Like all other communist parties in Europe at the time.
Are there 20th century examples of dictators who were good leaders and better than elected polticos?
The shooting started in 1933. The Nationalist coup in July made there to be two sides and made the shooting more official, that’s all.
wiki: Caballero accepted support from the Communist Party (with a membership of around 10,000).[111] Acts of violence and reprisals increased.[112] By early 1936, Azaña found that the left was using its influence to circumvent the Republic and the constitution; they were adamant about increasingly radical changes.[113] Parliament replaced Zamora with Azaña in April. Zamora’s removal was made on specious grounds, using a constitutional technicality.[114] Azaña and Prieto hoped that by holding the positions of Prime Minister and President, they could push through enough reforms to pacify the left and deal with right-wing militancy.[112] However, Azaña was increasingly isolated from everyday politics; his replacement, Casares Quiroga, was weak. Although the right also voted for Zamora’s removal, this was a watershed event which inspired conservatives to give up on parliamentary politics.[115] Leon Trotsky wrote that Zamora had been Spain’s “stable pole”, and his removal was another step towards revolution.[116] Caballero held out for a collapse of the republican government, to be replaced with a socialist one.[117]
…Caballero took a different attitude, continuing to preach of an inevitable overthrow of society by the workers.[120] Caballero also disagreed with Prieto’s idea of a new Republican–Socialist coalition.[121] With Caballero’s acquiescence, communists alarmed the middle classes by quickly taking over the ranks of socialist organisations.[120] This alarmed the middle classes.[122] The division of the Popular Front prevented the government from using its power to prevent right-wing militancy.[121] The CEDA came under attack from the Falange, and Prieto’s attempts at moderate reform were attacked by the Socialist Youth. Sotelo continued to do his best to make conciliation impossible.[121]
Casares failed to heed Prieto’s warnings of a military conspiracy involving several generals who disliked professional politicians and wanted to replace the government to prevent the dissolution of Spain.’
Note that Spain was heading inevitably into anarchy, communism or dissolution. It was only a race to see which came first.
What is your best case scenario to happen at that point in time? Seriously? For Spain to suddenly solidify, become peaceful and truly democratic? Out of no-where? No one in Spain thought that was going to happen.
But what do YOU think might have happened if:
The Republicans had not staged a coup or
Franco lost?
Anyone who seriously believes the second Spanish Republic could be headed anywhere good is woefully misinformed or seriously deluded.
This is what happens with fundamentalists, all arguments are just ignored and their position is repeated ad nauseam without any support.
It happened in countries that went communist. The communist leaders believe in their cause and its inherent goodness and yet things are getting worse instead of better. But they do not question for a moment whether their system might be flawed. No, their good intentions are clear so if things are not working as intended it must be due to sabotage and anti-revolutionaries which must be stopped. And so the repression and witch hunts begin. All in the name of the people and their welfare. It happened in the Soviet Union, in China, in Spain during the Republic, in Cuba… But the fundamentalists will not question their system, only try to find saboteurs and enemies. And elections muct be rigged… all in the name of democracy because otherwise those counter-revolutionaries would use the elections to sabotage the real “popular democracy”.
Spain narrowly dodged a bullet by getting rid of the Republic or it would have ended like Albania.
I have posted quite a few links to articles and photos about what was happening in Spain under the Republic. I think they speak for themselves and anyone defending the Republic is defending acts like those. I am not one of them.
I nominate Habib Bourguiba and his successor Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, of Tunisia. As dictators go they were not too bad. They both tried hard to do right by their country, were secular, were feminists, supported education and healthcare for all. They killed and repressed opposition here and there, but not really on the heinous scale other dictators did. Tunisia is a pretty nice country now, and doesn’t have begging children all over the place or people in abject poverty, the way some other countries in the region do.
Ben Ali became more repressive after 9/11, implementing anti-terrorism laws the US asked him to implement. Because there was resistance to these laws there was a need for more repression, for which he used the new laws. That was a shame. People didn’t like that. But it only took people saying really loudly they didn’t like him for him to bugger off.
