Spain’s socialist government is turning its back on the post-Franco ‘let sleeping dogs lie’ approach with regard to the Spanish civil war. It plans to prohibits any political event at the location of Franco’s tomb in the ‘Valley of the Fallen’, outside Madrid. Yet whilst I am hardly a fan of Franco, the notion that a socialist government has any moral authority to suppress pro-Franco sentiments strikes me as absurd. There were no ‘good guys’ in the Spanish civil war and if the current Spanish socialists see themselves as the heirs of those who fought Franco then they see themselves as heirs to despicable would-be tyrants who were in no way admirable just because their enemy was little better. It was a war between mass murderous collectivist socialists of various dispositions against mass murderous collectivist national socialists.
In many ways the one thing Franco had to commend him was that his system of government was always unlikely to outlive him whereas a socialist system might have lasted longer… which is to say it might have lasted until the late 1980’s and in which case more the mass graves being dug up now would be filled with falangists and their families as opposed to socialists and their families (not that the left was shy about slaughtering its civilian enemies during the war).
People who get misty eyed over the resistance to Franco in the Spanish civil war are fools. It did not really matter who won, Spain was going to lose regardless. A pox on both sides of that terrible war.
Hear, hear.
Here in NH, in 90’s, the Democrats (socialists, all) who had either served in the Lincoln Brigade, or had friends or family who did, tried to get a plaque erected in the statehouse to commemorate those who went to Spain to fight “against the fascists”. When word got out about the wording on the plaque they were having made (quoting something from Marx), the wiser heads got ticked off and passed a bill agin it, and mandated that that spot the plaque was to be inset into, be left blank (with marble wall veneer removed) in perpetuity, signifying that the involvement of NH sons in the communist cause was a scar upon NH.
The ugly scar is a rankling reminder to the socialists in sheeps clothing…
“…it does not really matter…”
Here’s a counterfactual to ponder. What if the “republic” had won. By the end it was a Soviet puppet. OK, imagine further that September 1939 arrives. You have Hitler and Stalin as allies — and Stalin’s puppet Spain in the war on the German side, or cooperative. Would Britain and France have gotten involved in a war with Spain, too. Would Britain have lost Gibraltar? Would Britain and France ended up at war with Stalin and Hitler at the same time, as they almost did trying to assist Finland? Or seeing this, do they not give the guarantee to Poland, so that the war in the west does not happen at all, or not as it did? A Red Spain would have been a Nazi ally. People seem to always forget that. Franco’s Spain did very little for the Germans, to the extreme irritation of the Germans. That is also often forgotten.
Which presupposes implausibly: (a) that a (far from coherently communist) leftist Spain would have been a Stalinist puppet, while Franco failed to be a puppet of the Nazis, and (b) Stalin would have been so subordinate to Hitler to let such a strategic outpost become involved in the general European war, when he took pains to avoid getting involved elsewhere against great powers. A Red (or pinkish) Spain would have stayed neutral if it could.
It’s sad that Latin America picked up its political habits from the last two Western European nations to democratize (Spain and Portugal).
Folk should read Homage to Catalonia and other works by George Orwell – who fought for the Republicans and lost a lot of his leftwing illusions – on the war.
Franco kept Spain out of WW II. He kept Germany out of Spain, thus preserving England’s hold on Gibraltar, thus allowing England to control the Mediterranean Sea and ultimately leading to the defeat of Rommel in North Africa.
Franco had no intention of being Hitler’s boy. After his first meeting with him, Hitler said he rather go to the dentist than met with Franco again. This from a man who was used to shouting at and threatening his negotiating partners.
Franco should get a big award from the enemies of Fascism.
He never helped Hitler, unlike Stalin.
I suspect that if Franco had lost the complete lack of coherence of the communists/socialists/anarchists etc would have resulted in a continuation civil war between those erstwhile allies of necessity. Within the wider late 30s European context it is pretty difficult to guess what that would have resulted in.
I’m only guessing here, but, given the regional tensions in Spain I suspect that Spain might have fractured into statelets – in a much more rapid and bloody manner than it is currently doing.
One thing is probable though. The other European Powers would have meddled supporting various factions in order to gain influence.
Possibly we would have had an Iraq 2006 on the Med in 1939?
I suspect that a lot of the misty-eyed nostalgia for the volunteer brigades comes from the gross over-simplification of merely lumping Franco in the same pot as Mussolini and Hitler. They weren’t the same. A Key difference is that Franco wasn’t in the habit of launching wars of pan-European domination.
