The spirit of Franco is alive and well

[Palaiologos]

I placed "illegal" in quotes exactly for what you said. The Poles had no historical right to take Prussia, but the Germans lost the war and couldn't do otherwise.

I think that by stating the reasons behind the initiation of WW2 i somewhat proved that it was not some madness on Germany's part or some obsession to acquire lands and kill slavs, but shrewd political calculation. They thought they could reclaim their lost territories and get away with it. But they did not.

[Zkribbler]

The Western Mail quotes a Foreign Office source as saying that Spain then backed away from a commitment to put the deal to the people of Gibraltar in a referendum.

Hmm, if you got to vote or whether to be a part of the UK or Spain, which would you choose?

I wonder how the referendum would have come out if the citizens of Hong Kong had been allowed to vote on whether they should be returned to the mainland.

[GeneralTacticus]

I think that by stating the reasons behind the initiation of WW2 i somewhat proved that it was not some madness on Germany's part or some obsession to acquire lands and kill slavs, but shrewd political calculation. They thought they could reclaim their lost territories and get away with it. But they did not.

WWII [i]DID[/u] result from the Nazis' drive for conquest. Had their intention been merely to regain the land they had surrendered after WWI, they would, as I said, have stopped with the Sudetenland and Danzig rather tahn conquering most of Europe.

[Palaiologos]

Conquer most of Europe?

To my knowledge apart from Denmark and Holland, the rest were justifiable conquests along the objectives of war.

France was attacked for it was their main continental opponent, Norway to prevent the English gaining a foothold there thus repeating the naval blockade of WWI, Belgium for diversion against the Anglo-French armies, Greece to save the Axis prestige after the Italians had fuc*d it up there, Yugoslavia because Adolf considered its depart from the Axis as treason, and because an attack there would outflank the Greek defenses, and the Soviet Union as a preempive strike.

And i do not think that someone really believed that after the war, had the Axis been victorious, Germany's borders would extend from Berlin to Athens. These countries were OCCUPIED, not conquered.

[Serb]

You must take your medication miss. Such logic could justify everything, any type of aggression. A Nazi regime can’t exist without constant wars and conquests. War was Hitler’s goal and mean at the same time. Next thing you gonna tell me that nazi’s atrocities toward “inferior” humans were some kind of pre-emptive actions too?

[GeneralTacticus]

Conquer most of Europe?

Yes. This had always been Hitlers goal; the acquisition of 'lebensraum' for the Aryan 'Master Race'. Read Mein Kampf if you don't believe me.

To my knowledge apart from Denmark and Holland, the rest were justifiable conquests along the objectives of war.

The fact that they could be vaguely justified by a general war does not mean that said general war was not started in order to achieve those conquests. Moreover, nations such as Greece, Yugoloslavia, or for that matter russia, had given Hitler no casus belli at all.

France was attacked for it was their main continental opponent, Norway to prevent the English gaining a foothold there thus repeating the naval blockade of WWI, Belgium for diversion against the Anglo-French armies, Greece to save the Axis prestige after the Italians had fuc*d it up there, Yugoslavia because Adolf considered its depart from the Axis as treason, and because an attack there would outflank the Greek defenses, and the Soviet Union as a preempive strike.

None of this reasoning justified their conquest, or refutes the main point that the conquest of these nations ahd been the Nazi aim all along and that the war was precipitated in order to achieve it.

And i do not think that someone really believed that after the war, had the Axis been victorious, Germany's borders would extend from Berlin to Athens. These countries were OCCUPIED, not conquered.

The occupied areas were not to be annexed to Germany; they were to be governed by puppets propped up by the Gestapo and Wehrmacht and used as sources of raw materials, land, and slave labour.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
Conquer most of Europe?

To my knowledge apart from Denmark and Holland, the rest were justifiable conquests along the objectives of war.