The Tunisian Revolution, where the Arab Spring started, is often mischaracterised in our media. We read about the “Jasmine Revolution” that was about freedom and overthrowing a dictator. That’s not what the Tunisians called it, or what they mostly say it was about. They called it the “Dignity Revolution”, and described it as being about their dignity as people and as a country. They were sick of Ben Ali being seen as a puppet of the West (SAPs, anti-terrorism laws), and they were sick of not having jobs. But it wasn’t so much the whole “freedom” story that set it off. So towards the end of his reign he wasn’t a very good dictator anymore, but before that I think he did ok. (On the scale of dictators, anyway.)
Out of curiosity, how do you define legitimacy? If it’s purely legality or purely popular support I think those are generally accepted understandings of legitimacy, but other understandings certainly include performance.
I like: justification (legal and ethical) + performance + evaluation of that performance by people (domestic and other states). Lacking in any one of those departments would undermine the legitimacy of a government.
Well, as I said, I have little use for the concept of “legitimacy” of a government. The only use is to try to justify acts which are unjustifiable any other way. I would rather judge individual acts and overall performance without regard to how the government came into being. Because by that rule then most governments on earth are illegitimate.
I will note again that the second Spanish Republic came into being when leftists proclaimed the Republic after winning local elections. In other words, the seized power illegally. And throughout their time in power their different factions continued to fight for power. It is amazing that anyone could consider this a legitimate and orderly form of government.
I will also note that Franco’s regime was nothing like those Latin American dictatorships where the dictator and his family own half the country. Franco led a relatively austere life and did not condone corruption. Most of the higher-ups of the regime were military who lived from their salary. Being military they were quite idealist in their views about Spain and they were generally not involved in business. The corruption in Spain today is a thousand times worse than it was in Franco’s time. Today it is just scandalous and I do not think democracy makes it any more legitimate.
In the post-war period, the main distinction why countries were called east- or west- european was whether they fell under communist control.
Before Communist occupation Hungary was a modern european country like any other.
Not including Hungary in your equasion is therefore a bit disingenious when you claim that western countries would not succumb to any Stalinist upheaval.
Implying that we would somehow be above such a thing.
The distinction you are making between west and east is rather artificial and by making this false distinction you precisely exclude counter examples.
You seem to be arguing that Spain would not fall into bloody chaos, because it happens to be in the west? Nothing like those uncivilised eastern europeans.
Part of the reason they could be considered less civilised is exactly because they suffered Stalinist repression during those 50’s to 70’s.
Totally agree. Not only that, all of Western Europe was helped by the Marshall Plan except Spain which was embargoed right after the end of the world war by the UN led by the USA. Argentina continued to sell beef and grain to Spain and saved our asses. The UK, being the perennial lapdog of the USA (who had just saved their asses) ostensibly participated in the embargo while secretly continuing some trade.
In 1952, the USA, who had led the embargo and isolation of Spain some years earlier, now decided having military bases in Spain and a strong anticommunist government was a good thing and so, the enemy of yesterday was the new friend and the embargo was ended.
Again, Spain did not have the help of the Marshall plan which rebuilt the rest of Western Europe, even including Portugal.
I would also note that the Communist Party of Spain (PCE) was very committed in its allegiance to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (who financed the PCE). In those years communism was seen as a “Russian Franchise” and there was no concept that a Communist Party of any country could be fully independent. And countries ruled by Communists had only limited sovereignty and were subservient to Moscow. When China decided to split with Moscow a few countries, notably Albania, followed China but most, including PCE, remained with the soviets.
It was only in 1977 that the Spanish Communist Party, seeing that a strong middle class meant the time of Leninism and Stalinism had passed, came up with the new Eurocommunism which was supposed to be “Communism Lite” and independent from Moscow. But still few people were in favor of the “dictatorship of the proletariat”.
In Spain the communists continue to get a few votes which just goes to show how deluded some people can be.
