REBELS SPREAD OUT OVER COAST ROADS; BARCELONA IS GOAL (Real Time + 70 Years)

However, most of the loyalists were not Communists (despite the fact that Communists eventually took over the movement), and many of the rebels weren’t fascists.

When I read Beevor's history of the Spanish Civil War, I was shocked *SHOCKED* to find out that anarcho-syndicalists communes weren't merely just fictional places in Monty Python films.

And now for somthing completely different: A return to a discussion about the violence inherent in the system...

Couldn't Hitler have sent enough resources to Franco so that he could quickly overwhelm the Loyalists and end the war?

In 1936? No. The German fighters available at the outbreak of the war were outclassed by foreign planes. For example, it was only when the 109 went into production and was available in sufficient numbers that it could be supplied to the Condor Legion. (First version in about April, 1937, the second version in about August). C's and D's were available by April '38, and some E's may have made it to Spain prior to the end of the war.

As for Tanks, PKW IIIs weren't available prior to the end of the war (less than 70 were built prior to 1939) There were plenty of I's and some II's, but the German army and air force of 1936 wasn't the army and air force of 1939. Indeed, most of Franco's early help came from Italy, not Germany.

“In the photo, Adolph is plainly thinking, “I can't believe I let this little Spanish SH*T con me like this.....” “

I think Hitler could have won the war, if he had early on sealed off the Mediterranean at Gibraltar. This would have guaranteed Rommel’s success in North Africa, and given Germany access to Middle East (i.e., Iraq!) oil.

And Hitler did meet with Franco, to plead for permission to cross Spain to reach Gibraltar.

And what did Franco say to Hitler? I am pretty certain it was something along these lines:
“Herr Hitler, you don't really care about the Mediterranean, do you? No, of course not. You care about lebensraum, for the German race, in the East, right? And you care about defeating the powers of Communist Jewry, right? Well, let me help you with those things. Let me send you a full strength division — our best Spanish division. We will fight side by side with you, against the Russian Communists. No matter what, we will keep our division at full strenght, and you can count on us till the very end...”

And so Hitler was reminded of his main purpose, and distracted away from the one act which, in the end, could have made a difference in winning the war.

Just guessing, of course.

Homage to Catalonia should be required reading.

I looked it up on Amazon. I did not know that Orwell was one of the foreign fighters on the Loyalist side. I believe I shall order it (as soon as I get a job). When someone tells me that a particular book "should be required reading," I tend to take it seriously. It means that book made a big impression. I have said it myself a time or three.

The blurb on Amazon mentions political reasons for the defeat of the Spanish Republicans rather than military ones. Is this a reference to interal Spanish forces or the European situation in general? I am tempted to use the dangerous Vietnam analagy with respect to the Spanish Civil War, the way each side had major help from powerful outside nations.

"Somebody remind me - who are the good guys in this struggle?”

The fascists were supported by Hitler, the loyalists by Stalin, so who were the “good guys”?

We tend to forget, if we ever really knew, because we look at 1938 through the telescope of 1939 - 1945.
And we see Hitler's conquest of Europe coming, and we see the Holocaust coming, and we see the future deaths of around 35 million Europeans, who didn't necessarily have to die in agony.

And so we consider Hitler to be the Great Satan personified, while Stalin still today is sometimes old “Uncle Joe.”

But the reality of 1938 was vastly, vastly different.

In 1938, Hitler had five concentration camps, with maybe 30,000 prisoners, who were treated roughly, but not mass murdered.

In 1938, Stalin had nearly 500 Gulags, with millions of prisoners, of whom about a million per year perished.

In 1938, Hitler had invaded no one except the German Rhineland and German Austria, both of which apparently welcomed Hitler's troops.

In 1938, Stalin had already conquered all of the non-Russian republics of the Soviet Union, and had even already invaded Poland (in 1923 if I remember right. The Poles kicked his *ss out).

So, in 1938, most serious observers (i.e., Churchill) were only beginning to understand that Hitler represented the more dangerous IMMEDIATE threat to western civilization.

Many, understandably, saw Hitler as the antidote to Stalin's horrors.

No one then, and few even today fully understood that Stalin was the Old Master and Hitler his precocious young pupil.

Imho, of course...

BTW, I need to learn this, so I don't mistake it again:

It's not “Gulags.”

It's GULag, and there was only one. GULag stands for, in Russian: State Board of Concentration Camps.

According to Norman Davies 2006 book “No Simple Victory, World War II in Europe” (page 328) by the end of the 1930s, there were

“...36 administrative divisions of the GULag and 476 principle camps...”

