Roman Catholic Church 2013: Spanish Civil War 'martyrs' beatified

Rebelheart

Incredible news story of the month comes through. How can any Spanish socialist be a member of the Roman Catholic Church when they are glorifying the unchristian behaviour of the Roman Catholic priests and religious against the democratically-elected socialist government of Spain?

The sheer savagery and inhumanity of Roman Catholic priests across Spain in the Spanish Civil War is breathtaking. They backed money and power over rights and democracy. Nothing to be proud of there at all. But yet the RCC decides to honour these people. Breathtaking.


"The Roman Catholic Church in Spain has beatified 522 people, most of them priests and nuns killed by Republicans during the Spanish Civil War.

Thousands of people attended the outdoor event in Tarragona, presided over by a senior Vatican cardinal.

Left-wing groups had objected, saying the ceremony amounted to a glorification of the Franco dictatorship...."

Spanish Civil War 'martyrs' beatified

PS: If any British nationalist is looking in smugly on this attack on the CC, I'd like to point out that the British government, like the German and Italian governments, in effect supported Franco and the fascists over the socialists. Post WW II history likes to brush this "fascists are better than socialists/communists" reality of British/French/US politics in the 1930s under the carpet.

Fratton Fred

Rebelheart wrote: »

Incredible news story of the month comes through. How can any Spanish socialist be a member of the Roman Catholic Church when they are glorifying the unchristian behaviour of the Roman Catholic priests and religious against the democratically-elected socialist government of Spain?

The sheer savagery and inhumanity of Roman Catholic priests across Spain in the Spanish Civil War is breathtaking. They backed money and power over rights and democracy. Nothing to be proud of there at all. But yet the RCC decides to honour these people. Breathtaking.


"The Roman Catholic Church in Spain has beatified 522 people, most of them priests and nuns killed by Republicans during the Spanish Civil War.

Thousands of people attended the outdoor event in Tarragona, presided over by a senior Vatican cardinal.

Left-wing groups had objected, saying the ceremony amounted to a glorification of the Franco dictatorship...."

Spanish Civil War 'martyrs' beatified

PS: If any British nationalist is looking in smugly on this attack on the CC, I'd like to point out that the British government, like the German and Italian governments, in effect supported Franco and the fascists over the socialists. Post WW II history likes to brush this "fascists are better than socialists/communists" reality of British/French/US politics in the 1930s under the carpet.

Have you ever considered angermanagement, or an operation to have that chip removed?

robp

Rebelheart wrote: »

Incredible news story of the month comes through. How can any Spanish socialist be a member of the Roman Catholic Church when they are glorifying the unchristian behaviour of the Roman Catholic priests and religious against the democratically-elected socialist government of Spain?

The sheer savagery and inhumanity of Roman Catholic priests across Spain in the Spanish Civil War is breathtaking. They backed money and power over rights and democracy. Nothing to be proud of there at all. But yet the RCC decides to honour these people. Breathtaking.


"The Roman Catholic Church in Spain has beatified 522 people, most of them priests and nuns killed by Republicans during the Spanish Civil War.

Thousands of people attended the outdoor event in Tarragona, presided over by a senior Vatican cardinal.

Left-wing groups had objected, saying the ceremony amounted to a glorification of the Franco dictatorship...."

Spanish Civil War 'martyrs' beatified

PS: If any British nationalist is looking in smugly on this attack on the CC, I'd like to point out that the British government, like the German and Italian governments, in effect supported Franco and the fascists over the socialists. Post WW II history likes to brush this "fascists are better than socialists/communists" reality of British/French/US politics in the 1930s under the carpet.

Countless of innocent religious people were butchered in the instability. By and large we are talking about civilians who had no part in combat. There is no justification for the murder of nuns and monks many who were cloistered and zero political influence. To ignore their deaths would be immoral. By and large their deaths occurred after the break down of law and order in Republican areas. So we can't heap all the blame on the Republican authorities but long before when the Republican authorities were fully in control they were restricting religious liberty and crystallising it with their constitution. The Republicans had only them selves to blame for losing RCC support.

In the Basque region Catholic priests were butchered by Nationalists. the lesson is both sides were brutal, manipulative and committed numerous war crimes but as the Republicans failed to commit to religious liberty they estranged much of their own support.

From the BBC article

..The oldest, an 86-year-old nun, was executed in the same year.

it is sickening that anyone would try to whitewash this.

who the fug

Given the left has already beatified its martyrs, why whinge when the right does

Jolly Red Giant

The Catholic Church in Spain during the civil war were the no.1 supporters of fascism.

Santa Cruz

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The Catholic Church in Spain during the civil war were the no.1 supporters of fascism.

And?

Rebelheart

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Have you ever considered angermanagement, or an operation to have that chip removed?

Ha. Ha. Ha. And this ad hominem from FrattonFred, the chief British apologist for all things rightwing British/British imperialist in Ireland on Boards.ie....

It's not like in your views on Ireland you are, or ever have been, British à la Tony Benn or Ken Livingstone.