Yes, and it is interesting to hear them, esp some here in California. Communism has repeatedly , totally and completely failed over and over and over. So what they say now is “That wasn’t true communism”. :rolleyes: And it’s amazing they can say that with a straight face, even in at least one case where he had invoked the “No true Scotsman fallacy” earlier. :eek:
The Spanish Church was the greatest educator in the country. Forbidding priests and nuns from teaching closed over 90% of schools at all levels.
How do you think your own countrymen would react if 90% of schools were closed with no replacement in sight?
The card-carrying Socialist grandfather of one of my classmates claimed it was the reason he took up a red beret; while I’m sure he took other items into consideration, note that he didn’t go into hiding from his neighbors and theoretical enemies (diametrical opposites in everything except having sent their kids to the Escolapios with his), try to reach nearby France or to jump to the Republican side: he grabbed a red beret and enlisted as Carlista.
Yeah, we can go on all day. So we have that the Republic was born out of local elections, where the republicans got fewer elected councillors than the monarchists, but they got them in the big cities and decided it was a good time to stage a coup and proclaim the Republic.
Then, rather than propose a new constitution and submit it to referendum, they just passed it as an ordinary law and did not allow a public vote on it.
Then, knowing that there might be some who were not in total agreement they passed the Ley de Defensa de la República which pretty much suspended the right to freedom of expression and other fundamental rights.
That’s how it started and it went downhill from there.
Mind you, I think we’re in complete agreement that Franco was a evil bastard who only wins here as he was the lesser of two evils. Not a Nice Guy at all.
He was both one of the worst dictators, and one of the worst elected politicos.
According to Wikipedia – albeit in an article that doesn’t seem to meet their standards – his was the only honest election ever held in Equatorial Guinea.
Nothing to do with western countries being above such a thing. Hungary became a communist country for the same reason all the others did : it was in the Soviet zone. It seemed obvious to me and not worth mentioning.
The Ley de Defensa de la República suspended some fundamental rights and allowed the authorities to impose penalties without due process of law. People were jailed without trial for critizicing the Republic or for defending the monarchy.
When the burning of the churches some newspapers were shut down by the government (without trial) for critizicing the acts.
In January 1932 there was an anarchist uprising in Catalonia. The government arrested over 100 persons and, without trial, imprisoned them in a ship bound for the African colonies. Due to poor living conditions on the ship some got sick and one died.
Note that there were more uprisings and quarrels among the leftists themselves than from the right.
People who praise the Republic just have no idea what they are talking about. Note that no one here has contradicted the facts, just ignored them as if they are of no importance. So, when the Republican government shut down newspapers or jailed people without judicial process well, you gotta do what you gotta do, but when Franco’s regime did the same thing that was terrible and unforgivable.
Franco’s regime was heavy-handed but time proved it was what Spain needed at that time. Spain’s history from the beginning of the 19th century is a continuous chain of coups, military pronouncements and civil wars. Franco’s regime changed that which is no small achievement.
And personalizing too much in Franco is not good. Franco was the leader of a very wide movement which he did not start. There were many other leaders involved and millions of Spaniards supported it.
Also, from 1936 to 1975 there is a long time and things changed a lot. The regime during and just after the war was ruthless and its main objective was just trying to assure its survival and everything was subordinated to that.
Later it was focused on economic development and, while maintaining internal order, some concessions were slowly made over time.
And the last years of Franco, which I personally remember, there was growing political unrest as the country, specially the younger generation, demanded greater liberties and Franco was just a figurehead, a frail old grandpa who appeared on TV to wish us Happy Christmas. By that time he was just a figurehead which the ruling class hoped could live forever because they knew once Franco died things would get difficult.
There is an old Spanish joke: A man dies in a small town and the regular priest is not able to officiate the funeral so another priest is called in to officiate. But this priest did not personally know the dead man who was a no-good scumbag and hated by everybody. When the time came for a eulogy the priest asked if someone in the crowd would step up and say a few kind words about the dead man. There was dead silence and people just looked around uneasily. The priest insisted several times but there was no one who wanted to say a kind word about the dead man. The priest insisted:
P: Is it that no one here is willing to say anything good about the deceased?