France was attacked for it was their main continental opponent, Norway to prevent the English gaining a foothold there thus repeating the naval blockade of WWI, Belgium for diversion against the Anglo-French armies, Greece to save the Axis prestige after the Italians had fuc*d it up there, Yugoslavia because Adolf considered its depart from the Axis as treason, and because an attack there would outflank the Greek defenses, and the Soviet Union as a preempive strike.

And i do not think that someone really believed that after the war, had the Axis been victorious, Germany's borders would extend from Berlin to Athens. These countries were OCCUPIED, not conquered.

You some kind of Nazi apologist?

[GeneralTacticus]

It sure looks like it, considering that he refers to us being 'brainwashed by anti-fascist propaganda', and implying that Hitler wasn't such a bad guy, but was 'demonised' after the war. Damn right he was - but there was no propaganda involved, the facts saw to that.

[KrazyHorse]

I tried reasoning with him earlier when he was "only" asking "so what's wrong with Franco?"...

[Palaiologos]

What you see as "reason", i see as prejudice.

I AM NOT A NAZI APOLOGIST, i just do not believe that Germans were the villains of the war.

The German man fought heroicaly and died for his family and his homeland, not for Hitler.

AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THE AXIS WAS DEMONISED AFTER THE WAR.

That happens to the defeated after every war. Hannibal was the villain of his times, and so was Philip V. The victorious it seems, need to ease their conciense.


The aged Hannibal was persecuted by the Romans up to his last days, and decided to commit suicide to at least have a peacefull ending.

The Roman people, according to their Senate's propaganda, believed that Philip V counterattack in illyria against the Roman possesions there, was to be followed by an invasion of italy and then the rest of the world.


The Allies, in WWII, believed they were fighting a crusade to rid the world of evil and bring democracy.

[Palaiologos]

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

[Az]

I AM NOT A NAZI APOLOGIST, i just do not believe that Germans were the villains of the war.

rrrrrrrrrriiiiight.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THE AXIS WAS DEMONISED AFTER THE WAR.

Six million Jews and a few million other undesirables were systematically exterminated. Is that a fact or just a demonisation in your opinion?

[GeneralTacticus]

The German man fought heroicaly and died for his family and his homeland, not for Hitler.

Perhaps you would care to explain how they were 'fighting for their homeland' by invading Russia, murdering millions of prisoners of war, murdering civilians left, right and centre, and in general trying to destroy an entire nation.

And that's not even going into them fighting against partisans in obscure parts of Eastern Europe, or their activities in the death camps.

AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THE AXIS WAS DEMONISED AFTER THE WAR.

Demonisation implies that it was not deserved.

That happens to the defeated after every war. Hannibal was the villain of his times, and so was Philip V. The victorious it seems, need to ease their conciense.

Your point? The Allies committed atrocities too, no-one was innocent in that war, but thje atrocities of the Germans were in a far greater league.

The aged Hannibal was persecuted by the Romans up to his last days, and decided to commit suicide to at least have a peacefull ending.

The Roman people, according to their Senate's propaganda, believed that Philip V counterattack in illyria against the Roman possesions there, was to be followed by an invasion of italy and then the rest of the world.

Your point?

The Allies, in WWII, believed they were fighting a crusade to rid the world of evil and bring democracy.

Well, they did rid the world of a horrific evil, and restore democracy to a few countrie. Although they then went on to oppose democracy and commit atrocities elsewhere, that does not change the fact that WWII was entirely justified.

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

Yes, you have. You just ignored them because they were inconvenient.

1) The fact that he was a fascist *IS* an argument against him, for reasons already explained.

2) As a follow-on from #1, he was a brutal dictator.

3) For much of his time in power he caused significant economic problems; it was not until he was pushed into adopting freer economic policies in the 1960s that the economy made much progress.

[Palaiologos]

If argument No3 is valid then i concur that Franco was a
bad GOVERNOR.

Fascism is not considered an argument against him IMHO.

In that respect one could say that the Ukranian President is a bad one as well, being a communist.