If opposing rightwing imperialists making claims on lands beyond their own countries indicates that somebody has a "chip on their shoulder", I'm quite happy to be counted among them. No doubt all people in every generation who opposed British imperialism had a similar "chip", in your utterly tribal and benighted British view.

Rebelheart

Santa Cruz wrote: »

And?

Well, for those of us who oppose fascist overthrows of democratically-elected governments (in this case socialists), it's quite significant that the RCC was the greatest supporter of fascism in the Spanish Civil War. That you don't understand the significance of the church which claims to represent Jesus Christ on earth supporting fascism, power of the few, over the good of the many is disturbing.

Rebelheart

mickmackey1 wrote: »

And because they were fighting Communists, they were perfectly entitled to do so.

The RCC/Fascists were, in fact, fighting to overthrow the democratically-elected socialist government of Spain, which in 1931 wanted to secularise Spain. Furthermore, that you're unaware that the anti-Fascist side contained socialists as well as communists and that both in effect had a civil war among themselves during the Civil War as Stalin attempted to take control of the anti-Fascist side at least indicates that you haven't read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia (where socialist Orwell became very bitter against the communists for their role in the Spanish Civil War), or any history of the Spanish Civil War.

Rebelheart

who the fug wrote: »

Given the left has already beatified its martyrs, why whinge when the right does

Oh, but I thought the Catholic Church was meant to represent everybody, particularly the poor? At least the true reality of the RCC is clear now....

Fratton Fred

Rebelheart wrote: »

Ha. Ha. Ha. And this ad hominem from FrattonFred, the chief British apologist for all things rightwing British/British imperialist in Ireland on Boards.ie....

It's not like in your views on Ireland you are, or ever have been, British à la Tony Benn or Ken Livingstone.

If opposing rightwing imperialists making claims on lands beyond their own countries indicates that somebody has a "chip on their shoulder", I'm quite happy to be counted among them. No doubt all people in every generation who opposed British imperialism had a similar "chip", in your utterly tribal and benighted British view.

Tell me, why would I take delight in your attack on the Catholic church?

Frank Lee Midere

The choice in Spain wasn't democracy or Catholic Fascism ( which isn't Nazzism either). Despite the "popular front" moniker the republicans were infiltrated and eventually controller by anarchists and communists. The latter killing as many of the former as they could. Spain would have been a Stalinist dictatorship or a fascist one. But that war wasn't going to end in a pluralist democracy.

Fratton Fred

Rebelheart wrote: »

Comments like this, this, this, this and this, perhaps?

Oh yes, I forgot, humour is completely wasted on you.

Rebelheart

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Tell me, why would I take delight in your attack on the Catholic church?

Comments like this, this, this, and this, perhaps?

Rebelheart

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Oh yes, I forgot, humour is completely wasted on you.

Ah anti-Catholic jokes from a British person = "humour". That's a bit too revealing.

Fratton Fred

Rebelheart wrote: »

Ah anti-Catholic jokes from a British person = "humour". That's a bit too revealing.

Take it how you like, there's only one bigot on this thread and he ain't British.

Rebelheart

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Take it how you like, there's only one bigot on this thread and he ain't British.

Your propensity to fire the word "bigot" at anybody who doesn't subscribe to your own particular set of prejudices is regrettable. I'll leave it at that.

Fratton Fred

Rebelheart wrote: »

Your propensity to fire the word "bigot" at anybody who doesn't subscribe to your own particular set of prejudices is regrettable. I'll leave it at that.

You really are barking mad.

You made two controversial posts, get picked up on them by several posters and then start off on your usual ad hominem attacks on anyone who disagrees with you.

Seriously dude, take a good look at yourself.

robp

Rebelheart wrote: »

Well, for those of us who oppose fascist overthrows of democratically-elected governments (in this case socialists), it's quite significant that the RCC was the greatest supporter of fascism in the Spanish Civil War. That you don't understand the significance of the church which claims to represent Jesus Christ on earth supporting fascism, power of the few, over the good of the many is disturbing.

Well most would defend armed insurrection against elected govs in certain circumstances such as in 1916 Ireland.

democratically-elected socialist government of Spain, which in 1931 wanted to secularise Spain.

By stripping away civil liberties, thieving church property and banning Catholic education, even in private schools.

The left wing are in no position to take the moral high ground. The first attempt at overthrowal of an elected Government was not Franco but actually left wing forces in Asturias in 1934.

In the early 1930s many Catholics supported the republic. perhaps the civil war could have been averted if the republican gov committed to pluralism. Instead there was just half hearted tolerance of the church or tolerance of outright violence against Catholics e.g. a quote by Manuel Azana

All the convents of Madrid are not worth the life of a single Republican.

Darwinism in action.

Do you object to Catholics being beatified for being martyred by the Nazis too or is a war crime only a war crime when it is done by the right?