Finally a man shyly raised his hand
P: Yes? What good can you say about the deceased?
To which the man said: His brother was even worse!
So, yes, we can say if we like that Franco was bad. But the Republic was much worse. On all counts and by all accounts.
N.B.: While the Spanish Civil War was going on, a mostly Anarcho-Syndicalist Spanish Revolution broke out in some Republican-held areas. In a nutshell, the workers took control of the factories and the peasants took control of the land, for real, and quite independently of any government action or policy. Stalin did not like that kind of revolution one little bit, therefore the Republican government, which desperately needed Stalin’s help, ultimately squashed it. Many Republicans on the ground favored the revolution in principle but were split as to which was the higher priority – revolutionizing Spanish society or defeating Franco. Orwell was of two minds, but leaned strongly towards the “Revolution now!” camp over the “Victory now, revolution later!” camp. You can read his thoughts in “Spilling the Spanish Beans” (1937) and “Looking Back on the Spanish War” (1942).
Ooh, nice. Thanks.
I just read something interesting. Newspaper ABC of Madrid, on 2000-08-15, published an interview with general Vernon Walters where he tells the following story.
In 1973 President Nixon was concerned with rising internal tensions and instability in Portugal and Spain (Portugal later had the Carnation Revolution in April 1974). Nixon sent Vernon Walters, then Deputy Director for Central Intelligence, to talk with Franco and talk about prospects for an after-Franco Spain.
Vernon Walters expressed America’s concerns to Franco and asked him how he saw the future. Franco said: “I have created certain institutions which will work. The prince [Juan Carlos] will be King because there is no other alternative, Spain will go far in the direction your country wants: democracy, pornography and drugs, crazy things will take place but none will threaten Spain as a country because I am leaving a strong institution which assures stability.”
Vernon Walters says he thought Franco was referring to the army but Franco continued: “I am leaving something which did not exist when I took charge forty years ago: the middle classes. You can confidently tell your president to trust the good sense of the Spanish people, there will not be another civil war in Spain”.
= = = =
A new biography of Franco’s private life has just been published. In an interview with the author, Pilar Eyre, on TV she mentioned a few points. She says Franco only had one testicle. This has been said over the years but never definitely proven (it was also said about Hitler). I doubt she has any definite proof but it is a prurient selling point. It is known Franco suffered a serious wound to the lower abdomen when he was shot in action and this has been the basis for the allegation.
She says Franco’s father mocked little Francisco by calling him by girls’ names and was generally cruel to him. Maybe there is a lesson to be learnt about not teasing and bullying little boys lest they later want to take revenge.
This thread is very informative, and I’m certainly no expert on Spain.
That said, what I take from this thread gives certain reflections.
First off, the time of the Spanish Revolution was turmoil. That the Revolution kicked off when it did was testament to the instability, turmoil, and everyday destruction going on. Something had to happen. The Republic did not have effective control and could not establish order.
Second, some are questioning what would have happened if Franco and the Nationalists had not seized power. From the discussions of the fractured nature of Spain as a coalition of independent regions rather than a cohesive identity, it is not hard to speculate that without some organizing force (like Franco), the Republic would have broken down in some other way, very possibly leading to a fractured Spain. So one answer to what would Spain be like now without Franco is “there would not be a political entity of Spain, but rather a collection of states, similar to how Yugoslavia no longer exists”.
In that condition, it is likely that Hitler would have seized control of those various substates as well. That then leads to speculation on what would have happened post-WWII. Just how would the US have dealt with a post-war Spanish zone of a mix of “independent states”? Would those have been restored in their independent condition? Would a new *Spain *have emerged as a rebuilt nation on the grounds of cleaning up the War?
