Posted on 07/16/2018 10:52:13 PM PDT by Olog-hai
At least 1,000 people gathered at the grandiose tomb of the late Spanish dictator Francisco Franco on Sunday to protest against Madrid’s plans to move his body, an AFP photographer said.
Franco, who ruled Spain from 1939 to 1975 when he died, is buried in a valley just outside Madrid in an imposing basilica carved into a mountain face with a 150-meter (490-feet) cross towering over it. Known as the Valle de los Caidos (Valley of the Fallen), it is a deeply divisive symbol of a past that Spain still finds difficult to digest.
By late morning, a long line had built up of people waiting to attend a mass inside the vast structure after a far-right group called for a “national, patriotic and religious pilgrimage” to prevent “the plunder” of his grave by Spain’s new Socialist government. […]
Under Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, who took office on June 2, the new Socialist government has quickly pushed forward plans to exhume his remains, saying Spain “can’t allow symbols that divide”. …
(Excerpt) Read more at thelocal.es ...
The notion of the USSR falling to the Nazis was something too repugnant to consider. I certainly won’t say that was FDR’s motivation to ally with the USSR, but it certainly convinced others to do so who knew what the USSR was. Should we have worked solely with the UK in WWII? I’m open to views on that possibility.
Why didn’t Franco reach out to the allies? Did he think them too weak to take on Adolf, or did he think they were all commies? (I suspect he knew the latter was not the case, so it could have been outright prejudice against Protestants.)
I still say the best case scenario was the Nazis taking Moscow, to the point where Stalin is overthrown and replaced with a “Government of National Unity” that abandons Bolshevism and unites all of the peoples of the Soviet Union.
That’s “best case”? Remember, socialism in any form is a one-world-government kind of thing, and that is meant to defy Jesus Christ at its core.
Sure it’s base case, no Hitler and no Stalin in the end.
It would have been interesting to see if the old “Soviet Union” could have been as brief as Cromwell’s “Protectorate”.
Britain killed its monarch and established a Commonwealth in 1649. This turned into the Protectorate in 1653 and lasted until the Restoration (Charles II) in 1660.
That’s eleven years with no monarch. Russia from 1917 to 1941 would have been not much more time. Bolshevism could have been a mere blip.
I don’t see the “no Hitler” part. Where did I miss it?
And it’s far more than the leaders that make an ideology. Unless both forms of socialism are conquered and eradicated, then one will prevail.
The Nazis couldn’t have held the Soviet Union. Napoleon with the world’s greatest army couldn’t do that. But just to throw it out there, how would the Nazis, even fleetingly, holding the USSR be too repugnant to consider ? You act as if they could top the atrocities the Bolsheviks committed on their own people.
FDR did what FDR did. He allied with the greatest evil on the planet (that was until Mao probably exceeded Stalin - the sad irony is that we could’ve stopped both, but FDR and Truman refused to do so. Removing those monsters would’ve altered the entire course of the latter half of the 20th century). A Europe and Asia free from Soviet-Maoist influence would’ve saved millions of lives. No North Korea, no Communist Vietnam.
Franco had to walk a fine line to keep his country out of WW2, especially so short a period after winning the Civil War. One might argue they were scarcely in the shape to be jumping into another war. Of course, Franco witnessing FDR getting into bed with the Soviets, it might give him some pause that the US was pro-Communist. Hell, from 1941-45, FDR’s own Vice-President, Henry Wallace, was a Soviet sympathizer and stooge.
I’d be more concerned with Ireland’s “neutral” stance, which was more about hatred of the UK.
The Nazis did come very close to taking the USSR. Think that Djughashvili had developed his empire to the point where it could have withstood the Axis alone? Why else agree to Molotov-Ribbentrop?
Franco would have been just fine joining the Axis himself. It was only Adolf’s ego and thinking Franco’s demands excessive that kept him out.
Coming close and winning aren’t the same thing. Too bad Hitler and Stalin couldn’t have killed each other early on.
And claiming Franco would’ve been 100% fine in joining the Axis is presumptive speculation on your part. The point being, he didn’t. He obviously had some common sense and reason.
There would have been victory for the Axis if there was no help for Moscow from the USA. If Djughashvili was strong enough to unilaterally fend off the Third Reich, he would have never made the pact. “Coming close” as I put it was indicative of that.
If I made “presumptive speculation”, then Franco would have nothing to lose by joining the Allies. So why did he play such geopolitical games if/when there was no real reason to?
Just shows to go you the mistake in signing pacts with totalitarians.
Put yourself in Franco’s shoes. What decision would you have made to involve yourself in an ugly European-wide war right after winning an ugly Civil War when you’re trying to put your country back together ? He handled it about as well for his nation as possible given the dynamics.
Stalin gambled and lost that Germany Britain and France would get bogged down in the trenches like in WWI, allowing the Soviets to sweep across Europe. Didn’t count on France falling, and Britain being neutralized to the point that Hitler had enough to at least launch an attack on Russia.
But make no mistake, if Hitler didn’t attack first, Stalin would have.
Sometimes a red herring really is a red insurgency
All nationalists are not Nazis
No, not all. But those who centralize would be.
And why are those who purport to be his ideological descendants raising their right arms in an unmistakable fashion?
The raised right arm is Roman
None of those guys invented it anymore than Nazis did the gammadion
Franco was an authoritarian dictator no question but sometimes folks have to choose
Franco or the Commies
Somoza or Sandinistas
Junta or Monteneros
And so forth
All pushback against collectivists might not be Lexington militiamen like our fantasy here is
Shooting war starts you gonna kick a former klan member with tons of ammo out of your redoubt if marauders are in the perimeter
That was what Adolf was trying to do. He knew Pilsudski hated Russians with a passion, and therefore he felt in the beginning that Poland was a potential ally, basically promising Poland some spoils if they'd join Germany in fighting against the Soviet Union.
Hitler even attended a memorial service for Pilsudski, and had an honor guard placed at Pilsudski's tomb in Krakow when the Nazis occupied Poland.
But Pilsusdki, to his credit, was wise to Hitler and didn't fall for it.
It’s always a false dilemma between one authoritarian and the other, since authoritarianism is of the left. (Including imperial Rome in all its forms.)
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.