Ravelleman

I see the word 'fascist' being used rather a lot here. The truth is that very, very few historians would suggest that the key players in the Rising against the Popular Front Government were 'fascists' in any true sense of the term. This includes Franco, who most definitely was not a fascist. The truth is that in the build up to the pronunciamiento by the conspirators, fascists and communists were totally marginal in Spanish politics. The Falange, for example, received around 42,000 votes - which equates to less that 1% of the total - in the elections of February, 1936. The Falange, which, after its merger with the more radical JONS, came to represent Spain's principal fascist organisation, was leaderless by November of the same year. By April, 1937 Franco had moved in and stripped it of its revolutionary potential (in the value neutral sense of the term) and from that point on it became just one of a number of groups vying for interest in the Franco 'family'.

TwoGallants

I would have to agree with the previous poster. 'Fascist' has to be the most over-used word in the English language.

Reekwind

TwoGallants wrote: »

I would have to agree with the previous poster. 'Fascist' has to be the most over-used word in the English language.

Yet it's very hard to get worked up about it's application to the Spanish Civil War. The Falange remained one of, if not the, largest Nationalist militias and much of its manifesto served as the political base for Franco's coalition. Which isn't to even mention the international context

Now, it can be argued as to where exactly Franco's authoritarian and reactionary regime sat on the far-right axis (no pun intended) but, in this context, that's largely splitting hairs

Fratton Fred wrote:

Have you ever considered angermanagement, or an operation to have that chip removed?

This is a profoundly useless post

Ravelleman

Reekwind wrote: »

Yet it's very hard to get worked up about it's application to the Spanish Civil War. The Falange remained one of, if not the, largest Nationalist militias and much of its manifesto served as the political base for Franco's coalition. Which isn't to even mention the international context.

The Falange did experience a rapid growth in numbers in the months leading up to the uprising but the vast majority of these new members switched over from non-fascist organisations like the Juventudes de Acción Popular, the youth division of Acción Popular, one of the larger groups that made up the CEDA. José Antonio Primo de Rivera's personal writings reveal some hints of doubt at whether these new members really subscribed to the Falange's fascist programme of social revolution.

The fact that the twenty seven points of the Puntos Iniciales were reduced to twenty six in order to edit out mention of the national revolution upon the formation of the FET y de las JONS indicates Franco's thoughts on the matter quite clearly. Regardless, Falangists were never in the majority of Franco's rather diverse regime.

Reekwind wrote: »

Now, it can be argued as to where exactly Franco's authoritarian and reactionary regime sat on the far-right axis (no pun intended) but, in this context, that's largely splitting hairs

I'd disagree with this entirely. The whole debate about the nature of Franco's regime is something that continues to dominate the historiography of the Spanish Civil War and onwards. On a less academic level it also continues to feature heavily in the discourse surrounding the Spanish Civil War and particularly how it should be presented and commemorated in an official capacity. That goes some way to explain why issues like the one (not) being discussed are so polemical both in Spain and abroad.

In any case, I'd also question the utility of the left-right axis when discussing fascism and, indeed, many other regime types. It would be far more useful to think of it in circular terms, given the ideological crossover between the many manifestations of fascism and its opponents on 'the left'.

Snickers Man

Ravelleman wrote: »

I see the word 'fascist' being used rather a lot here. The truth is that very, very few historians would suggest that the key players in the Rising against the Popular Front Government were 'fascists' in any true sense of the term. This includes Franco, who most definitely was not a fascist.

Quite right. Franco was no Fascist, or even fascist, if you want to be particular. He was a traditional Catholic Monarchist and extremely hostile to anything that smacked of Socialism.

But Fascism, as developed in Italy or Nazism in Germany, which shared some characteristics of Mussolini's Italy, were radical revolutionary ideologies with strong roots in Socialist philosophy and working-class sensibilities.

The Nazis were in many ways a socialist party. (The clue's in the name: NationalSozialistishe Deutsche Arbeiter Partei or National Socialist German Worker's Party.) Mussolini was the son of a committed socialist and started his career as a firebrand and widely respected socialist intellectual.

That both ideologies (Fascism and Nazism) eschewed International Workers' Solidarity in favour of trying to construct a single-state utopia in each case only reflected what more benign and democratic socialist regimes, such as Atlee's in Britain, did in practice. Nationalising key industries, providing generous welfare benefits including health and education provision for their own citizens. Socialism in one country.

Both Nazis and Fascists despised "international capitalism" and "unproductive finance" as did socialists. Oh boy they would have known what to do with the perpetrators of the "sub prime lending" crisis or the vandals who wrought havoc with "derivatives trading".

Franco did none of this. He was not a welfare state sort of guy at all. Nor was he a persecutor of Jews, ironically given Spain's horrendous historical record in that regard, or a supporter of the Axis in its war with Britain and France.

His refusal to join the war on the Axis side was of great benefit to Britain during its year of isolation from mid 1940 (Fall of France) to mid 1941 (Operation Barbarossa). Just think what Rommel would have done in North Africa if the Spanish had captured Gibraltar and closed the straits to the Royal Navy. What could Britain have done about it? Very little.

And finally, there were many good Catholics in Spain, including many priests, who despised Franco and were generally sympathetic to the left. My own family was friendly with just such a man who found no contradiction between his faith and his opposition to the Generalissimo.