Hitler, of course tried to get the Generalissimo to join his gang. After tortous negotiations and much stonewalling from Franco Spain remained neutral and Hitler remarked that “He’d rather have three teeth extracted than have to go through that again”.
“Franco should get a big award from the enemies of Fascism….”
Correct.
In our imperfect world you don’t get a clear choice between good guys and bad guys. You get a choice between very bad ones, and somewhat less bad.
Franco was less bad. On the whole he did ok – Spain’s fate could have been much worse.
Let’s get some context here.
Are you saying that any “socialist” anywhere lacks moral authority to do anything? The comparison between contemporary Spanish socialists and wartime socialists from 70 years ago is totally invalid.
Instafaggot – great handle BTW – I don’t think anyone was trying to make a comparison between modern Spaniards and ones from 70 years ago. You’re right, but in the context you point is irrelevant.
A socialist has the moral authority to do whatever he or she pleases as long as it doesn’t impinge upon the freedoms of others 😉
“The comparison between contemporary Spanish socialists and wartime socialists from 70 years ago is totally invalid.”
It should be. But contemporary socialists are trying to portrait themselves as the proud ideological children of the wartime socialists.
http://www.artehistoria.com/historia/jpg/CDH13220.jpg
I did not say that in this article as I have confined my remarks to the issue in question, namely the socialists in Spain acting to suppress political expressions they disapprove of.
Really? I suspect the current Spanish socialist government disagrees with you. If they do not see themselves as the heirs to the Republicans, why are they seeking to reopen debate on the subject and use the law to suppress pro-Nationalist sentiments? Feel free to present an alternative interpretation if you think I am missing something.
A few corrections and points of information. Firstly, anyone who imagines the Republican side was in any way homogenous hasn’t got a clue – after all, the main subject of Orwell’s book is the conflict between the Soviet-backed Communists and the anarchists, and the coalition also included various nationalist and liberal elements. Secondly, to describe Franco’s Nationalist side as “collectivist” is really very stupid indeed, since much of its support came from capitalists and the large landowners who were motivated primarily by their opposition to agrarian reform. Thirdly, while Orwell undoubtedly lost many illusions during the war, he emerged from it a self-described “committed democratic socialist”.
Which is why I wrote “It was a war between mass murderous collectivist socialists of various dispositions”
Then you do not know what ‘collectivist’ means. Fascism (which broadly speaking describes the Italian, Spanish and German national socialist movements of the era in question) is very much a type of collectivism, based on notions of a collective culture which transcends individual rights and which must be defended for the good of the ‘Volk’. If you think fascism is based on severalty and individualism, you are clearly not of this world. Big business and private ownership are countenanced by the state in a fascist system just so long as the notional owners of the means of production use them in accordance with ‘national’ objectives (i.e. not a million miles from modern regulatory statism in form, just differing in intensity of control).
Indeed, which is why I have always thought rather less of him than many in the anti-panopticon state movement. That he clung to any form of imposed collectivism in the face of such evidence only goes to prove that even great men have their limitations.
Returning to Perry’s main point:
“that a socialist government has any moral authority to suppress pro-Franco sentiments strikes me as absurd.”
That any government has any authority (moral or not) to suppress any sentiments, and any political expression is something that we, as libertarians, categorically deny.
The current socialist government is true to it’s ideology, and trying to suppress the freedom of expression of the many adherents Franco still has in Spain. It’s a purely repressive and undemocratic move, and as said, characteristic to socialists.
A socialist lacks moral authority with regard to those liberties (property, commerce) which socialism curtails.
Sometimes immoral people do the right thing – simply because their immorality isn’t thorough. Examples include Franco’s WWII neutrality, the Shah’s Cold War alliance with the US, and the allowance of economic freedoms by governments that frown on noneconomic freedoms.
Sometimes the right thing is motivated by pragmatism rather than altruism, but we should take the right thing whenever we can get it. And we should remember what Heinlein said:
“if Franco had lost the complete lack of coherence of the communists/socialists/anarchists etc ”
Except, if you read Orwell, you see that by the last year of the civil war the Communists were imposing coherence — by murdering their supposed allies on the Left. That was the source of my speculation. At the beginning of the war, the Left in Spain was very much a ragbag of various parties, etc. as people have mentioned here. But by the end, the Soviets had imposed a much more centralized, and Russian controlled, leadership. Had the war been won by he Republic after this process got underway, you would have had the scenario I set out, with a Soviet ally, and hence a Nazi ally, in Spain following September, 1939.
