Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
Spanish Civil War revisionism.
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by nastychestycough (U13796779) on Saturday, 28th November 2009
I was brought up to believe that the Republicans in the Spanish Civil war were, broadly speaking, the 'good guys' and the nationalists, equally as generally, the 'baddies'.I have lost a lot of my youthful (misplaced?) ardour for left-wing causes but still hold this account of the conflict to be fundamentally correct.
A teacher friend of mine tells me that in the interests of 'balance' there is an emerging trend to portray the 2 sides as morally equable. In particular he says that pupils will be taught about the non-Spaniards who went and fought for Franco in a non-judgemental way.
I know that both sides were capable of commiting the most appaling atrocities. However weren't the Francoists fighting for Fascism and against democracy? Would we be able to excuse anyone who volunteered to fight in Hitlers ranks?
How long after an event should moral judgement be suspended or forgotten in the interests of historical objectivity? -
Message 2
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Saturday, 28th November 2009
The all-too-common practice of finding the two sides in a conflict "morally equable" in the interest of "balance" is a an extremely dubious one. Historians, journalists and teachers should not strive for "balance" but for truth. Whether they should strive to supply moral judgement in addition, is a more difficult question. Some have held that people should merely report the facts. Personally I think that moral judgement should be allowed and even encouraged, on condition that it does not lead to a manipulation of history in pursuit of a political goal.
It would be risky to identify any side in the Spanish civil war as "good". It is undeniable that there were "bad guys" on both sides, and that on both sides they committed atrocities. Both sides were also supported by dictatorships. Civil wars bring out the worst in people. And fighting for (or against) democracy, as a goal for a participant in the Spanish Civil War, was probably an illusion. When the war broke out the democracy had already ceased to function. The opposing sides in Spanish society were no longer willing to recognize the legitimacy of the existence of the other, and without that condition a democracy cannot function. Probably whichever side won the war would have imposed a long-lasting dictatorship.
But a good case can be made that the most significant group of intellectually and morally admirable people in the conflict was found among the Republicans. The reformers who really believed in a republican project to redefine Spain as a modern, democratic and intellectually open nation, ruled on constitutional principles, found their natural home in that camp. However, they were tragically doomed to fail, even before the fighting started, and not in the least because the Republican camp contained a lot of people who were considerably less enlightened in their ideas.
But moral responsibility is a complex issue. Continuing to shed blood uselessly for a lost cause, however good, is probably not a moral thing to do. But nor is turning a blind eye to every possible outrage with as only primary staying out of the conflict, as the British government of the period like to do. -
Message 3
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 28th November 2009
Cough,
just read the message and after some minutes thinking wanted to reply, but coincidentally cought in speed by my honourable co-contributor Mutatis Mutandis.
Wanted essentially to say the same as him, but with some alterations about "moral judgment".
No, the task of history-writing is to seek for the "truth" and nothing else but the "truth". To do investigation, as thoroughly as possible, to show how "things" "really" "happened"
As for "moral judgment" no, no and no, that's not a task for a historian. As for school teachers, politicians, moral pilosophers and all that I think it is a dangerous field in my humble opinion, as they always take a stance on philosophical or religious grounds. I think it would be better to learn the students and other "interested" people to be "critical" at all "stances". We, the thinking people, haven't to be "guided" by some "enlightened" "leaders". We have to be that "alert" from our early life on to be able to make an "opinion" by "ourselves".
As for instance with revealed religions or other "-isms", we as "individuals" have to decide each one for him/herself, what he/she wants to "take" or "not". And mostly common sense predicts what people as a group want to agree upon on "moral grounds"...I suppose...
I hope......I beg
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 4
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 29th November 2009
The Spanish Civil War has to be perceived at two different levels: the Spanish experience and the international consequences.
I have learned the hard way to accept that regardless as to my feelings, it is the Spanish who own the consequences and they have to be left to deal with them. To my mind they are making a pretty good fist of that and I am happy to just observe and understand.
By and large the international consequences have been resolved. The Fascists and the Nazis have gone and history has defined them correctly. There remain issues with the Comintern and the Communist subversion of the Republic and the betrayal of the Revolution which are likely to rumble on for a long while yet.
My generation were brought up in the shadow of the Spanish Civil War: many of my father's friends had fought there on the side of the Republic. We did not buy Spanish produce because of Franco and occasionally men in broad berets flitted in and out of our house. Later on in life I supported underground FAI & CNT elements in Spain opposed to Franco: some would call them terrorists but I offer no excuse for that. Thankfully the need for that has passed.
It is good that a later generation endeavours to ascribe some objectivity to these tragic events. Both sides committed atrocities and in such there is no such thing as a good atrocity or a bad atrocity: an atrocity is an atrocity. Why there were such atrocities is what the historians should be analysing. What caused such insane passions and why? What does this say about ourselves and our behaviour today? Life is about learning and understanding.
Your teacher friend is telling us that the Spanish Civil War is moving away from being politics into being history. This has to be a good thing as it tells us that those particular pains and passions have ceased, only to be replaced by others of course. -
Message 5
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Monday, 30th November 2009
When the war broke out the democracy had already ceased to function. The opposing sides in Spanish society were no longer willing to recognize the legitimacy of the existence of the other, and without that condition a democracy cannot function. Ìý
Well yes, but one side represented a democratically elected government, whereas the other represented an assortment of vested interests. The fact that left-wing extremists of various hues were able to muscle in on the action was a direct consequence of Franco's anti-democratic coup.
There is always an escalation of atrocities in any war, particularly a civil war, but the deliberate bombing of civilians (mainly women and children) at Guernica, and the subsequent farcical attempt to blame it on the Republicans themselves, surely stands out as one of the landmark outrages of the 20th century.