All due respect, Rebelheart. There are plenty of more appropriate causes to get apoplectic about.

Reekwind

Ravelleman wrote: »

José Antonio Primo de Rivera's personal writings reveal some hints of doubt at whether these new members really subscribed to the Falange's fascist programme of social revolution

Except that there has never been such a thing as a coherent "fascist programme"; as befitting a philosophy of action, fascism is an almost entirely un-doctrinaire ideology. There is no Marx or Smith to which to appeal, no sacred texts to consult. The Falange was never less diverse than the NSDAP – in which Strasserists rubbed shoulders with Junkers – or more consistent in its adherence to it's supposed manifesto 'points'

As a rule, if a party in the 1930s called itself fascist and openly aligned itself with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy then I'm inclined to accept it as fascist

I'd disagree with this entirely. The whole debate about the nature of Franco's regime is something that continues to dominate the historiography of the Spanish Civil War and onwards. On a less academic level it also continues to feature heavily in the discourse surrounding the Spanish Civil War and particularly how it should be presented and commemorated in an official capacity. That goes some way to explain why issues like the one (not) being discussed are so polemical both in Spain and abroad.

Does it make a jot of difference whether Franco's regime was a brutal fascist dictatorship or a brutal ' traditional Catholic Monarchist' dictatorship that was supported and expressed sympathy for fascist regimes?

Applying the term 'fascist' to, say, GW Bush is obviously facile in the extreme. Applying it to Franco is a lot less so

In any case, I'd also question the utility of the left-right axis when discussing fascism and, indeed, many other regime types. It would be far more useful to think of it in circular terms, given the ideological crossover between the many manifestations of fascism and its opponents on 'the left'.

This I'd strongly disagree with. The idea of 'red fascism' is an inherently flawed comparison that relies on shared differenced with the West rather than any real similarities. The fact that both Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia differed from Western democracies in sharing a propensity for (domestic) political violence does not give licence to ignore the myriad differences between the two

Snickers Man wrote:

The Nazis were in many ways a socialist party. (The clue's in the name: NationalSozialistishe Deutsche Arbeiter Partei or National Socialist German Worker's Party.)

And I suppose that the German Democratic Republic was a true democracy?

The idea that the Nazis were in any way socialist is entirely false. Let's look at some of the charges:

It was not revolutionary. In both Germany and Italy the fascists were invited, peacefully, into government by establishment figures. There was no social revolution (see below) and no political revolution. Both groups were content to largely rule through the established state structures, which proved remarkably amenable to fascist demands.

It was socially conservative. Hitler explicitly promised industrialists that he would smash the 'trade union state' and was committed to rolling back Weimar welfare reforms; something that his predecessors had already started on. Far from "providing generous welfare benefits", the Nazis railed against 'welfare for the worthless' and the 'work shy'. Weimar welfare programmes were not restored and those funds that were provided were diverted into racial programmes.

It was anti-working class. Mussolini's Blackshirts earned their chops by terrorising agricultural workers and trade unionists, while the national unions that the Nazis did organise were instruments of control, not empowerment. German workers remained unrepresented within the NSDAP and the latter made little electoral inroads into the urban strongholds of the SPD and KPD (it was the collapse of competing far-right parties, not the left, that gave the Nazis their Reichstag numbers). Overall the Nazi era saw the balance of power within the factory shift decisively towards the employer

Similarly, there was no widespread nationalisation of industry prior to the war. Political opponents were certainly marginalised but the German business leaders proved perfectly capable of working alongside the Nazi regime and actively indulging the opportunities provided. Indeed, the Nazis actually privatised many formerly state-run industries during the 1930s. Comparing this to Stalin, or even Atlee, reveals the timidity of Nazi nationalisation

Of course not all of the above was matched by fascist rhetoric. But then who would have thought that trustworthy chaps like Hitler or Mussolini would consciously indulge in propaganda?

His refusal to join the war on the Axis side was of great benefit to Britain during its year of isolation from mid 1940 (Fall of France) to mid 1941 (Operation Barbarossa). Just think what Rommel would have done in North Africa if the Spanish had captured Gibraltar and closed the straits to the Royal Navy. What could Britain have done about it? Very little.

Franco offered to join the war in 1940. That Spain remained nominally* neutral was more a function of his price (ie most of French N Africa) being unacceptable to Germany. Far from Franco "refusing", it was Berlin that judged that his support wasn't worth the price

*Nominally, given that, much like Ireland, Spain actively and covertly supported one side of the conflict from a position of neutrality

robp

Reekwind wrote: »

It was socially conservative. Hitler explicitly promised industrialists that he would smash the 'trade union state' and was committed to rolling back Weimar welfare reforms; something that his predecessors had already started on. Far from "providing generous welfare benefits", the Nazis railed against 'welfare for the worthless' and the 'work shy'. Weimar welfare programmes were not restored and those funds that were provided were diverted into racial programmes.

You can't really define Hitler by the political statements he made. He was an utter populist and many of the themes in his speeches contradict each other hugely. Actions speak larger then words.

