The spirit of Franco is alive and well

[Az]

Well, of course it does. So does anything. However, as Siro pointed out, fascism as an ideology glorifies the state over the individual, i.e., dictatorship.

was that pointed at me? if so, I don't understand your question.

[Palaiologos]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Look, guys, you're missing the point. As always, you fail to find the critical differences between you and your opponent in debate / flame.

For the sake of arguement with Pala(*snip*), you should accept expansionism and militarism as viable and reasonable strategies, even though you think they aren't.

Then you should explain what they did wrong : racism, opression, genocide.

Pala, you're arguing with people who see expansionistm and militarism as inherently evil. They can't possibly understand your points.

I agree that if one accepts expansionism and militarism as viable options, the military actions undertaken by the axis in WWII, was logical and can't be judged as "evil".

As to what was wrong with the fascists-nazis in WWII: they mass murdered people who were of no threat to them, just because of having a different opinion, sexual preference or race.

They tried to impose a "super race" and create a genocide of the jewish people, and some other groups such as gays. They assassinated political opponents.

That is what was inherently wrong with them.

You are right.


I am not defending the Nazi persecutions but Nazi political actions. I believe that party politics do not influence foreign policy.

And why should one see expansionism as evil?
In that respect, the Persian invasions-490Bc and 480Bc-
of Greece and the Ottoman attack on Constantinople-1453Ad- were "evil".

[Az]

I am not defending the Nazi persecutions but Nazi political actions. I believe that party politics do not influence foreign policy.

so don't you think that the nazis attacked all over europe because of the Nazi ideology?

And why should one see expansionism as evil?
In that respect, the Persian invasions-490Bc and 480Bc-
of Greece and the Ottoman attack on Constantinople-1453Ad- were "evil".

for me, an action that creates more happiness worldwide is evil. did Nazism create more happiness worldwide, on any scope of things? NO.

[Tolls]

"I am not defending the Nazi persecutions but Nazi political actions. I believe that party politics do not influence foreign policy."

Considering a large chunk of their ideology was based on ocerturning the result of the previous war how could it possibly NOT influence foreign politics? The military build up, the Sudetenland (and then Czechoslovakia as a whole), Austria, Danzig?

Throw in a racial ideology that allowed them to view the east simply as a convenient place to expand into...after all, they were only Slavs, hardly human. The concept of lebensraum...

These were all part of the ideology of the party, and they all influenced (significantly) the foreign policy they pursued.

[Palaiologos]

It is my belief that WWII would happen anyway, Nazis or not. Every German dreamed of the time the accursed treaty of Versalies would be overturned.


It was not the nazis that fought all over Europe, but THE GERMAN ARMY. Since when the army identifies itself with a party?

I know that the nazi party had identified itself with the state, but the campaigns of the german army in 1939-1945 were based on MILITARY THINKING, not on party ideology.

[Tolls]

The German army followed orders...it was apolitical (sort of). So whoever controlled the state (ie the Nazis) controlled the army...and whatever foreign policy they had (based on their ideology as I have just pointed out) was carried out by the army under their orders!

As for "(e)very German dreamed of the time the accursed treaty of Versalies would be overturned", that is an exaggeration. There were large elements that didn't really care.

[Palaiologos]

I admit that i have no direct knowledge of what the average Germans thought of the the treaty of the Versalies. I have only read books about it, by German officers(Guderian etc.), but i suppose they were among the elements that did care. However judging by the Turkish reaction(war continued anew) i speculate that the Germans thought the same.

I again state that the german foreign policy of 1937 and on, was not because of the nazi party, but because of a revival of the German strength-which indirectly was because of the nazis.

Had less able rulers been in power, Germany would follow the same policy, just less agressively and in a longer period of time.

[Ramo]

Franco wasn't a fascist. He adopted an international persona of a fascist, largely to insure German and Italian support, but his internal policies were actually quite different from Germany and Italy. He co-opted and undermined the Spanish fascist movement (the Falange) within the Carlists. Fascists primarily act in the interests of powerful industrialists, but Franco primarily acted in the interests of more traditional forms of authority - wealthy landowners and the church. As such, Franco is better categorized with the ultra-right Latin American authoritarians like Somoza, Pinochet, etc. than with the Hitler or Mussolini.

[Sirotnikov]

so don't you think that the nazis attacked all over europe because of the Nazi ideology?

The direct reason was the Nazi ideology.

However I completely agree with Pala here, that if it weren't the nazis, it would have been some other, perhaps more moderate and non-racist ideology, that would have had the same expansionist tendencies.

The feelings were all there. It was a mere coincidence and luck that the nazis were the ones to employ it.

I think that the german foreign policy would have followed a very similar path, had it been any other arisocratic or army general, ceasing power. For instance Putch.

Though they might have had less success and were more isolated. Hitler abused the european appeasement and american apathy to the limit, and was greatly empowered by it.

[Silpy]

Ok Children.

Before we go any further, please read any book written during the Spanish Civil war. My recomendation is Geroge Orwell's 'Homage to Catalonia'.
He states that Franco was reactionary not Fascist. Franco was supported in the coup by the nobility of the recently deposed monarchy, generals, clergy, and landowners wishing to restore feudalism. Most of the 'human dust' (Trosky's term) which forms Fascism (poor middle classes threatened by becoming working class, rich busnessmen, etc) mainly supported the Republic! They would of defently supported Fascism if it had appeared in an Italian or German form, but because Franco was appealing for 'turning the clock back', they resisted.

NB The USSR actully stopped the Spanish revolution! Stalin told the CP to become supporters of the republic, and to target actual socalist organisations who wanted a revolution (POUM, Anarchists) And Stalin only sent arms to help against Franco when the Republic promiced they would remain capitalist.

I feel better now.

Apart from the person who said Fascism is OK. How could you? We know it does not work!

[Palaiologos]

I did not say that fascism is OK, just that being a fascist can not be used as an argument against anybody.