But on the question of history and moral judgment, I agree with Paul. Whilst history should certainly inform moral debate, history itself should simply be about shining a light on past events. Otherwise we could lapse into the kind of old-fashioned schoolboy history that the book "1066 and all that" parodied, with its history composed of "Good Things" and "Bad Things". -
Message 6
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Monday, 30th November 2009
But on the question of history and moral judgment, I agree with Paul. Whilst history should certainly inform moral debate, history itself should simply be about shining a light on past events.Ìý
That's all right if you are discussing the Historian as some kind of abstract entity, but real historians are (so far at least) human... Which means that it is almost impossible for them to really avoid having opinions, certainly opinions about the moral nature of events. And there are two problems with reducing history to the objective collection of facts: It is not possible and it is not good history.
It is not possible because the collection of facts always and inevitably requires choices to be made, as one cannot read all documents in all archives, and because so many words in the human language in which they have to be rendered carry an inevitable emotional charge. And it is not good history because a real historian has to attempt to put the facts in an interpretative framework.
So having some bias is inevitable. In that case I prefer that historians are not only themselves aware of whatever judgement they make (and prejudices that they may have), but also that they make these clear enough to the reader.
Besides, at some level if feel that it is moral duty of a historian who is describing events of great evil -- as their have been plenty in history -- to pronounce a moral judgement on them. Such a judgement should be fair, in an attempt to do justice to all. But if a historian is capable of writing with perfect lack of passion about the most horrendous events, it would erode my respect for that person as a human being more than it would increase my respect for that person as a professional historian. -
Message 7
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 5th December 2009
Re: Message 6.
Mutatis Mutandis,
I wanted in fact start a new thread about this item, as it is only in sideline a discussion for this thread. And excuse me for the late reply. As it is a that complicated subject to discuss, I always postponed it on my agenda.
I said: No the task of history-writing is to seek for the "truth" and nothing else but the "truth". To do investigation, as thorougly as posssible, to show how "things" "really" "happened".
I agree that can't be done without interpretation of he facts, but each historian has to do that with a logical argumentation and I still think also "without moral judgement". But I am open for discussion, as I think all history as to be the result of several "opinions, interpretations" and the best is if for an event they come to a general consensus.
It is a difficult subject to discuss, the best example is perhaps the German "Historikerstreit"
I read from the Dutch historical philosopher: Chris Lorenz: Constructing of the past.
And about this difficult question the URL of the book is to long to write but type once in Google: Chris Lorenz historikerstreit. On the first window eight entry you will find the book of Robert M. Burns Historiography:Culture 2006 491 pages.
It is difficult to read and even more difficult while some crucial pages aren't shown.
I will further comment tomorrow as it is here on the European peninsula already one o'clock in the morning and end of the Â鶹ԼÅÄ messageboard time.
Warm regards,
Paul.
PS: I send it without correction. -
Message 8
Posted by Sleepysimplysimon (U14248671) on Tuesday, 8th December 2009
The essence of your post is that there is a definitive truth that we should strive to uncover. However most historians will point out that analyising history is about firstly identifying the facts, determining the witting and unwitting testimony of those facts and then interpreting that testimony. If there was a definitive truth as you suggest there would be no debate as all would agree. For example one might take a marxist perspective to analyise the events that led up to the Spanish civil war. This does not mean that you need to be a Marxist to do that, just that you believe that that perspective is more convincing in explaining the events. Understanding those events using a Pluralist view would give a different interpretation of the facts by giving different weight and importance to one facet over another. Hence the reason why historians often disagree and why there is quite often no definitive truth.
-
Message 9
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Wednesday, 9th December 2009
nastychestycough,
Ever hear the one about the five blind guys and the elephant? -
Message 10
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 9th December 2009
Re: Message 8.
Simon,
I think in your message you pointed to what the problem is. But if I understood it well you are not boarding the question of the discussion of morality in history?
Again if I understood it well the article from Chris Lorenz: "Historical Knowledge and Historical Reality. A plea for "internal realism" I mentioned in my thread on the "History Hub": "About history-writing", is dealing with what you wrote overhere. If you want to have a look overthere.
I started a new thread for Mutatis Mutandis on the "Hub", mentioning my message here, the reply from Mutatis and mine again, because this question is more about the essence of "historiography" and in a much broader perspective than this particular case of the Spanish Civil War.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 11
Posted by Sleepysimplysimon (U14248671) on Thursday, 10th December 2009
Paul,
I take your point about this being a wider subject than that originally discussed. I guess I was trying to point out that approaching any historical subject needs to be done in an objective fashion.
My point is that historical study is not a specific science. Rather like life things are not black and white and what is a moral imperative to one person may not be to another. Obviously it is difficult to argue for certain things, for example the atrocities that were committed in the Spanish Civil war were clearly wrong and immoral. To understand why those atrocities happened we need to take an objective view that is not influences by any preconceived ideas. We all know that to kill someone in cold blood is morally wrong (or at least we should) however to decipher the facts we need to approach the subject with a clinical, non emotional manner. -
Message 12
Posted by nastychestycough (U13796779) on Thursday, 10th December 2009
The five blind men and the Elephant-
I understand the allusion to different perspectives, and that's where my problem lies. Are we, for the sake of 'balance', to view the motives (however heartfelt) of fascists/anti-democrats as sympathetically as the their opponents.