The Nazis party started very anti capitalistic but less so as time went on. This is the same as many political parties entering power.

Franco offered to join the war in 1940. That Spain remained nominally* neutral was more a function of his price (ie most of French N Africa) being unacceptable to Germany. Far from Franco "refusing", it was Berlin that judged that his support wasn't worth the price

*Nominally, given that, much like Ireland, Spain actively and covertly supported one side of the conflict from a position of neutrality

It is well known that Franco distrusted Hitler. Normal allies don't offer impossible prices. The fact is he didn't enter the war is the bottom line.

it was the collapse of competing far-right parties, not the left, that gave the Nazis their Reichstag numbers)

the competing parties weren't far right at all. Actually they were just centre right and centre left. the establishment, as you write else where.

Snickers Man

Reekwind wrote: »

Does it make a jot of difference whether Franco's regime was a brutal fascist dictatorship or a brutal ' traditional Catholic Monarchist' dictatorship

Yes. One would be a fascist and the other a traditional Catholic Monarchist.

This is not to deny that Franco's dictatorship was a brutal one, although rather less so once the civil war had ended. But don't you think it's a little disingenuous to use a pejorative term which refers to something utterly different to what he was when his own record is bad enough to deserve criticism under a more appropriate description? Like Francoism?

Doesn't Godwin's Law mean anything to you?

Reekwind wrote: »

Applying the term 'fascist' to, say, GW Bush is obviously facile in the extreme. Applying it to Franco is a lot less so

Who brought that hayseed hick into this? He wasn't a fascist; he was an unintelligent, unsophisticated dilettante megalomaniac with an entitlement complex that made him too dangerous, in my view, to be left in charge of a lawnmower, let along a nuclear arsenal, but he certainly was no fascist.

What's your point?

Reekwind wrote: »

The idea that the Nazis were in any way socialist is entirely false. Let's look at some of the charges:

It was not revolutionary. In both Germany and Italy the fascists were invited, peacefully, into government by establishment figures.

Not revolutionary!!! I suppose the concept of an army of brown-shirted goon squads parading through the streets, beating the crap out of political opponents and demanding a complete overhaul of the financial and administrative apparatus is normal bourgeois parliamentary cut and thrust. The Beer Hall Putsch was a social gathering.
The March on Rome was a stroll in the country.

Come off it.

Reekwind wrote: »

There was no social revolution (see below) and no political revolution. Both groups were content to largely rule through the established state structures, which proved remarkably amenable to fascist demands.

Oh yes there was. Not the sort that a student-union leftie would demand, admittedly, but there were quite stark changes. The suspension of elections, the subordination of the civil service to the Nazi party, not to mention the Race Laws (similar in method if with a silghtly different target to those pertaining in the majority of US states at the time) the introduction of standardised greeting forms like "Heil Hitler" (Did Spain have an "Hola Caudillo" greeting? I don't think so) to name but a few of the more obvious ones.

Reekwind wrote: »

It was socially conservative. Hitler explicitly promised industrialists that he would smash the 'trade union state' and was committed to rolling back Weimar welfare reforms; something that his predecessors had already started on. Far from "providing generous welfare benefits", the Nazis railed against 'welfare for the worthless' and the 'work shy'. Weimar welfare programmes were not restored and those funds that were provided were diverted into racial programmes.

Any largesse from any state only goes to those considered worthy. And to be so regarded in Germany you had to be a dutiful Aryan, unpolluted by Jewish or Slavic blood and willing to put your country "uber alles". To paraphrase your question given above: Does it make a lot of difference whether goodies for the working class came from the Strength through Joy movement or through free collective bargaining via an independent trade union?

The point is, it was a redistribution of SOME wealth into the hands of the workers mediated through the state. Is this left wing or right wing? In a free market economically liberal society such goodies are dispensed (in theory) by companies keen to retain staff and keep their workers happy.

The state getting involved is a sure vestige of left-wing sensibilities.

Reekwind wrote: »

It was anti-working class.....Overall the Nazi era saw the balance of power within the factory shift decisively towards the employer

Yup. It was authoritarian. And collective. And the needs of the Volk were promoted ahead of the needs of the individual. And this is right wing how?

Reekwind wrote: »

Franco offered to join the war in 1940. That Spain remained nominally* neutral was more a function of his price (ie most of French N Africa) being unacceptable to Germany. Far from Franco "refusing", it was Berlin that judged that his support wasn't worth the price

I'm sorry. That's bull****. Usually put about by Basque extremists. Hitler couldn't have cared less who got hold of French North Africa as long as it wasn't the Brits or Americans. And I suspect when the Anglo Saxons came invading during Operation Torch a Spanish army might have put up a sterner defence than the Vichy French did.

Any Spanish ambitions in Africa would have been a very small price to pay for the closing of the straits of Gibraltar. It has always puzzled me as to why Hitler never took such an opportunity to strangle the British in North Africa when he could have done it quite easily or had Franco do it.

