Francisco Franco

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='iheartjp2' post='1948444' date='Aug 13 2009, 10:51 PM']Sorry, I'm not sure where you're going with this. [/quote]

Then you're argument truly makes no sense to me.



[quote]Why would the US need a Catholic majority to be relevant to the discussion. I'm saying that the country in which we are able to go to websites like this and have open discussions about controversial topics is an amazing country and a great alternative to having your rights abridged in a dictatorship in which your life is in the hands of one man.[/quote]

Yes, America is an amazing country and I'm happy to live here. So what?



[quote]I don't have a strong opinion of him. I'm arguing mainly against the idea that anyone who is a dictator who established Catholicism as the official state religion should be looked up to simply because he established Catholicism as the official state religion. Francisco Franco along with any other dictator in my book can't be trusted and I don't think that system of government in itself is a good idea.[/quote]

If you think that's all I believe he did, then you really are looking at this way too simplistically and I'll probably just need to drop out of this discussion as I don't have time to go through all this simple easy stuff.


[quote]Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's not going in the direction in which you think it's going. I don't really think that stats matter. Any dictator, a man who steals power for himself, who spills the blood of his subjects to keep his power is a tyrant.[/quote]

You don't think the stats matter, and yet you make the claim that he spills all this blood? So you're okay with making a claim and not backing it up? Sorry, don't have time for that.



[quote]You say this as if nothing is quite true until the Church says it is. The Church is outspoken in its position of religious freedom today.[/quote]

No. Are you really missing such a simple thing?

[quote]Does it just put a knife through your chest to admit that the Church was wrong about a man that you admire?[/quote]

I couldn't care less what the Vatican today has to say. And obviously you aren't interested in an actual educated discussion. Maybe I'll try this here again someday. peace

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1948481' date='Aug 13 2009, 11:20 PM']Yes, America is an amazing country and I'm happy to live here. So what?[/quote]

I was explaining my point for bringing up America in the discussion. I was wondering why it mattered whether or not America had a Catholic majority or not.


[quote]If you think that's all I believe he did, then you really are looking at this way too simplistically and I'll probably just need to drop out of this discussion as I don't have time to go through all this simple easy stuff.[/quote]

Okay, mind telling me what he did that was so great?


[quote]You don't think the stats matter, and yet you make the claim that he spills all this blood? So you're okay with making a claim and not backing it up? Sorry, don't have time for that.[/quote]

"All this blood"? I made no such claim. I know that he spilled blood, I don't care how much he spilled. If he did it to one person simply because they defied his supreme dictatorship after he stole power for himself, then he's a tyrant.

[quote]I couldn't care less what the Vatican today has to say. And obviously you aren't interested in an actual educated discussion. Maybe I'll try this here again someday. peace[/quote]

Oh, how could I forget? Technically, you're not even Catholic!

[CatherineM]

[quote name='iheartjp2' post='1948462' date='Aug 13 2009, 11:09 PM']Really now? If you don't mind my asking, do you know how they lost their land? And why did they have to flee for losing their land. Most people would simply live as servants to another land-owner on their land, would they not? Or wouldn't they? I'm just curious as to why they would HAVE to leave Spain as, it seems, refugees.[/quote]

He didn't like talking about it much, but he was just a teenager, and his dad was jailed for being accused of being a Republican, and his mom and siblings were going to forced labor, but were able to escape. They lost their land because they couldn't exactly take it with them, and they left with just the clothes on their backs. So I guess you could say that they didn't lose their land, but rather abandoned it in fear for their lives. His dad was executed eventually.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='iheartjp2' post='1948491' date='Aug 13 2009, 11:34 PM']I was explaining my point for bringing up America in the discussion. I was wondering why it mattered whether or not America had a Catholic majority or not.[/quote]

Because my point was, at the time of Franco the Catholic Church supported the enforcement of Catholicism as the state religion (and suppression of non-Catholic religions) in nations where there was a Catholic majority. Since Spain at this time had a Catholic majority, my argument is that Franco was well within the limits of Catholic teaching to promote Catholicism as the state religion and to suppress the public practice of non-Catholic faiths.

As America does not have a Catholic majority nor is it led by a Catholic government the same policy does not apply.



[quote]Okay, mind telling me what he did that was so great? [/quote]

He wasn't perfect, but sure we can get into that soon. I would appreciate it if you would follow up on your contention of him being a tyrant and essentially a murderer.


[quote]"All this blood"? I made no such claim. I know that he spilled blood, I don't care how much he spilled. If he did it to one person simply because they defied his supreme dictatorship after he stole power for himself, then he's a tyrant.[/quote]

So then, back up your claim that he "stole" power illegally and that he murdered anyone without just cause.


[quote]Oh, how could I forget? Technically, you're not even Catholic! [/quote]

oh shocker and completely relevant after all moving on...

[Nihil Obstat]

Goldenchild, before you mentioned that a lot of the negative things said about Franco are unfair and exaggerated. Can you give a short list that goes over your counterarguments?