Can we therefore look at an SS death-camp guard without prejudice- that he was merely a product of his times? -
Message 13
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Thursday, 10th December 2009
Are we, for the sake of 'balance', to view the motives (however heartfelt) of fascists/anti-democrats as sympathetically as the their opponents.Ìý
In my view the balance needs to come by stopping assuming that the whole Republican side was automatically good. Many were just as criminal as Franco and a substantial chunk would equally have had no time for democracy if they'd won. -
Message 14
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 11th December 2009
Re: Message 11.
Simon,
thank you very much for your reply. I think you summarized in that the essence of the issue.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 15
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Friday, 11th December 2009
I know that both sides were capable of commiting the most appaling atrocities. However weren't the Francoists fighting for Fascism and against democracy? Would we be able to excuse anyone who volunteered to fight in Hitlers ranks?
Ìý
Arguably yes, if his only alternative was Stalin, though it would be rather a case of "casting out Satan by Beelzebub".
But in any case, that has no relevance to the Spanish case, as Franco did not commit (and as far as we know never contemplated) any aggression against another country. He did bad things at home (as did many of his opponents in the war) but was not a disturber of the peace on the international scene, hence there was no pressing need for the international community to act against him.
Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia" is probably your best source for the SCW. His assessment is essentially that all the good guys (such as there were) were on the Republican side, but were a minority even there, and probably doomed to lose whatever the outcome of the war (Istr him saying that if they weren't killed by the Gestapo they would probably be killed by the GPU) and in fact had been defeated (in Republican internal strife) well before Franco's victory. -
Message 16
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Saturday, 12th December 2009
Thats about the sum of it Mike - people like Orwell and his POUM colleagues never were the "big power" and likely the communists would have shot them in the back of the head pretty quickly after they (The Republicans as abroad front) had won...
-
Message 17
Posted by Sleepysimplysimon (U14248671) on Monday, 14th December 2009
response to Message 6,
While we may find the fascist stance repulsive it is impossible to understand and comment on a subject without an attempt understand where each of the different parties are coming from. If for example we take the view that the fascists were wrong period and that the socialist were correct we have failed to properly research the issues and will not come to a balanced view on the events.
We all have (or should have) a set of moral values which will not alter by trying to understand the issues from a perspective that we find no sympathy. However to ignore that perspective will not allow you to see the whole picture.
Your point about the SS death camp guards assumes that after understanding all the issues from each perspective we will become contaminated and start sympathising with their actions. This is not likely to be the case because our value system will tell us to kill innocents is wrong. However to not even attempt to understand what motivated these people to do what they did will not allow us to reach any informed conclusion. -
Message 18
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 20th December 2009
Antonio Primo de la Rivera was the founder of the Falange Party who were the original Spanish fascists. Many years ago I read a biography of him which revealed a fascinating character quite unlike the archetypical European stormtrooping blackshirted thug.
Couple him to some of the more poetic of Mussolini's following and you get a rather different perspective of fascism. Mussolini even described Art Deco as Style Fascismo. Some of the earlier fascists were quite delightful characters who sought to conflate their romantic nationalism to the need for a better social organisation.
Now I would argue that these people were simply misguided as once the fascists sought to impose their revolution all that happened was the crunch of broken glass beneath the feet of the stormtroopers, the scream of dive bombers devastating cities of the innocent and the dreadful concentration camps. However, one could also point these selfsame fingers of blame at the Comintern.
There is an innocence about Primo de la Rivera that was destroyed by the political opportunism of Franco looking for an ideology.
This displays the keen difference between a political philosophy as an idea about society and the cycnical exploitation of such an idea by people hungry for power. -
Message 19
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Sunday, 20th December 2009
I would argue that these people were simply misguided as once the fascists sought to impose their revolution all that happened was the crunch of broken glass beneath the feet of the stormtroopers, the scream of dive bombers devastating cities of the innocent and the dreadful concentration camps. However, one could also point these selfsame fingers of blame at the Comintern.Ìý Differences between Nazis, Communists and Fascists are much less pronounced than habitually portrayed, for sure. In fact, these had much more in common than not, i.e., socialist, or statist, orientation. If anything, Italian and Spanish Fascists were more benign.
-
Message 20
Posted by laudian (U13735323) on Monday, 21st December 2009
Msg1.
<quote>I was brought up to believe that the Republicans in the Spanish Civil war were, broadly speaking, the 'good guys' and the nationalists, equally as generally, the 'baddies'</quote.>
How much,' balance,' is injected, I can't see the basics altering!
For many years an attempt was made by religious leaders and Conservatives to ,'clean up,' Franco and his companions. One Retired British 1WW Gen, found that in his opinion, Franco was a very gallant christian gentleman.
However, what probably upset him was that in the first one or two years of the conflict, it was a social revolution instigated by the Anarchist and left Socialist masses! Interestingly, it was the Bolsheviks who led the fight against the Revolution. -
Message 21
Posted by Dai Digital (U13628545) on Wednesday, 30th December 2009
Spain was where Nazism got its bombing wings, which the democracies stood by and in effect supported.
It was also where Stalin crushed socialism as a force in Europe, which the democracies also supported.
The historic arguments are therefore inescapable that the democracies should have supported the republicans from the beginning, and called both Hitler's and Stalin's bluff. Instead, appeasement ruled, and the rest is grim history.
Atrocity-swapping is a red herring. All war is horrible. But so was the treatment of the vast majority of Spanish people by its feudal rulers. That was not just horrible but indefensiblew, and nobody but the socialists were prepared to do anything about it. -
Message 22
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Wednesday, 30th December 2009
Sorry Dai but you've lost me. How would Anglo-French support for the Spanish Republic have called Hitler's and Stalin's "bluff"? What bluff exactly?