The only rational explanations are that Franco realised Spain couldn't afford an extended war after their own Civil War and Hitler regarded North Africa, and indeed the whole fight against Britain, as a sideshow to the real war; which was the one against the Soviet Union. North Africa was always an Italian venture anyway, not a German one.

Reekwind

robp wrote: »

You can't really define Hitler by the political statements he made. He was an utter populist and many of the themes in his speeches contradict each other hugely. Actions speak larger then words

And it's the actions that I'm talking about: the smashing of the unions and workers' cultural clubs, banning of strikes, fall in real wages, narrowing the applicability of unemployment insurance (and easing the employer's contribution to this), etc

Far from being a rabidly anti-capitalist party, on the assumption of power (and before, via campaign contributions) most large industrialists were happy to accept Nazi rule in exchange for the removal of Weimar restrictions on their power on the factory floor. Or as Kershaw puts it: "Business recovery, high profits, secure private property (apart from that of Jewish businessmen), the crushing of Marxism and the subduing of labour saw big business increasingly content to adjust to full collaboration with the new regime, whatever the irksome bureaucratic controls imposed on it."

In the class divide of late Weimar Germany, there is no question whose side the Nazis took in practice, if not always in propaganda. It wasn't the workers

It is well known that Franco distrusted Hitler. Normal allies don't offer impossible prices. The fact is he didn't enter the war is the bottom line

Unlike Mussolini who was demanding effective control of the Mediterranean and an African empire? Franco made the offer to join; it was Hitler who rejected it. See the bottom of the post for more detail

the competing parties weren't far right at all. Actually they were just centre right and centre left. the establishment, as you write else where.

My language was inaccurate in that it was the general right, not just the 'far right'. The centre and left remained relatively unscathed. Below shows the voting patterns in Weimar, the left on the top and the right on the bottom. Note that the overall left vote remains solid at around 40% (the Centre Party is also resilient but slightly less so), with the Nazi votes coming from former DVP and DNVP voters

(For some reason the graph has the DDP (who were fairly centrist) lumped in with the DVP but even by the early twenties the DDP had become a fringe party of circa 5%)

Snickers Man wrote:

This is not to deny that Franco's dictatorship was a brutal one, although rather less so once the civil war had ended. But don't you think it's a little disingenuous to use a pejorative term which refers to something utterly different to what he was when his own record is bad enough to deserve criticism under a more appropriate description? Like Francoism?

If you call it Francoism then fine, but it sits alongside Italian Fascism or Nazism on the political spectrum

My point is very obviously that Franco's regime was not "something utterly different". It was a brutal dictatorship that was nationalist, authoritarian, reactionary, militarist, anti-communist, run by one party, anti-liberal, anti-intellectual and racist. It policies included the abolition or control of trade unions, irredentism, a cult of personality, mass violence and headed by a fascist party. Please stop me if anything here sounds particularly un-fascist

It's clear that there is no single blueprint for fascism; as I say, this is not a particularly doctrinaire ideology. When you go into detail then there were real differences between Nazism and Italian Fascism as well. But I see no reason why the regime that I've described above should not be considered alongside the fascist regimes of Germany or Italy


(Definitely not fascist)

(And, for the record, far from being "rather less brutal once the civil war had ended", Franco's regime continued to execute people en masse up to the mid-1940s. The bulk of the 200,000 people murdered by his regime (Beevor's estimate) may actually have died after the Civil War had ended)

Doesn't Godwin's Law mean anything to you?

In a discussion about 1930s European fascism? Not particularly

Not revolutionary!!! I suppose the concept of an army of brown-shirted goon squads parading through the streets, beating the crap out of political opponents and demanding a complete overhaul of the financial and administrative apparatus is normal bourgeois parliamentary cut and thrust. The Beer Hall Putsch was a social gathering.
The March on Rome was a stroll in the country.

You seem to have mistaken the terms 'extra-parliamentary' and 'revolutionary'. They are not synonymous

But let's look at them: Hitler was invited into power by Hindenburg. Mussolini was invited into power by Victor Emmanuel. The Winter Palace it was not. The idea that these were revolutionary movements that had seized power - as opposed to the backroom political manoeuvres that they really were - is pure propaganda. If at any point the establishment had chosen not to invite either into the corridors of power (and nobody's hand was ever forced) then both Hitler and Mussolini would have been footnotes of history

Ironically, Franco is the sole member of the trio who actually fought his way into power

Oh yes there was. Not the sort that a student-union leftie would demand, admittedly, but there were quite stark changes. The suspension of elections, the subordination of the civil service to the Nazi party, not to mention the Race Laws (similar in method if with a silghtly different target to those pertaining in the majority of US states at the time) the introduction of standardised greeting forms like "Heil Hitler" (Did Spain have an "Hola Caudillo" greeting? I don't think so) to name but a few of the more obvious ones

So by "student union leftie" you mean 'anyone who knows what a social revolution' is? Look, I'm not going to bother with someone who makes up their own terms. Nothing you described there comprises a social revolution. The question is not 'Did Hitler enact race laws?' but 'Was Hitler revolutionary'?

