General Franco's grave: when 'righting past wrongs' backfires

#21
The Spanish civil war was characterised by wholesale slaughter of civilians on both sides. We don't know how the Communists would have ruled as they lost but I doubt a Comrade Juan would have been much more fun to live under than Franco. Trying to whitewash history to either pretend the Nationalists didn't win or that one side were 'the goodies' seems a bit of a pointless priority to me.

Still it's not like Spain is in an economic and employment crisis and there's anything better to focus on.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#22
#24
Had the Spanish civil war gone the other way and Spain had been taken over by a Stalinist puppet (anyone pretending that the outcome would have been different is deluding themselves), it's entirely possible that WW2 would have ended differently, possibly with the situation pre-Barbarossa solidifying.

Hitler doesn't want to risk Soviet Spain giving him a war on 2 fronts, so doesn't backstab Stalin in mid 1941, doesn't have the raging successes of the early Barbarossa period, so doesn't rashly declare war on the USA at the end of 1941, so it really is Britain + Empire going it alone in Europe.

Once it's clear that the UK can't win and mount an invasion of the continent on its own, the war would eventually peter out with a slow de-escalation and normalisation.

YMMV, but it seems a likely outcome to me.
 
#26
We sort of invented them in S Africa during the Boer conflicts in 1900 to 1902.
Fashionable myth that the British were the first to use internment in camps in this manner. That's where the term originated, but not the principle - the US used them back to the 1830's.
 
#27
There was a key difference in those that followed but which shared the term "concentration camp". It wasn't intended to lead to starvation, disease and death.

"The concentration camps of the Boer War started off as well-meaning refugee camps that took in people like these. As time went on, though, they weren't able to handle the crowds. Diseases and starvation started racked the camp and whole crowds of people started dying."

Not much consolation to those that died or lost family as a consequence.

Photos: Haunting Photos Of History's First Concentration Camps, 40 Years Before The Holocaust
 
#28
There was a key difference in those that followed but which shared the term "concentration camp". It wasn't intended to lead to starvation, disease and death.

"The concentration camps of the Boer War started off as well-meaning refugee camps that took in people like these. As time went on, though, they weren't able to handle the crowds. Diseases and starvation started racked the camp and whole crowds of people started dying."

Not much consolation to those that died or lost family as a consequence.

Photos: Haunting Photos Of History's First Concentration Camps, 40 Years Before The Holocaust
'Supplying succour and supply to the enemy'
Scorched earth policy, and bring the families in.

The Afrikaners still make a big thing about this - a big weeping sore.
(though they don't have much of a record of human rights themselves)
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#31
We sort of invented them in S Africa during the Boer conflicts in 1900 to 1902.
#029
Hence, "Eh ?"

Plus the Indian Removal Act in the US as mentioned by the Stoat.
 
#32
The UK has seen similar calls for symbols of the past to be moved, hidden or removed.
Charles II had Oliver Cromwell exhumed and his head placed on a spike. Human nature eh.
 
#33
Had the Spanish civil war gone the other way and Spain had been taken over by a Stalinist puppet (anyone pretending that the outcome would have been different is deluding themselves), it's entirely possible that WW2 would have ended differently, possibly with the situation pre-Barbarossa solidifying.

Hitler doesn't want to risk Soviet Spain giving him a war on 2 fronts, so doesn't backstab Stalin in mid 1941, doesn't have the raging successes of the early Barbarossa period, so doesn't rashly declare war on the USA at the end of 1941, so it really is Britain + Empire going it alone in Europe.

Once it's clear that the UK can't win and mount an invasion of the continent on its own, the war would eventually peter out with a slow de-escalation and normalisation.

YMMV, but it seems a likely outcome to me.
Hadn't considered that but its an extremely good point. A communist victory pre barbarossa would have almostly certainly led to the nationalist units being liquidated en masse and Stalin would have been in a postion to legitimately chin off the non intervention agreement as no longer relevant and fill the place with soviet troops to help 'keep order'

Hitler wasn't exactly renowned for rational decision making but the presence of Soviet troops ready to roll up through weakly defended vichy france (and the presumption we would immediately ally with them giving Commonwealth forces unopposed landing in Spain) would surely have given him pause before launching barbarossa.

A cheery future of Nazism and Communism for the continent with little chance of us dislodging either...no pasaran indeed.
 

overopensights

ADC
Book Reviewer
#34
The Americans seem to think differently. General Lee, the Southern General that fought to continue slavery among other reasons. He has a Museum built in his former home to honour his name. It is about a mile over the Potomac river, next to Arlington military Cemetery. A big sign at his former mansion states ' Quiet, Please Show respect: No Gum Chewing!
In the meantime in Bristol and London certain monuments are being pointed at for destruction, we are getting just too bloody soft!
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#35
Hadn't considered that but its an extremely good point.
No it isn't. There would have been no civil war had Franco not rejected a democratically mandated government. It's a deflection argument and a prime example of strawman whataboutery.
 
#38
No it isn't. There would have been no civil war had Franco not rejected a democratically mandated government. It's a deflection argument and a prime example of strawman whataboutery.
Except for the fact he didn't lead the coup (the bloke who did got killed in a plane crash early doors) it's a valid point. And utterly irrelevant to the post I was responding to which deals with the fact there was a civil war and that being the case the possible impact of a Communist victory on the outcome of WW2.

Which isn't whataboutery, its discussing potential alternative ways history could have played out.
 
#39
No it isn't. There would have been no civil war had Franco not rejected a democratically mandated government. It's a deflection argument and a prime example of strawman whataboutery.
Except the start point for the counterfactual is that the civil war had started, but Franco lost. Not an earlier point.

Or otherwise we can go even further back: what if the Swiss hadn't allowed Lenin to get on that sealed train through Germany in 1917?

The point with any counterfactual is that it takes events as-happened up to a certain point, then asks what if it had turned out differently.
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#40
Except for the fact he didn't lead the coup (the bloke who did got killed in a plane crash early doors) it's a valid point. And utterly irrelevant to the post I was responding to which deals with the fact there was a civil war and that being the case the possible impact of a Communist victory on the outcome of WW2.

Which isn't whataboutery, its discussing potential alternative ways history could have played out.
Not you. The post you were replying to which sought to make Franco out as the lesser of two evils had the outcome gone the other way but which roundly ignored that there would have been no war had the fascist not decided to jump in.
 

Latest Threads

Top