It is also true that Franco gave Hitler very little of what he asked for. Even the Spanish Blue Division, that fought in Russia, was a way for Franco to get rid of his own fire-eating fascists, by sending them to die in Russia, equipped at German expense.
An interesting side-note, the Blue Division was pulled out of Russia because Franco was under pressure from the Allies. The veterans of the fighting in Russia became a fraternity of sorts, and the senior leadership in the Spanish Army during the Cold War was made up mostly of veterans who had actually fought the Red Army — alongside the Germans. This helped make Spain a reliable NATO ally. It’s army was led by hardcore anti-Soviet veterans.
The left lauched an armed revolt against the nonsocialist government of Spain in 1934. This is called the “strike” by the miners of Asturis – it was not a strike, it was an effort at armed revolution.
Nor was it directed at some constitutional change – the King having already abdicated in 1931.
It was at effort at Red revolution – and an effort that was only stopped by a young general by the name of Franco.
Their own armed revolt against an elected government robbed the left of any right to complain about the armed revolt against their own elected government in 1936 (if the Popular Front really were elected – with the closeness of the vote and the amount of rigging going on it is not possible to tell).
As for the intentions of the left – these were plain.
By the speeches of the “moderate” (or “Pink” as Guy calls them) left leaders, it is clear that all property owners in Spain were to robbed and if they resisted exterminated (many leftists wished to exterminate the owners of land or capital whether they resisted being robbed or not).
The left were indeed divided into factons which hated and killed each other, but most of these factions (again to judge by the speeches of their own leaders and the actions of their own activists) were all committed enemies of private property in land and capital.
As for Franco.
He was neither a National Socialist or a Fascist (although he was prepared to do the straight arm salute and to take over the Spanish Falangist party, along with Carlists and other politial groups, into his own “movement”).
Nor was Franco in favour of exterminating the Jews – indeed he accepted many into Spain (in fact it was less difficult to get accepted by Spain than it was to get accepted into Britain or the United States).
Franco could have won the war for Hitler in a day – by taking Gibralter and closing the Med (those people who think the British in Gibralter could have withstood a full scale attack are deluding themselves).
A lot of clever-clever people try to explain away why Franco did not come into the war against Britain (although the Blue Division did march to help in the war against the Soviet Union), but the fact is he did not. Franco made a series of impossible demands to Hitler, demands he knew Hitler could not meet.
A “Republican” victory in the war of 1936-1939 would have been a Communist victory (they were the most effective of the factions of leftists in the in-fighting) and a Red (not “Pink”) Spain would have obeyed the alliance between Hitler and Stalin (1939 to 1941) and taken Gibralter and closed the Med to Britain – Egypt and the rest of the Middle East would have fallen.
And India and the Far East would have been cut off (apart from sailing round Africa).
No Middle East oil for Britian.
As for the Nationalists in general.
George Orwell (Eric Blair) admitted that the peasants tended to prefer the Nationalists – and he could not understand why.
The fact that the Nationalists tended to pay for the food they ate and did not impose vast systems of price control (and so on) might have had something to do with it.
In real life in is no good to say “neither side are libertarians” or “both sides kill people” – “so I will not support either side”.
In a Civil War one can indeed opt out – by fleeing the country (as the leader of the nonsocialists in Parliament did – thus avoiding the nasty choice of having to choose sides , but also utterly discrediting the parliamentary nonsocialists), but this is a cop out.
I doubt I would have made a good soldier, but I would have faught in Franco’s army.
“But Franco did not support democracy and his men shot lots of Red prisoners”.
Yes, and your point is?
The Reds did not support democracy either (1936 was to be last election in which nonsocialists would have been allowed to stand), and they supported the extermination of all nonReds.
Franco was no libertarian, but he did not oppose the private ownership of land and capital (although he did have a rather negative view of businessmen).
That is the bottom line.
And I will reply directly to the democrats.
No I do not believe that 51% of people have the right to rob 49%, so NO I do not “support democracy” (if that is what it means).
If this makes me a monster, so be it.
