - you don't. There is nothing abstract about that right. The people of Spain elected a government in a free election. That government was overthrown by force - with the help of Mussolini, Hitler and the Catholic Church.
    No, I never said that I supported the coup only that as soon as the civil war had started communists and anarchists tried to have a revolution and the choice became Franco v Communism not Franco v the Republic.

    And the Catholic Church was officially neutral during the war.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    And the Catholic Church was officially neutral during the war.
    :eek: Oh dear. That is just idiotic.

    I get the feeling that you ain't a regular at Tynecastle or Ibrox.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by juanmodesto)
    :eek: Oh dear. That is just idiotic.

    I get the feeling that you ain't a regular at Tynecastle or Ibrox.
    I'm actually a Calvinist Rangers fan.

    The official policy of the Vatican was in fact one of neutrality, although many supported the nationalists due to the anti-clericalism of the radical leftists.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Bagration)


    1. the Republicans were a mix of influences, from Social Democrats to Radical Anarchists. They were fighting together against dictatorship, not in favour of one ideology.

    2. Native Spanish Communism was Anarchist Communism, not State Communism. A Socialist Spain would have looked nothing like the USSR or Communist China (presuming that they won, Stalin's influence would have fallen as he would no longer have been needed to supply armaments.)

    3. Franco was not a particularly good dictator. He did nothing for Spain's economy, civil society, or influence. He was just a plain old European Autocrat who fought for the establishment. There's not an awful lot to praise about him.
    For once, we agree on something, especially 2.

    What's more, regarding the boleded bit, if the west had allowed the Republic to buy weapons and fight the fascists, it's likely that Republican Spain would never even have fallen under Stalinist control. It would likely have evolved into either an Anarchist Revolutionary State, or a sort of vaguely left wing Socialist country... Whatever your opinion on either, I'm sure most people think it's better than either a Stalinist Spain, or a fascist Spain.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    I suppose the thousands of nuns that were killed, deserved it according to you?
    Do you support the killing of tens of thousands of people in Franco's repression, merely because they were Union members, or lived in worker's districts, or had fought for the legal state of Spain against an insurrection?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    And the Catholic Church was officially neutral during the war.
    That's ********. The Catholic Church in Spain was almost without exception on the side of the rebels.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    1) The communists and the anarchists were the strongest groups.
    The Communists only became the strongest group after late 1937. This wasn't neccesarily the case, had the west supported the Republic.

    The Anarchists were strong, but they were unlikely to have created a dictatorship. They were extremely principled, turning down participation in government on grounds of principle a number of times.

    2) I think it would have been likely that a pro-stalin state could have been created.
    If that's what you think, you have little understanding of the history of the Spanish Civil War. It's not like Poland or Czech after WWII - for one, the Communists were very weak until the west cut off the Republic, leaving the USSR as the only country willing to support Spain.

    3) There isn't much to condemn him for either. He was the better alternative to a radical leftist state. It isn't like authoritarian conservative regimes were new to Latin Europe, anyway.
    So? He was a very brutal dictator, who however boring and benignly authoritarian he might have become in the 60's, murdered ten times as many as the leftists ever did in Spain.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alasdair)
    Do you support the killing of tens of thousands of people in Franco's repression, merely because they were Union members, or lived in worker's districts, or had fought for the legal state of Spain against an insurrection?
    No, to the first two and to the last, that is war.

    (Original post by Alasdair)
    That's ********. The Catholic Church in Spain was almost without exception on the side of the rebels.
    I was talking about the official policy of the Vatican.

    It is true that the majority of Catholics favoured the nationalists but many moderate republicans (democrats and so on) were Christian and the Basques who were very republican were extremely pious.

    (Original post by Alasdair)
    For once, we agree on something, especially 2.

    What's more, regarding the boleded bit, if the west had allowed the Republic to buy weapons and fight the fascists, it's likely that Republican Spain would never even have fallen under Stalinist control. It would likely have evolved into either an Anarchist Revolutionary State, or a sort of vaguely left wing Socialist country... Whatever your opinion on either, I'm sure most people think it's better than either a Stalinist Spain, or a fascist Spain.
    Spain wasn't ever "fascist" under Franco. A liberal Spanish republic would have been fine but not one controlled by radical anarchists.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Two points:
    1) Please refrain from personal insults;
    2) Please can we get the thread back to whether people support UAF or not. If you want to start a thread about the rights or wrongs of the Vatican, please go to the Theology forums or to one of the history forums.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Prince Rhyus)
    Two points:
    1) Please refrain from personal insults;
    2) Please can we get the thread back to whether people support UAF or not. If you want to start a thread about the rights or wrongs of the Vatican, please go to the Theology forums or to one of the history forums.
    It's a related, new and interesting, topic in a thread that's already eight pages long. Not to mention, as you may or may not know, there isn't a History D&D forum.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    No, to the first two and to the last, that is war.
    Sorry, what I meant was that anybody found to have a mark on their shoulder from a rifle butt was shot, even if they weren't armed or fighting.

    So if you don't support that, and yet still support Franco, how can you accuse me of supporting the red repression (which was on a far far smaller scale), by supporting the anti-fascists?

    I was talking about the official policy of the Vatican.
    Then that's irrelevant. What matters is the Catholic Church in Spain. Who were whole-heartedly on the side of the rebels, with the exception of the Basque country.

    [quote]Spain wasn't ever "fascist" under Franco.[quote]

    It mellowed in it's old age, but in the late 30's and early 40's, it had a distinctly fascist character.

    A liberal Spanish republic would have been fine but not one controlled by radical anarchists.
    It's unlikely the anarchists would've had much, if any power outside of Catalonia, even in a socialist, revolutionary Spain. But even if that weren't the case, no sensible person would prefer Franco to a peaceful anarchist Spain.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.