Certainly Spain provided a convenient training ground for German airmen, but it could have served that purpose without Franco necessarily having to win the war. And what brought Hitler and Stalin together (very temporarily) was their common interest in Poland, which would have been totally unaffected by Spanish events.
How does a different outcome in Spain have the slightest effect on either the outbreak or (probably) the course of WW2? -
Message 23
Posted by Dai Digital (U13628545) on Thursday, 31st December 2009
How would fighting Hitler in Spain have helped to defeat him and prevent the second world war?
I have to explain?
How would supporting democratic socialism in Spain have frustrated Stalinism?
How does throwing water ona fire put it out? -
Message 24
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Thursday, 31st December 2009
Yes Dai I'm afraid you do have to explain.
It was not possible to fight Hitler in Spain because (bar a handful of airmen getting a bit of "work experience" in) he wasn't there to be fought. Mussolini was to some degree, but fighting him served little purpose, as any setbacks he suffered would just make him all the more dependent on Hitler.
The only place Hitler could be effectively fought was on the Rhine, and Stalin (had we wished to fight him at that point) could only have been fought somewhere like Finland, where it was possible to threaten parts of Russia that actually mattered. Spain was an irrelevent side show, and nothing done there was ever going to matter in the slightest to anyone except the Spanish themselves. The Democracies did not get involved in Spain because they never had anything at stake there -
Message 25
Posted by Dai Digital (U13628545) on Thursday, 31st December 2009
So defeating fascism in Spain would not have effected the rise of Fascism in the rest of Europe.
Fantasy.
A defeat for Stalinism in Barcelona would have consolidated democratic socialism everywhere. And his forces were there, just as Franco's armies were Hitler's armies.
Just as the the fall of the Berlin Wall ended Stalinism in other places besides Berlin.
If communism could only be defeated by conquering Soviet Russia, why did the MI5 and CIA spend so much time and energy harassing their own citizens?
If Hitler could only be defeated in germany, why did so many rise up against Moseley's fascists in the East end?
You make no sense at all. -
Message 26
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Thursday, 31st December 2009
How could defeating "Fascism" in Spain have affected the "rise of fascism" anywhere else in Europe?
The only "Fascist" regime that mattered was the one in Germany, and there it had already well and truly risen. How would a Republican victory in Spain have had the slightest affect on it?
As for the Berlin Wall, it fell because the Soviet government decided to let it fall. Had the SU still been ruled by Stalin, or even Brezhnev, the wall would have stayed, and the demonstrators in East Berlin would have met the same fate as those in Tienanmen Square. The collapse of Communism brought down the wall, not vice versa.
Why did people demonstrate against Mosley? I presume they did so because they didn't like him. Again, since neither he nor those who heckled him had any noticeable effect on the course of events on the Continent, I don't really see how he or they are relevant to any of this. -
Message 27
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Saturday, 2nd January 2010
A defeat for Stalinism in Barcelona would have consolidated democratic socialism everywhere.Ìý Forget Spain. The term democratic socialism deserves a comment to begin with.
"Nobody saw more clearly than the great political thinker de Tocqueville that democracy stands in an irreconciable conflict with socialism: "Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom," he said. "Democracy attaches all possible value to each man," he said in 1848, "while socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common, but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." To allay these suspicions and to harness to its cart the strongest of all political motives - the craving for freedom - socialists began increasingly to make use of the promise of a "new freedom." Socialism was to bring "economic freedom," without which political freedom was "not worth having." To make this argument sound plausible, the word "freedom" was subjected to a subtle change in meaning. The word had formerly meant freedom from coercion, from the arbitrary power of other men. Now it was made to mean freedom from necessity, release from the compulsion of the circumstances which inevitably limit the range of choice of all of us. Freedom in this sense is, of course, merely another name for power or wealth. The demand for the new freedom was thus only another name for the old demand for a redistribution of wealth." (Friedrich Hayek, The Road to Serfdom) -
Message 28
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Saturday, 2nd January 2010
The demand for the new freedom was thus only another name for the old demand for a redistribution of wealth." (Friedrich Hayek, The Road to Serfdom) Ìý
I don't know if you're familiar with the "Just William" stories of the late Richmal crompton, but this puts me in mind of an absolute gem called "William, Prime Minister".
In the course of a mock election, William is explaining the current set of political parties, which he lists as -
1) The Conservatives, who want to make things better by keeping them the way they are.
2) The Liberals, who want to make things better by changing them a little bit.
3) The Socialists, who want to make things better by stealing everybody's propertry, and
4) The Communists, who want to make things better by killing everyone in the world cep themselves.
A boy in the audience asks "But what would happen if everyone turned Socialist so they could get the other people's property? Who would they have to steal from?" William brushes this aside, insisting that there's always got to be these four parties, but I always feel his critic had hit the basic problem about all schemes of "redistribution". -
Message 29
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Saturday, 2nd January 2010
A boy in the audience asks "But what would happen if everyone turned Socialist so they could get the other people's property? Who would they have to steal from?" William brushes this aside, insisting that there's always got to be these four parties, but I always feel his critic had hit the basic problem about all schemes of "redistribution".Ìý Exactly. But so that the process can proceed forward, inevitable as the sunrise, the anointed one(s) come out of some woodwork and put themselves in charge of "bettering" everything.
-
Message 30
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Saturday, 2nd January 2010
There is the old joke that under capitalism man exploits man whilst under socialism it is the other way round.
-
Message 31
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Saturday, 2nd January 2010
Mike,
I think the argument Dai is making is that in the mid 1930s fascism was not an established force and people were still shying away from it. Dictatorship was not yet accepted in Europe.