And no doubt that would have been the right choice – but just to be clear, you would have also resisted after the war, no? I agree that Franco was the better choice during the war, but after the war it can hardly be argued that he was good for Spain, no? But maybe the alternative was worse even then. I just don’t really know enough about Spain to say for sure.
A lot of clever-clever people try to explain away why Franco did not come into the war against Britain (although the Blue Division did march to help in the war against the Soviet Union), but the fact is he did not. Franco made a series of impossible demands to Hitler, demands he knew Hitler could not meet.
I wonder if you are being too kind to Franco? He would have entered the war on the Axis side if he had been given French North Africa. Hitler could not do this, because he needed to keep Vichy France on side. Was Franco deliberately making demands Hitler could not accept, or was he just after as much territory as he could get?
A “Republican” victory in the war of 1936-1939 would have been a Communist victory (they were the most effective of the factions of leftists in the in-fighting) and a Red (not “Pink”) Spain would have obeyed the alliance between Hitler and Stalin (1939 to 1941) and taken Gibralter and closed the Med to Britain – Egypt and the rest of the Middle East would have fallen.
Not sure about that. Until the victory in North Africa in 1943, the Med was not really open to British traffic, and all shipping from the middle east and far east had to come round the Cape. The loss of Gibraltar would hardly have been a good thing, but it would not have lost the war. My grandfather was in the 8th Army, and he had to get to Egypt by way of Durban, the Med was not passable.
I met Denis Hills once. He was quite famous for having been held hostage by Idi Amin in the 70’s, forcing Sunny Jim Callaghan to fly out to Uganda to beg for his release. Hills was quite proud of the fact that he had fought for Franco against the Communists. I wonder if there were many others?
On balance, I would say that Franco was a bastard, but the Reds would have been far worse. Similar to Pinochet really.
I must confess that I did not know that Denis Hills fought for Franco.
And yet I have Mr Hills’ autobiography (and have done so for years) – no doubt this is further proof of advancing senility. Although my spelling errors (and other such) have always been there.
Denis Hills was a wonderful man (for example a great defender of the Poles against the National Socialists) and in any fight I would have been honoured to be at his side (even though I would not have been much help).
Yes there were various people from Western countries who fought on the Nationalist side – but as they were not organized into “international brigades” (spelling or whatever) they tend to get forgotten.
Also I suspect that the calls of the Nationalists do not sound nice to the modern ear – for example “For God and Spain” offends both athiests and internationalists (Franco was not a world government fan).
And of course there is “Long live death” – the motto of the Legion (nothing to do with Franco as such – it was in place before his time).
“Republican” shouts tended to sound nicer. For example they often had the word “liberty” in them – even though it was liberty to steal.
Am I being kind to Franco?
The best biography to read is still Brian Crozier’s (1967, if what is left of my brain is correct), recent biographies tend to be by academics (i.e. leftists).
Hitler said he (after the bridge meeting with Franco) would rather have all his remaining teeth taken out than listen to any more of that high pitched Galcian whining – it was deliberate all right.
As for claims that Britain could have carried on fighting even if Spain had acted in 1940.
Well I am British myself so I to was brought up with all this heroic talk about the spirit of 1940. Actually the British troops who fled Dunkirk sometimes tossed their rifles away AFTER they got back to Britain (such defeatism was not mentioned in the press or on the radio), Britain postion in 1940 was a mess from a military point of view.
“Oh we would have held the Middle East even if the Med had been closed to us” (and so on), it is just delusion. Although I accept that the Italians might have still managed to get defeated (not a matter of courage, as many British people seem to think, it was brutal matter of the Italian military structure not being “fit for purpose” as the modern saying goes) – so a German force (under Rommel or someone else) might still have been needed.
The Empire would have been taken away, and even F.D.R. convinced that breaking American law (by supporting Britian) was simply not worth it (backing a lost cause). So Britian would have had to make peace – or starve.
As for Britain itself.
The men drilling with broom handles (thanks to gun control) in what was eventually called the Home Guard present a better picture of British defences.
Although any invasion of Britain would have both presented the Germans with terrible transport problems (the plans for “Sealion” did not really solve these) and presented the German back to the Soviets (Stalin had ordered the preperation of the “Operation Thunderstorm” plan for any good chance of backstabbing his German ally – only to have Hitler backstab him first).
The British army seemed unable to defeat the Germans even when it greatly outnumbered them, was in defence, and had the German plan (although having the German plan was not that much of an advantage – for the reason see below) in advance (Crete). Not lack of courage, “just” a problem of being unable operate flexibly (a problem that the Japanese were to exploit in 1941-1942).