To paraphrase your question given above: Does it make a lot of difference whether goodies for the working class came from the Strength through Joy movement or through free collective bargaining via an independent trade union?

Yeah, it does. Entirely. What with there being a fundamental difference between trade unions organised by the state to control the working class and weaken their position vis-a-vis employers, and workers collective organising and bargaining to improve their collective position. You can see the difference, right?

And again, the reality is that less "goodies" weren't making their way to the working class. Total public welfare spending in the Reich was no greater in 1936 than it had been in 1930 (approx 1.6b marks). The difference is that now it was being channelled away from unemployment insurance or workers' education programmes towards racial hygiene programmes or other initiatives to improve the genetic stock (with corresponding hardening attitudes towards the those who actually needed welfare, eg the 'work shy'). The apparent expansion of Nazi social welfare was little more than the state amalgamating previously independent charities into more central bodies

The point is, it was a redistribution of SOME wealth into the hands of the workers mediated through the state. Is this left wing or right wing? In a free market economically liberal society such goodies are dispensed (in theory) by companies keen to retain staff and keep their workers happy.

The state getting involved is a sure vestige of left-wing sensibilities.

So what you're suggesting is that both Bismarck and, say, successive US governments have been socialist. That's very a idiosyncratic definition

Yup. It was authoritarian. And collective. And the needs of the Volk were promoted ahead of the needs of the individual. And this is right wing how?

I'm not sure that you've read my post. I wrote, in essence, that the Nazis favouring business over the working class was a sign of anti-worker policies. (I actually wrote quite a lot more but you skimmed over the rest). Implicit in that was the understanding that if it's anti-worker then it's pro-capitalist and therefore right-wing. You've completely ignored that and come back with something entirely irrelevant which in no way addresses my point

Besides, if I really have to explain to you how the elevation of a racial or national group above an individual or class is not right-wing... well, then we've clearly got to dial this back a level and go into some pretty basic political theory

I'm sorry. That's bull****. Usually put about by Basque extremists. Hitler couldn't have cared less who got hold of French North Africa as long as it wasn't the Brits or Americans. And I suspect when the Anglo Saxons came invading during Operation Torch a Spanish army might have put up a sterner defence than the Vichy French did.

Any Spanish ambitions in Africa would have been a very small price to pay for the closing of the straits of Gibraltar. It has always puzzled me as to why Hitler never took such an opportunity to strangle the British in North Africa when he could have done it quite easily or had Franco do it.

The only rational explanations are that Franco realised Spain couldn't afford an extended war after their own Civil War and Hitler regarded North Africa, and indeed the whole fight against Britain, as a sideshow to the real war; which was the one against the Soviet Union. North Africa was always an Italian venture anyway, not a German one.

To be blunt: it's clear that Hitler had a much better grasp on the situation than you do. Your "only rational explanation" completely ignores the two other factors in the diplomatic equation: France and Italy.

Out of the carcass of the Third Republic Hitler had to not only satisfy Mussolini but also the power that actually controlled it: France, which in 1940 was still a more formidable military power than Spain. Laval expected to lose some territory but had Hitler simply signed away N Africa then the French soldiers and sailors that held it would simply have joined DeGaulle and the armistice would have collapsed. Aside from causing headaches in metropolitan France, this would have gifted all of N Africa and naval control of the Mediterranean to the Allies. All for little Spain

The chronology supports this. In mid-June Franco made his first offer. On 4 Oct Hitler meets Mussolini, who presses Italian claims and the importance of avoiding antagonising France. On 20 Oct Hitler meets Laval who stresses his eagerness to collaborate but with the expectation that France will be rewarded with retaining at least some of its colonies. On 24 Oct Hitler meets Franco where he makes clear that he has no intention of signing over the vast colonial territory that the latter is demanding. France was still considered the more important than a basket-case nation with limited military capabilities

But then it's interesting to hear you describe the likes of Ian Kershaw as peddling "bull**** usually put about by Basque extremists" :rolleyes:

robp

Reekwind wrote: »

And it's the actions that I'm talking about: the smashing of the unions and workers' cultural clubs, banning of strikes, fall in real wages, narrowing the applicability of unemployment insurance (and easing the employer's contribution to this), etc

Far from being a rabidly anti-capitalist party, on the assumption of power (and before, via campaign contributions) most large industrialists were happy to accept Nazi rule in exchange for the removal of Weimar restrictions on their power on the factory floor. Or as Kershaw puts it: "Business recovery, high profits, secure private property (apart from that of Jewish businessmen), the crushing of Marxism and the subduing of labour saw big business increasingly content to adjust to full collaboration with the new regime, whatever the irksome bureaucratic controls imposed on it."