If Britain and France had supported the Spanish Republic strongly, they may have scotched the snake of fascism right at the beginning. It would probably have lead to better war preparedness and so perhaps the Battle of France, if there was such a battle, may have been won.
Hitler, throughout the 10930s had all these victories, in the Rhineland, in the Anschluss with Austria, in Munich and in Spain. His tide seemed inevitable to the public in the 1930s. That inevitability would have been punctured.
Tas -
Message 32
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Saturday, 2nd January 2010
I think the argument Dai is making is that in the mid 1930s fascism was not an established force and people were still shying away from it. Dictatorship was not yet accepted in Europe. Ìý
It was accepted in all the new states created in 1919, bar Czechoslovakia and Finland, in all the Balkan countries, in Portugal, and of course in Germany, Italy and Russia. Democracy existed pretty much where it had existed in 1914, and hardly anywhere else.
In any case, how would Franco's defeat have made any difference on that point? Spain would in all probability still have become a dictatorship, just a Communist one instead of a Fascist one. As I said, the democracies had no dog in that fight, and so sensibly kept out of it.
Hitler, throughout the 10930s had all these victories, in the Rhineland, in the Anschluss with Austria, in Munich and in Spain. His tide seemed inevitable to the public in the 1930s. That inevitability would have been punctured.Ìý
How?
Hitler was not involved in Spain in any important way. It was just a convenient training ground for his Air Force. The only effect of a Republican victory would have ben to make Mussolini (who was more deeply involved) lose some prestige, and so become more dependant on Hitler.
Franco, remember, did not take Madrid until March 1939, precisely when the democracies did start to get serious about opposing Hitler. But this had nothing to do with Spain. It was triggered by German actions on their own borders, specifically the occupation of Prague. Franco's victory did nothing to prevent the guarantee of Poland, and there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that his defeat would have done anything at accelerate it, or have promoted anything similar. After all, the defeat of the 1934 Nazi coup in Austria did nothing to stop the Anschluss from happening four years later.
There was no conflict with "Fascism" or with "dictatorship". There was a potential conflict with one particular Fascist regime which threatened the European balance of power. That regime could be combated only on its own borders, not in places hundreds of miles away. Indeed, I often suspect that a lot of the song and dance about Spain (and Abyssinia too) was something of a cop out, allowing people to be loudly "anti-Fascist" on the cheap, without having to face up to the serious business of resisting Germany. -
Message 33
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 2nd January 2010
Re: Message 31.
Tas,
I wanted to argue along the same lines as in message 32, but Mikestone did it that more eloquently, logicaly and thoroughly.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 34
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 2nd January 2010
Re: Message 29.
Suvorovetz,
"But so that the process can proceed forward, inevitable as the sunrise, the anointed one(s) come out of some woodwork and put themselves in charge of "bettering" everything."
if that is your own sentence and not a quote from "someone", than I congratulate you for this "dichterische"(poetical) sentence and at the same time that very to the point.
Warm regards and with esteem,
Paul.
PS: You recall me of another Russian from Moscow on these boards, first residing in New-Zealand and then in Australia. Just the same "style" as yours. Our first meeting on these boards was somewhere in the early 2000's with the genocide of the Neanderthaler...But, yes, it can also be a coincidential resemblance -
Message 35
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Saturday, 2nd January 2010
Hi Mike, Paul,
Unfortunately I do not know enough of the detailed history of Europe in the 1930s, but the impression I have acquired is that it was a period when many people all over Europe were wanting and getting strong men; that Mussolini's keeping the trains of Italy on time was rather admired. People were tired of the uncertainty that democracy involves.
What I am trying to say, comes off best in Dostoevsky's novel, 'The Idiot.' Jesus Christ comes back to Earth in a second coming and is going around healing people and doing good. The Grand inquisitor comes in on his high chair and tells his soldiers to arrest Christ. He tells him that he offers people 'Choice' whereas people only want 'Bread.'
I think that the Germans chose Adolf Hitler because the Western democracies had given up on them. The Weimar Republic was allowed to get into hyperinflation and allowed to die away. Hitler was allowed to get into office, despite the fact that he had never won an election outright. Once Hindenburg died, no one was there to put any checks on him.
Then he marched into the Rhineland and no one said anything about that, although it was against international law. He was allowed to march all over Europe right up to 1940. So everyone at that time believed his kind of Nazism was inevitable. That is the reason for Sir Oswald Moseley and his black shirts.
I think in England, the Cliveden Set believed that an injustice had been done to Germany at Versailles in 1919 and they expected Hitler to be rectifying that wrong. It never occurred to them that all that would eventually lead to WW2 and the death or displacement of 50 million people, and eventually lead to the Middle East conflict that is still going on.
Perhaps the Western powers, with a more forward policy in Spain, may have stopped both Hitler and made the Spanish Republic more democratic, thus halting Stalinist Communism as well. Hitler may have just had his air-force involved in bombing Guernica, but he was providing full moral and diplomatic support to Franco. Franco's defeat would have had a strong effect on the inevitability of Nazism and Fascism.
Tas -
Message 36
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Saturday, 2nd January 2010
Well it's been an interesting conversation thats for sure. As a person of the democratic left, I'd like to think that a stronger support of the democratic left by the Western Democracies would have resulted in a different outcome in Spain, and maybe have influenced the wider European rise of fascism...but I'm not at all sure. It's easy to look back now with perfect hindsight and point out what should have been done.
At the time its damn hard. -
Message 37
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Saturday, 2nd January 2010
I think in England, the Cliveden Set believed that an injustice had been done to Germany at Versailles in 1919 and they expected Hitler to be rectifying that wrong. It never occurred to them that all that would eventually lead to WW2 Ìý
Not just the Cliveden Set either. I doubt if even the Chamberlain government would have conceded as much as they did had they not believed that the German claims, even if they were being asserted in an ill-mannered and bullying way, were basically justified. This attitude had been confined in 1919 to a small element on the left, but twenty years later was pretty much the conventional wisdom.