About a dozen of these camps had over 50,000 prisoners each. The death rate is estimated at around a million per year out of a total prisoner population of several million.

By contrast, in 1938, Hitler had just five concentration camps with around 30,000 total prisoners.

By the end of the war, Hitler's concentration camp system briefly rivaled Stalin's, but never exceeded it in size.

However:
“A more recent estimate puts the death rate in the Nazi camps at 40%, compared with 14 percent (of a much higher number) in the GULag.” (p. 334)

“Somebody remind me - who are the good guys in this struggle?”

None of the above.

Then Franco's troops invaded and began to systematically execute all mayors, town councilmen, union leaders, anybody who was denounced by anybody who owned a blue shirt (Spanish blood feuds can go back a long time) and oh yes, almost of anybody they captured who had a bruise on their right shoulder.

The penalty for having a political post in the Republican side -as mayor- was four years in prison. It is true that this sometimes meant death, because the lack of food and fuels in post-war Spain made life in jail very hard.

In Catalonia, the death toll of the red side during the two and a half years of revolutionary government was far higher that anything Franco could do at the end of the war.

When the red side collapsed, most of the leaders and inductors of massacres fled to France and Mexico, leaving in Spain their henchmen to carry the can, which were the ones on whom Franco retaliated.

It is true Franco retaliated on masons. Unlike countries like America, the UK and France, were freemasons formed some kind of patriotic society; in Spain their objectives were disruptive with the past and with the public interest at such a level that constituted a danger for the mere existence of the Nation.

Unfortunately, recent developments, as 3/11 (a copy of the 1980 Bologna massacre), seem to confirm such diagnosis.

"Then Franco's troops invaded and began to systematically execute all mayors, town councilmen, union leaders, anybody who was denounced by anybody who owned a blue shirt (Spanish blood feuds can go back a long time) and oh yes, almost of anybody they captured who had a bruise on their right shoulder."

I'll give credit where it's due. This quote came from InaBunkerUnderSF. Not that I necessarily disagree.

"Unlike countries like America, the UK and France, were Freemasons formed some kind of patriotic society; in Spain their objectives were disruptive with the past and with the public interest at such a level that constituted a danger for the mere existence of the Nation."

Just so everyone understands, in a European context, political rants against "Freemasons" can be roughly translated as "Jew lovers." Typically they were listed together as "Jews and Freemasons," meaning, "Jews and Jew lovers." It's equivalent in today's world to people who carp endlessly against "neo-cons." All code words for antisemitism.

And concerns for "Freemasons" grew out of the French Revolution, long before "Jewish Bolshevism" was even conceived of.

The real difference between European & American Freemasons (and btw, I'm not one, so only speak from what I've read) was that in America, masons lead the Revolutionary War effort, beginning with George Washington. And yes, from the beginning,they were friendly to Jews, and received support from Jews.

Through Franco's Spain, +50,000 Jews saved their lifes during the Second World War. Not said on InaBunkerUnderSF?

General Franco did not retaliate on Spanish diplomats who helped Jews, as the Portuguese government did.

It hasn't to do with antisemite issues: conservative Jews praise Franco.

Moreover, the damaging role of Freemasons in Spanish history is portrayed by renowned writters, such as Pérez-Galdós (El Grande Oriente, Episodios Nacionales, which you can download from internet.)

In Italy, prominent Freemasons were found guilty of manipulating the investigation of the Bologna massacre, the attack on which 3/11 was based.

Those are the facts. General Franco then and we today have our reasons to mistrust Spanish Freemasons, which does not mean that every Freemason is to blame.

"Those are the facts. General Franco then and we today have our reasons to mistrust Spanish Freemasons, which does not mean that every Freemason is to blame."

I'm not qualified to debate freemasonry with you. I can only point to standard type information:

Wikipedia article

"Some governments, mostly authoritarian, and virtually all totalitarian, regimes have treated Freemasonry as a potential source of opposition due to its secret nature and international connections. It has been alleged by Masonic scholars that the language used by the totalitarian regimes is similar to that used by some modern critics of Freemasonry."

Historically, Freemasons, along with Communists and Jews, were staples of 20th century fascist propaganda. These were the Big Three evils from which fascists intended save Europe.

And just exactly what were the great "crimes" of Freemasons?

Well, as far as I can tell, Freemasons were:

1) Religiously tolerant and accepting of Jews. In fascist eyes, that made them heretics.

2) Political democrats (small "d"). In fascist eyes, a serious crime.

3) A private organization, not subject to state control. In fascist eyes, intolerable.

4) An international fraternity. In fascist eyes, that made them subversive.