British regular forces were (for quite a long time) very rigid, with each unit and man bravely obeying orders from on high – but unable to operate independently. German “mission command” (tell the forces what they are supposed to be trying to achieve and then leave them to work out how to achieve it) was an alien concept to the regular British army.
The Germans got more rigid later on, but even as late as 1944 the Allies (in the Normandy invasion) kept thinking they were up against new German units, when actually they were up against units they had already defeated (the surviving Germans reformed without orders). British troops (if defeated) tended to have to be reorganised (if there was time) – they did not tend to reform themselves into units and organize new operations.
Basically ordinary German units tended to act in the way that only special British units acted. Again nothing to do with courage – just a different way of functioning.
Even the much praised Royal Air Force was only saved by Hitler’s command to go after British cities (rather than continue hitting the airfields) after the British bombing raid on Berlin.
Of course (as I pointed out above) without American support it is all pointless anyway – as Britian would have been starved into making peace. No military supplies for the British, and no support for the Royal Navy against the U. boats.
Of course I do not expect to convince any British person of any of the above.
For all the talk of Hollywood distorting history (which it does) the belief in Britian’s wonderful military performance in W.W.II is far more deeply ingrained in the British mind than any Hollywood view of American forces is ingrained in American minds.
Most Americans (including veterans) know that it was firepower than tended to win America’s battles in World War II (they take Hollywood films as entertainment).
Whereas most British people regard the armed forces of W.W.II as supermen who could take on ten Germans with one hand (whilst composing a poem and writing a letter to a loved one back home – all at the same time).
The belief that the British of the time were better soldiers than the Germans is a sacred thing (not a matter of entertainment) – remember this myth (and it is a myth) is about all we have left to be proud of.
My great fear is that, whilst the British army is well trained (better than it was in the W.W. II period), this belief that it can do anything will lead us in to trouble.
Americans understand that their army must have large numbers and lots of firepower to achieve things. We British have been taught that the British army can do anything – even if there are not very many of them and stuff like body armour, radios, ammunations, rifles (in fact everything) is in short supply. Because they are supermen you see.
I have a feeling that this belief will cause problems.
As for Joshua’s question.
Errr no I would not have taken up arms against Franco at any point between 1939 and 1975.
Why would I have done that?
Sure there were plenty of taxes and government programs in Spain (for example Franco was quite supportive of various government “social insurance” programs) but these existed in other Western nations to – and I would not have used violence against their governments.
“But the governments of most other Western nations were elected”.
Yes, and your point is? I prefer elected governments to military governments – but I am not going to kill anyone (or, more likely, get killed) in order to change one to the other. The FORM of government is not something that is important enough to kill about (to me) – it is the size and scope of government that I really care about.
Deep down if a government leaves people alone I do not care if it is a monarchy, aristrocracy, democracy, military dictatorship (or “Timocracy” as I seem to remember Plato calling such a government) or whatever – at least I do not care enough to kill anyone.
I would have opposed the censorship and other such under Franco.
But one did not have to be very heroic to do that.
Firstly because Franco did not seem to much care who got University (or other such) jobs – or what they said in department speeches (and other such).
Sure if you were a Red you would be arrested (although, in the later years, only if you were involved in armed stuff), but a libertarian making a speech about how there should be no censorship and how the income tax should be abolished?
Franco would do nothing at all about such a speech – thus making it easy to oppose him (in this sense). So O.K. I would have opposed him (although, to be honest, in a way he would not have cared about).
And (I say again) I would not have planted any bombs or shot anyone after the Civil War. If I was willing to make war against any non liberartarian government I would be making war against every government in the West.
I am sorry that I basically repeated Nick M’s story (about Hitler’s teeth line) – without pointing out that he said it first.
Mike Lorrey’s story is wonderful.
I would have like to have visted New Hampshire a few years ago (say when M. Thompson was still in office), but I hear it is still a nice place.
Lexington Green, Joel Hammer, etc.
Franco’s Spain did very little for the Germans, to the extreme irritation of the Germans. That is also often forgotten.
This is a myth. Franco begged and begged Hitler to give him the green light to enter WWII. Hitler always said no. Why? Because Hitler didn’t want to prop up and support another ally; it already had enough of those in the form of Hungary and Italy.