This was what I meant by describing the furore over Spain and Abyssinia as a "cop out". Compare the outcry over Abyssinia (and especially over the Hoare-Laval Pact) with the collective shrug of the shoulders which greeted the abolition of the Rhineland DMZ. Both Hoare and Laval were driven from office in a storm of indignation. Nobody came even close to being ousted over the Rhineland. Italy having been one of the WW1 victors, Mussolini had nothing like the fund of sympathy to draw on which Hitler did - until he blew it by occupying Prague.
It was much the same in 1938. The Anschluss produced no more reaction than the Rhineland had done, and while there was the occasional demo in support of Czechoslovakia, it was all very low-key compared with the "Arms for Spain" agitation. Support for the Republic was not a measure of resistance to Hitler, but a substitute for it, a way to make self-indulgent "anti-Fascist" gestures without doing anything to tackle the real enemy.
In a paradoxical way, the enthusiasts for the Spanish Republic were very like the Appeasers. Both were desperate to avoid a second war, one hoping it could be avoided if enough concessions were made, the other that a cheap success in some backwater conflict or other would somehow make the Germans disappear. Needless to say, it was never going to happen. It also recalls certain characters in WW1 who were always looking for some vital spot in Italy, Turkey, the Balkans or wherever, where the war could somehow be won without having to defeat the 800lb gorilla - the German armies on the Western Front. It was escapism.
Perhaps the Western powers, with a more forward policy in Spain, may have stopped both Hitler and made the Spanish Republic more democratic, thus halting Stalinist Communism as well. Hitler may have just had his air-force involved in bombing Guernica, but he was providing full moral and diplomatic support to Franco. Franco's defeat would have had a strong effect on the inevitability of Nazism and Fascism. Ìý
In what way? Hitler got away with it (up to March 1939) largely because his claims were seen as just, and German grievances as legitimate. That would have been equally true whichever side won in Spain.
Italian prestige would indeed have taken a knock, but that would not harm Hitler in any serious way. Indeed, it might even strengthen him by pushing a weakened Mussolini more firmly under his wing.
As to Anglo-French support making the Republic more democratic, again, why exactly should it? After all, Franco, once safely installed in power, never heeded Hitler or Mussolini except when it suited him. Why would Republican politicians take any more notice of attitudes in London or Paris, once the war was over and they no longer needed to? -
Message 38
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Saturday, 2nd January 2010
A Happy New Year, Paul You recall me of another Russian from Moscow on these boards, first residing in New-Zealand and then in Australia. Just the same "style" as yours.Ìý It's probably years of learning Pushkin at school talking. But, since Alan ingrained a fear of copy right laws in every bone of my body, I try to identify the sources I'm quoting all the time.
-
Message 39
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Saturday, 2nd January 2010
I think democracy's rough spot in the 1920s and 1930s was just part of the very long, and arguably still ongoing, process by which the old ideal of equality of under the law was reconciled with practical political structures. The pervasive fear of communism and socialism that followed the Bolshevik revolution 1917 added to the problems mainly because fear made the politicians deny themselves the maneuvering space that they needed to solve their problems. None illustrated this better than German conservatives, whose fear of communism finally drove them to the foolish and inexcusable decision to put the power in Hitler's hands.
I do think that to be viable, democracy needs to be social -- not necessarily socialist. The unchecked evolution of societies and economies tends to be governed by the Matthew effect: "For to all those who have, more will be given, ... but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away." To stabilize a society --and deny Marx his "proletarian revolution"-- actions must be taken to counteract this. The combination of ideological inflexibility and the economic crisis of the 1930s robbed politicians of the means to do so, and paralysis destabilized the democracies. People lost the confidence that their interests could be adequately represented by an elected government.
Frustrated populations turned to strong men who promised deliverance. This was perhaps inevitable, but it was a brittle phenomenon, as it was all based on smoke and mirrors. It is a myth the Mussolini made the trains run on time. Hitler definitely made the trains run not on time: German re-armament consumed so much steel that railway maintenance suffered. The dictatorial regimes relied heavily on personal prestige --many German houses acquired the equivalent of little altars to the Fuhrer-- and on show, often on pompous bombast and on megalomaniac architecture. It was no coincidence that most Nazi leaders lacked a sense of humor: The ridiculousness of what the Germans called the "golden pheasants" was so close under the surface that they could not afford a joke. In Rome, Mussolini put marble maps on display: The Roman empire under Augustus, the Roman empire under Constantine, the Roman empire under Mussolini.
The fascist regimes were sufficiently aware of the brittleness of their hold over the masses, and extremely sensitive in matters of prestige. (This would later contribute to the military disasters of Stalingrad and Tunis, and of course Mussolini's ill-advised invasion of Greece.) The collapse of Mussolini's credibility during the war years illustrates this fundamental vulnerability. Therefore, if the democratic states had somehow found the courage to assist Spain's lawfully elected government, the resonance might have been much larger than one might expect. (Perhaps even if they had merely opted to enforce the agreed policy of non-intervention, instead of meekly looking away while others shipped in arms.) A victory for a rump of the Republican government backed by Stalin would not have meant much. A quick, decisive intervention by the French with British support (all they were going to get) would have been something different. It would have shaken the popular belief that the dictatorships were riding the crest of the wave.