Of course, Masons have not been without controversy, even in the USA, where Masons like George Washington were critical to the success of our Revolutionary War.

But actual Masons are one thing, and fascist propaganda something altogether different, imho.

I'm not qualified to debate freemasonry with you.

Well, I am qualified to debate freely with you.

1) Religiously tolerant and accepting of Jews. In fascist eyes, that made them heretics.

General Franco was not Fascist, but authoritarian. He never founded a Fascist political party, but tolerated the one it was already working and had helped him in a very risky war. He did not act against Jews, neither in Spain nor in the territory of Northern Africa where a lot of Sefardim lived. He simply maintained the same stance towards them that the Catholic Church had until the 1960's: they were religiously wrong. Such stance had no political or other consequences.

A decree enacted by General Primo de Rivera in 1924 allowing any Sefardim to apply for Spanish citizenship was not revoked: during Franco's years there was no political move or other action against Jews.

On the contrary, General Franco's officers, as Sanz Briz, freely worked to save thousands of Jews. Knowing what they were doing, neither Franco nor anyone in the Spanish Foreign Office stopped or even put the blame on them.

When the Catholic Church changed its mind towards Jews in the Second Vatican Council, General Franco followed.

Those are the FACTS.

2) Political democrats (small "d"). In fascist eyes, a serious crime.

Democrats?? In America. Licio Gelli headmaster of P2, was not a democrat.

In Spain things seem to go the same way, master Luis Salat appointing a "heir" just hours before dying, in the most undemocratic fashion I can imagine.

3) A private organization, not subject to state control. In fascist eyes, intolerable.

Private?? With so many high rank civil servants...

4) An international fraternity. In fascist eyes, that made them subversive.

P2 lodge was declared by Italian Justice in 1986 a subversive conspiracy. Its headmaster was former black shirt and SS Licio Gelli.

Those are the FACTS.

General Franco had objective reasons to act against masonry, and among those reasons were not religious ones, but simply that that maybe formerly fraternity, had evolved into a market of hiden interests and a coordination center for conspiracies that threatened the mere existence of the Nation.

In addition, he did not persecute Jews, on the contrary, he contributed to save well above 50,000 of them and conservative Jews acknowledge that.

Any attempt to circumvent facts or keep locked in slogans proved untrue constitute simply a bare manipulation.

By the way, many Spaniards (and probably Italians) associate freemasonry with a shadow government, synarchy and, ultimately, manipulation.

Fraternity can never be above Life or Freedom.

"I'm not qualified to debate freemasonry with you."

"Well, I am qualified to debate freely with you. "

Whether Franco was "fascist" or just "authoritarian" is a matter of definitions. As I read Webster's dictionary, Franco was a fascist. But as far as I know, and as you suggest, he shared little in common with his more bellicose German and Italian colleagues.

I disagree with none of your comments regarding Franco and the Jews.

But back to Freemasonry, you are obviously describing a different experience than ours in America.

In American, Masons are just one of many similar fraternal organization, albeit one of the oldest and largest. But they are all good, decent and law abiding. Most are dedicated to some charity, and of course, to helping each other out. Nothing wrong with that.

Masons are particularly distinguished, since many of our Founding Fathers, including George Washington, were Masons, and many, if not most presidents since have been Masons. Including, I'm pretty sure, President Bush.

In short, there are no better Americans than Masons.

Now, if you are telling us that somehow, when those same good and decent Masons cross the border into Spain, they suddenly become evil conspiratorial monsters, well, that's not a phenomenon I'm familiar with.

What do you suppose would cause such a thing?

Well, I am quite familiar with such "phenomenon".

Spain is a country with no democratic tradition. No protestant background on which build a moral democracy. On the contrary, the structure was and is basically a triangular fabric made of interwoven interests with the king on top of it. Any movement inside such structure is accomplish by patronage, which ensures that it would never work properly, triggering crises periodically.

The old king's court, avid to share the treasures from America whilst stopping any reform, has been simply replaced in modern times by oligarchies, that act the same way.

The Spanish Freemasonry, probably created with good intentions, soon became an important player in that structure, that had and has nothing to do with democracy and a lot about hiden interests.

For instance, Perez-Galdós already wrote around 1890 how Freemasons were unable to support the incipient Spanish democracy after the revolution of 1821.

In the end, it can be seen in many aspects of Spanish life, democratic systems are not favoured here, but pyramidal ones. There is no tradition and there is no moral background, dissenting voices are judged dangerous, complete allegiance to the leader, at least publicly, prevails in any group; and when somebody wins an election, it is not uncommon that his first actions are intended to crush the opposition.

Believe me, Spaniards know the they can corrupt even the purest institution.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.