One of the few things that Franco is always praised for his how he kept Spain out of WWII; well, that wasn’t by his choice.
Anyway, it never ceases to amaze me how people will get into the “my dictator wasn’t as bad as your dictator” game.
Castillon clearly does not know very much about World War II or about the difference between different sorts of governments.
If he had bothered to read the thread above he would know that if Franco had entered the war against Britian (Spain did allow the Blue Divison to march against the Soviet Union) Britian would have lost the war.
The price that Franco asked for entering the war was too high for Hitler – and was meant to be.
As for all dictatorships being the same.
The difference between a country where the government (dictatorship or democracy) tries to control some things (like Franco’s Spain) and a country where the government tries to control everything (like Stalin’s Russia) is VAST.
Franco was not a fluffy person, neither was Cromwell in Britain.
But to pretend that he was no better than the Reds would have been if they had won the Spanish Civil War is absurd.
Britain would have lost the war if Franco had entered? The main reason Spain did not enter the war was simply because after 3 years of civil war it was in no condition to do so. Franco wanted Hitler to give him a bit of “empire” in North Africa which didn´t help, but the simple fact is that Spain was in no fit state to declare war on anyone.
The proposed legislation is not aimed at suppressing opinions or sentiments, but hopefully it will lead to something being done about the remains of thousands of people left in mass graves in the fields where they were executed. I went once to the Valley of the Fallen and was appalled by a sign at the entrance claimng that it was a monument to peace! Not a single mention to be found of the political prisoners who were used to build it – many of whom died in the process. This place is effectively funded and maintained by the Spanish government, it should not be used to perpetuate false information about what really happened. The two fascists who are buried there should be moved somewhere else, I’m not saying it has to be as bad as the resting place of many of their opponents. Personally, I would remove the whole place and restore what should be a beautiful part of the Sierra de Guadarrama.
Speculative “what might have been” theorising about things which never happened is not a response to the reality of what did happen.
Really? I am all for the state not funding somthing like that but how is banning political demonstrations at a place not ‘suppressing opinions or sentiments’?
Not allowing people to use the Valley of the Fallen for political demonstrations hardly seems like a radical attempt to suppress pro-Franco opinion. If they want to, the remains of the Falange can demonstrate almost anywhere they like – and they do usually demonstrate in the centre of Madrid every November. Nobody is stopping them from doing this, or from expressing their opinions. You are presenting as victims those who cam out best from the post-Franco “settlement”.
I am not claiming the current government is lining up falangists and shooting them (i.e. something ‘radical’) but your claim they are not suppressing (your word) political opinions is false even by your own admission. Clearly if the Spanish socialists did not think demonstrations at Franco’s tomb were important to their political enemies, they would not be trying to ban them.
And if you had actually read my article you would see I hold both the socialists and the falangists in contempt as the outcome of the war was going to be monstrous no matter which side won. I lose little sleep over the fact one bunch of mass murderers proved to be better at it than the other group of mass murderers.
If there is any balance to be redressed, it should be in favour of the people who supported neither of the mass murderous collectivist combatant sides in that war. Pluralistic modern Spain does not owe its current nature and system of government to either side, both of which represented failed discredited ideologies, but rather to the modern liberal order that prevails (more or less) across the western world.
If Spain’s socialists think otherwise, I suggest they try to implement the wholesale nationalisation and collectivisation that the losers in the war wanted circa 1938, and then see how well that goes down with your average Carlos and Juanita circa 2006.
Interesting posts. Having met a number of persons who grew up in Spain under Franco, it’s my impression he was greatly abhored.
Guess some with first hand experience under his iron hand didn’t think he respected individuals’ rights that greatly. Or that he was such a blessing they should be thankful for under the circumstances.
You guys are Fascist supporters! Franco and his regime murdered thousands of people after his “victory.” If the western democracies had helped Spain out in 1936 then they could have fought WWII on more favorable terms. Spain would have remained a democracy and WWII could have been a much shorter and less costly war.
Viva la Quince Brigada!
No Pasaran!!
Amazing. Did you actually read the article you are commenting on? Both sides were vile, so how does that make this a pro-fascist article? The only thing Franco’s victory did was decide who was going to be murdered in the aftermath, as the internationalist socialists (the ‘left’) in all its varied forms proved itself to be just as homicidal as the national socialists (the ‘right’). The body count would have been much the same either way.