The intervention could only have been successful if it had been quick. The hidebound French army could have benefited greatly from the experience of even a short campaign, but the prospect of being drawn into a long civil was in Spain ought to be enough to discourage any French soldier (since Napoleon, that is.)
All this speculation is counter-factual, however. The conservative British government of the period, like their counterparts elsewhere, allowed its fears to override common sense -- to see Spain controlled by a hostile power was not in the British interest, to put it mildly. And France was politically too deeply divided to be able to intervene, although Leon Blum would have liked to. -
Message 40
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Saturday, 2nd January 2010
A quick, decisive intervention by the French with British support (all they were going to get) would have been something different. It would have shaken the popular belief that the dictatorships were riding the crest of the wave. Ìý
What would be the motive for such an intervention?
If anyone had wanted to pick a fight with Hitler in 1936, the logical place to do it was in the Rhineland, not in some remote and irrelevant theatre like Spain. If, OTOH, a confrontation was not desired (and few people desired one prior to March '39), then what was the sense of picking a quarrel over a place where we had nothing at stake? To do so would antagonise Hitler without significantly harming or weakening him - the classic "worst of both worlds" outcome.
Quite simply. If the Rhineland was not worth fighting for, then neither was Spain. If the Rhineland was worth fighting for, then it could be attacked directly and there was no need to bother with Spain - any more than the Allies bothered with it in 1944. -
Message 41
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Saturday, 2nd January 2010
I do think that to be viable, democracy needs to be social -- not necessarily socialist. The unchecked evolution of societies and economies tends to be governed by the Matthew effect: "For to all those who have, more will be given, ... but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away."Ìý What does it mean exactly - social democracy? Democracy is social already, is it not?
-
Message 42
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 3rd January 2010
Social democracy is a political model in which a democratic government is mandated by a majority of the electorate as defined by the constitution to make direct interventions in society to promote perceived beneficial outcomes.
-
Message 43
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Sunday, 3rd January 2010
If anyone had wanted to pick a fight with Hitler in 1936, the logical place to do it was in the Rhineland, not in some remote and irrelevant theatre like Spain.Ìý
A glance at the map shows that Spain, with its long Atlantic and Mediterranean coastlines, its numerous ports, and its African colonies was hardly strategically irrelevant. Losing Spain to the Axis could have had very serious consequences for the Allied powers in World War II. Fortunately Franco was too much a professional soldiers to take Hitler's long diatribes about the inevitable victory of the Axis seriously, and Spain was too exhausted for a new war.
A crucial point is that the occupation of the Rhineland was, after all, the peaceful occupation of German territory by German troops. It would have been politically difficult to justify an Allied action, especially as it risked a direct confrontation with Germany. And the strategic value of the Rhineland as a demilitarized buffer zone had withered.
In contrast, at the outbreak of the Spanish civil war the French and British, thanks to geographic proximity and naval strength, could have decided it in favor of Spain's elected government before the fascist powers could do much more than gnash their teeth. Such action could have found its political justification in a call for assistance from the Spanish. There was a gap of a few weeks between the rebellion and the German intervention, and I doubt that Hitler would have taken the risk of an intervention in Spain if the French and British powers were already involved on the other side -- in this case, it was important to be first.
It was not necessary to seek a direct confrontation with Germany and/or Italy. A success in Spain would have bolstered the credibility of the democratic nations by showing that they could resist the fascist trend, and it could have greatly improved their strategic position. -
Message 44
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Sunday, 3rd January 2010
Not sure if any of that is realistic. The main British concern was to preserve the naval base at Gibraltar which secured access to the Mediterranean. Gibraltar is situated opposite to Tangier which was then part of Spanish Morocco from where Franco launched the rebellion (after being flown there from the Canaries by two MI6 agents) so siding with the Republic would have imperilled this vital strategic interest.
The French, like the Spanish earlier, had elected a Popular Front government in 1936 but the Prime Minister, Leon Blum's, concern was not to inspire a military uprising with the consequent contagion of civil war spreading north of the Pyrenees, especially in view of the rigght-wing attack on the Third Republic in the Stavisky Riots of 1934. Blum employed a strict non-intervention policy to the dismay of his left-wing supporters (the Spanish Civil War was a contributory factor in the loss of support of Blum's Popular Front Government).
However the main weakness of the argument is the assumption that if an Anglo-French intervention in Spain had been successful it would have deterred Hitler from his policy of expanding into Central and Eastern Europe. It was this region, not Spain, where a failure by Britain and France to use, or threaten the use, of force (until it was too late to be effective) proved decisive. -
Message 45
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Sunday, 3rd January 2010
Social democracy is a political model in which a democratic government is mandated by a majority of the electorate as defined by the constitution to make direct interventions in society to promote perceived beneficial outcomes.Ìý Are you saying that "social" democracy differs from A democracy because in the "social" democracy the majority of the electorate mandates to make direct interventions to promote perceived - by the majority, I suppose - beneficial outcomes? I don't know if there is any majority anywhere that mandates something this majority does not perceive as beneficial.
-
Message 46
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Sunday, 3rd January 2010
A glance at the map shows that Spain, with its long Atlantic and Mediterranean coastlines, its numerous ports, and its African colonies was hardly strategically irrelevant. Losing Spain to the Axis could have had very serious consequences for the Allied powers in World War II.Ìý
Except that Spain had no common frontier with either Germany or Italy and was militarily weak. If she did adhere to the Axis in war with Britain and France (still a very remote contingency in 1936) she would be in far greater peril from them than vice versa.
It was not necessary to seek a direct confrontation with Germany and/or Italy. A success in Spain would have bolstered the credibility of the democratic nations by showing that they could resist the fascist trend, and it could have greatly improved their strategic position. Ìý
What "Fascist trend"? Virtually all the countries in Europe ever likely to become Fascist already were so by 1936. There was no trend to resist.