Furthermore, it was pointed out that Spain grew economically after the war despite the Marshall Plan. Without a cohesive Spain that had opposed the Allies, would not the US have helped redevelop the Spanish states? Surely there would not have been an embargo?
So a different answer to speculate on Spain’s future could include a new Spain, united by the war and economically at least as well off because of no embargo and US aid in rebuilding. Or separate Spanish states in the same condition.
That’s where speculating on what might have been is simultaneously interesting and irresolvable.
I think the point sailor is trying to make is a valid one - Franco came to power in a time of Spanish turmoil and instability, a time when the people were not safe and the state was not doing its job. Regardless of the means of the civil war, the outcome under Franco led to peace and stability and economic growth. Ultimately, Spain was in a better condition under Franco than the period preceding Franco’s rule.
I suppose the counter argument to sailor is that Spain under the Republic wasn’t so much an elected government as a coup, and thus just as forced a government as the one by Franco, except less organized and less effective.
Of course, the counter to that is that the Spanish Republic showed elected government wasn’t working at the time.
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
Which country in western Europe, between 1950 and 1970, didn’t went through massive economical progress?
[/QUOTE]
Isn’t that like asking “Which non-communist country in Europe didn’t go through massive economical progress?” Which then kinda misses the point, because the alternate to Franco being argued was a communist Spain. Would a communist Spain have been immune to the economic conditions that affected the rest of communist Europe?
This is an issue which has been politicized by the socialists and which is doing a lot of harm. It has been totally distorted and politicized by the socialist government which opened an issue which was closed. It has been re-opened solely with political aims.
Firstly they want to turn back the amnesty law of 1977 so they can prosecute who? The law pardoned all crimes committed with political motives and freed a bunch of terrorists who had recently killed people. Nobody is talking about turning that back. Any crimes committed by Franco’s regime are so far back in years that no one is alive to be tried. It is entirely political. It is a farce promoted by the socialist party and sold to the UN.
Judge Garzón is being sold like a victim. No, he is not an honest judge, he has been separated from his job because he broke the law in allowing illegal listening into privileged conversations between attorneys and their clients. He has been judged and sentenced with all due process by his fellow judges. He has always been a sectarian judge.
He tried to initiate a political show trial which was totally out of his jurisdiction and capacity. Nowhere do judges have the capacity to take cases just because they feel like it.
He wanted to try Franco who has been dead over 35 years. Um, you can’t try a dead man. Nowhere. If only for the simple reason that he can’t defend himself. Not to mention that it is pointless because you can’t punish him.
Garzón is a clown, a very politicized clown, a dangerous clown who would do illegal things to get his way.
And why would he put Franco on trial when Franco was dead? The secretary general of the communist party, Santiago Carrillo, was alive and well and responsible for some pretty bad massacres during the war.
No, Carrillo was alive but Garzón had no interest in putting him on trial. No interest either in all the terrorists who were freed by the amnesty of 1977.
Only in artificially generating concern about the “victims of Franco”, all for political ends and without regard to the damage they were doing by raising an issue which was closed.
Who are we going to punish for acts that happened over 70 years ago? Anyone who might be responsible is in his 90s or, more probably, dead.
The socialists, who have allowed towns to name streets after terrorists would not allow anything which might be a reminder of the Franco regime.
They politicized it so much that some of the victims’ families wanted nothing to do with it. One of the the most well-known murders of the war was that of poet García Lorca. It has been one of the most used against the Franco regime over the years. Now the socialists tried to use that to their advantage and wanted to raise the issue again saying they were going to investigate and try to find the body etc. It was clearly political and the family of Lorca said they wanted nothing to do with it and they were opposed to reopenning the issue.
The whole thing stinks because it is done with the sole intention of gaining political advantage today. In a country which has 26% unemployment and is pretty much broke. The last thing Spain needs right now is political divisiveness but that’s all the socialists have to offer after the whole mess they made of the economy.
Spain today is really fucked up and the last thing we need is to reopen confrontations which happened 70 years ago. It happened, It’s part of history, it’s past.