In the class divide of late Weimar Germany, there is no question whose side the Nazis took in practice, if not always in propaganda. It wasn't the workers

Unlike Mussolini who was demanding effective control of the Mediterranean and an African empire? Franco made the offer to join; it was Hitler who rejected it. See the bottom of the post for more detail

My language was inaccurate in that it was the general right, not just the 'far right'. The centre and left remained relatively unscathed. Below shows the voting patterns in Weimar, the left on the top and the right on the bottom. Note that the overall left vote remains solid at around 40% (the Centre Party is also resilient but slightly less so), with the Nazi votes coming from former DVP and DNVP voters

(For some reason the graph has the DDP (who were fairly centrist) lumped in with the DVP but even by the early twenties the DDP had become a fringe party of circa 5%)

You are misreading a pretty clear graph. This graph exactly what described. the Nazis party expanded at the expense of a crash of the centre right (DNVP etc) and the centre left (SPD) while extremist parties expanded (NSDAP, KPD) and the centrists maintained steady. The graph shows quite clearly the drop off of support for centre left SPD (18% drop according to this simple graph).

Reekwind wrote: »

My point is very obviously that Franco's regime was not "something utterly different". It was a brutal dictatorship that was nationalist, authoritarian, reactionary, militarist, anti-communist, run by one party, anti-liberal, anti-intellectual and racist. It policies included the abolition or control of trade unions, irredentism, a cult of personality, mass violence and headed by a fascist party. Please stop me if anything here sounds particularly un-fascist

Of those 14 characteristics only 2 cannot be used to describe left wing states contemporary to the period. So to use them to define fascism just does not make sense.

Reekwind wrote: »

And again, the reality is that less "goodies" weren't making their way to the working class. Total public welfare spending in the Reich was no greater in 1936 than it had been in 1930 (approx 1.6b marks). The difference is that now it was being channelled away from unemployment insurance or workers' education programmes towards racial hygiene programmes or other initiatives to improve the genetic stock (with corresponding hardening attitudes towards the those who actually needed welfare, eg the 'work shy'). The apparent expansion of Nazi social welfare was little more than the state amalgamating previously independent charities into more central bodies

There are ample examples of deeply left wing states creating awful conditions for the working class. No one is arguing the Nazis party was good for workers. Yet its utterly dishonest to deny the soft left wing streak in the movement and its importance in attracting support for the movement. Look at these left wing characteristics of the Party.

Nationalization of corporations and industries
Profit-sharing of industry
Expansion of the pension
Government-controlled capitalism instead of the free market.
Pro animal rights
Big Government.

Its almost an academic point if the Nazis party were truly far right or something else, as for image purposes they clearly promoted themselves as pro worker and pro socialist.

Reekwind

robp wrote: »

You are misreading a pretty clear graph. This graph exactly what described. the Nazis party expanded at the expense of a crash of the centre right (DNVP etc) and the centre left (SPD) while extremist parties expanded (NSDAP, KPD) and the centrists maintained steady. The graph shows quite clearly the drop off of support for centre left SPD (18% drop according to this simple graph).

The graph clearly and unmistakeably shows that the SPD's fall was compensated for by the rise in votes for the KPD. The SPD was losing votes to the left, not the right. Taken as a whole, the left-wing of German politics, in federal elections at least, was gathering the same percentage of the vote in 1932 as it had in 1924 (the first federal elections the Nazis contested). There was, in short, no mass exodus of SPD voters to the NSDAP

In contrast, the centre-right DVP and far-right DNVP saw their share of the vote collapse in the face of the Nazi advance. It was from the right-wing constituencies that the Nazis drew their electoral support

Look at these left wing characteristics of the Party.

Nationalization of corporations and industries
Profit-sharing of industry
Expansion of the pension
Government-controlled capitalism instead of the free market.
Pro animal rights
Big Government

Some of these criteria are simply false (there was no mass nationalisation programme, no institutional profit-sharing), others are disingenuous (the Nazis were only slightly more active in economic affairs than the post-war planistes) and others silly (animal rights? big government?). None of these compares with the eradication of the bourgeoisie in Russia or even the Atlee reforms in post-war Britain. None of them aroused the wrath of the German industrialists, who generally supported the regime.

I think that what you, and Snickers Man, have taken some strange political axis that has 'little government' on the right and 'big government' on the left. Which is reductionist in the extreme

And you do this in the face of a regime that was spawned from the far-right Freikorps milieu, was bankrolled by far-right, that was explicitly anti-socialist (including the SPD, trade unions, the Weimar state, etc), held nothing but contempt for the working class ("The broad masses are blind and stupid and don't know what they are doing", he said in 1926) and, in power, set out to break working class institutions and increase the owner of industrialists. This is a man who upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship and economic competition, while despising trade unions and worker interference in industry

Yet you have him as a socialist? Really?

Its almost an academic point if the Nazis party were truly far right or something else, as for image purposes they clearly promoted themselves as pro worker and pro socialist.

This is coming from the person who asserted that "You can't really define Hitler by the political statements he made. He was an utter populist and many of the themes in his speeches contradict each other hugely. Actions speak larger then words"?

And the reality is that the Nazis certainly did not campaign as if they were a workers' party. They hardly would have appealed to the business (big or small) or Junker if they had. The KPD and SPD ran as working class parties, they Nazis made a few token gestures that failed to garner any real working class support. Any actual leanings towards socialism in the NSDAP were extinguished in the mid-1920s