In any case, why should Britain and France object to a Fascist government in Spain? Portugal had had one since 1926 without causing the slightest trouble.
The problem was not "Fascism" as such but one particular state which happened to have a "Fascist" government, and which also, far more importantly, posed a threat to the balance of power in Europe. And if Spain was doomed to be a dictatorship of one stripe or another (quite likely considering Spanish history), a Fascist dictatorship was probably a lesser evil than a Communist one. After all, if the Spanish Communists went along with the Nazi-Soviet Pact, then a government in which they were a dominant force would be no more pro-Allied in 1939-41 than Franco's was. And if it were dopey enough to take a pro-Allied line after June 1941, it would quickly become just one more occupied country.
Why not let Franco win and then try to keep on reasonable terms with him? That was what happened in the end, and it worked perfectly. The Franco regime survived WW2 by thirty years, during which time it caused no problem for the democracies whatsoever. -
Message 47
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Sunday, 3rd January 2010
Franco did however cause quite a few problems for Spanish people though. By murdering quite a few of them.
As for not causing us any problems why should he? The Western democracies have a long history of cosying up to fascist dictators when it suits them. Or indeed communist dictators. -
Message 48
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Sunday, 3rd January 2010
Franco did however cause quite a few problems for Spanish people though. By murdering quite a few of them. Ìý
Quite likely - Spanish politics were apt to be like that. But was there any reason to suppose there would have been any fewer murders had the other side won?
In any case, how would one Spaniard murdering another be the business of anyone outside Spain?
As for not causing us any problems why should he? The Western democracies have a long history of cosying up to fascist dictators when it suits them. Or indeed communist dictators. Ìý
Which is a perfectly right and proper course of action if they judge such "cosying up" to be in their country's interest. A foreign power has no "vote" about how another state governs (or misgoverns) itself, and no business to behave as though it did. -
Message 49
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Sunday, 3rd January 2010
Hi Mike,
Having read all your messages on this thread, I think I am agreeing with you more and more. You say:-
<<"It was much the same in 1938. The Anschluss produced no more reaction than the Rhineland had done, and while there was the occasional demo in support of Czechoslovakia, it was all very low-key compared with the "Arms for Spain" agitation. Support for the Republic was not a measure of resistance to Hitler, but a substitute for it, a way to make self-indulgent "anti-Fascist" gestures without doing anything to tackle the real enemy.">>
I am trying to see what people's reaction was to Hitler in say 1935-6. I suspect people thought him to be a bit boorish and demanding, but no one at that period expected him to bring about the holocaust that he did by his victory over a great power like France and his near victory over the Soviet Union (700,000 prisoners in the summer of 1941).
Today we hate Hitler and believe that from since when he came to power we were steadfastly against him. However, if we think back there were just four people who realized what kind of person he really was: Winston Churchill, Anthony Eden, Harold Macmillan and the fourth I can not remember.
Hitler himself expected his Third Reich to last for 1,000 years. We knew about his hatred of the Jewish people from 'Mein Kempf.' We knew all about Krystal Nacht and the arrest of law abiding German Jews. However, I suspect that bothered us only a little.
I think we were lucky during WW2. First that we had Winston Churchill, that extremely able and farseeing man. Second that we had Franklin Roosevelt, who realized that the most important matter, even more important than defeating Japan, was to defeat Germany. last, we had the Soviet Union, which with its huge population and its extreme climate, pulled most of our chestnuts out of the fire, looking at it seriously post cold war.
I do not think any one in Western Europe was ready for a confrontation with Hitler on the Rhineland. All the Western Powers had exhausted themselves during WW1. It all goes back to WW1, as I keep saying. It all starts there. The wrong war!
Tas -
Message 50
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Sunday, 3rd January 2010
Today we hate Hitler and believe that from since when he came to power we were steadfastly against him. However, if we think back there were just four people who realized what kind of person he really was: Winston Churchill, Anthony Eden, Harold Macmillan and the fourth I can not remember.Ìý
The late AJP Taylor put it very well.
Writing in 1960, he observed that "If you went by what people write today [about their attitudes in the 1930s] you would think that the entire Labour Party had spent the decade calling for increased armaments, while all Conservatives were advocating war against Germany in alliance with Soviet Russia"
Your fourth man might possibly be Duff Cooper.
I think we were lucky during WW2. First that we had Winston Churchill, that extremely able and farseeing man. Second that we had Franklin Roosevelt, who realized that the most important matter, even more important than defeating Japan, was to defeat Germany. last, we had the Soviet Union, which with its huge population and its extreme climate, pulled most of our chestnuts out of the fire, looking at it seriously post cold war.Ìý
Stalin also made the democratisation of Germany possible. Simply by existing, he made that the lesser evil for all Germans who were free to choose. A choice of Uncle Sam or Uncle Joe was no choice at all for Herr Averagekraut.
I do not think any one in Western Europe was ready for a confrontation with Hitler on the Rhineland. All the Western Powers had exhausted themselves during WW1. It all goes back to WW1, as I keep saying. It all starts there. The wrong war!Ìý
Quite.
I recall a story about a French politician visiting Britain at the time of the Rhineland crisis, and being invited by Stanley Baldwin to the Strangers Gallery of the House of Commons.
When the Frenchman raised the question of possible action about the Rhineland, Baldwin shook his head and pointed down at the government front bench, saying "Remember, every one of those men is a survivor of the Somme".
But if that was unacceptable, picking a quarrel over a fracas in some minor foreign country was even less likely to be considered.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.