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1948515' date='Aug 13 2009, 11:52 PM']Goldenchild, before you mentioned that a lot of the negative things said about Franco are unfair and exaggerated. Can you give a short list that goes over your counterarguments?[/quote]

That would probably be the noble thing for me to do However I will admit that I haven't put such a list together (and honestly would probably be longer than a short list). So for now I'll just say that am much more adept (due to some ADD tendencies) at handling one or two examples/arguments at a time and going from there.

I am interested in writing more in depth about Franco someday and will probably have such a list made at some point, maybe for a book outline, but haven't gotten around to it and with the new semester starting monday probably won't be able to very soon.

Undoubtedly there are many arguments leveled against Franco, such as the numbers of people he allegedly oversaw the murder of, or his alleged alliance with Hitler, etc. etc. If there are any you are particularly interested in I will do what I can to address it.

So far the only substantiated argument against him is that he was a tyrant because he enforced Catholicism as the official state religion. I countered showing that this was not against Catholic teaching at this time. That is where we are at thusfar, I'm open to continuing that line of reasoning if there are objections.

Edited August 14, 2009 by goldenchild17

[Nihil Obstat]

I'm actually interested in anything you have to say regarding defence of Franco. I said short list because I figured it would be easier, but if you want to go in depth on one aspect, then I'd be just as thrilled to read it.
Anything that you think is your strongest point, really. I want to hear whatever you want to say.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1948543' date='Aug 14 2009, 12:04 AM']I'm actually interested in anything you have to say regarding defence of Franco. I said short list because I figured it would be easier, but if you want to go in depth on one aspect, then I'd be just as thrilled to read it.
Anything that you think is your strongest point, really. I want to hear whatever you want to say.[/quote]

fair enough. I'll put something up before long. Not sure how long or in depth it is, but may provide discussion fodder. Though I will say, for all the people against Franco nobody's putting anything forward against him... odd

But yes, give me a few minutes, or more

[goldenchild17]

Also I recommend reading Warren Carroll's "The Last Crusade" for a brief overview of a fair Franco representation.

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1948499' date='Aug 14 2009, 12:41 AM']Because my point was, at the time of Franco the Catholic Church supported the enforcement of Catholicism as the state religion (and suppression of non-Catholic religions) in nations where there was a Catholic majority. Since Spain at this time had a Catholic majority, my argument is that Franco was well within the limits of Catholic teaching to promote Catholicism as the state religion and to suppress the public practice of non-Catholic faiths.

As America does not have a Catholic majority nor is it led by a Catholic government the same policy does not apply.[/quote]

Well, you weren't exactly clear that the Church had a campaign to suppress non-Catholic religions in countries with a Catholic majority and an established Catholic government. Anyway, I find that absolutely reprehensible.


[quote]He wasn't perfect, but sure we can get into that soon. I would appreciate it if you would follow up on your contention of him being a tyrant and essentially a murderer.[/quote]

You know, you would make this Franco sound a bit better if you actually talked about some of the good things he did instead of making so much out of the whole Catholic government thing.


[quote]So then, back up your claim that he "stole" power illegally and that he murdered anyone without just cause.[/quote]

Well, as for murder, CatherineM has already divulged the story of the father of her Godfather being murdered by Franco for the accusation of being a Republican (ie. wanting a government that existed for him instead of he for it).

As for "'stealing' power illegally", I never made such a claim. I said that he seized power for himself after an arduous and hard civil war in which the government of Spain was in disarray. The only reason many people liked the government under this guy is because he created stability out of the chaos that preceeded his reign. Other than that, I still think he was a tyrant:

"After the end of World War II, Franco maintained his control in Spain through the implementation of repressive and authoritarian measures: the systematic suppression of dissident views through censorship and coercion,[2][3] the institutionalization of torture,[4] the imprisonment of ideological enemies in concentration camps throughout the country (such as Los Merinales in Seville, San Marcos in León, Castuera in Extremadura, and Miranda de Ebro)[5], the implementation of forced labor in prisons[6] and the use of the death penalty and heavy prison sentences as deterrents for his ideological enemies[7]." (taken from the Wikipedia article titled [i]Francisco Franco[/i].

I know many believe Wikipedia to be inaccurate and unreliable in many instances (which I believe it to be in some), but the great thing about Wiki is that there are references. I invite you to check out the page and check the references for the above statements.

The article goes on to talk about Nixon toasting to Franco saying that "General Franco was a loyal friend and ally of the United States". Personally, I think he was wrong to do this simply because he was tough on communism. He toasted to a political thug.

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1948527' date='Aug 14 2009, 12:57 AM']So far the only substantiated argument against him is that he was a tyrant because he enforced Catholicism as the official state religion. I countered showing that this was not against Catholic teaching at this time. That is where we are at thusfar, I'm open to continuing that line of reasoning if there are objections.[/quote]

That was NOT my sole objection. I objected to the fact that he didn't give everyone equal protection under the heavy hand of his regime. Also, to add to that, he used propaganda for the purpose of controlling people (in other words, lying to his people). You're still claiming that he wasn't tyrannical?

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='iheartjp2' post='1948561' date='Aug 14 2009, 12:14 AM']Well, you weren't exactly clear that the Church had a campaign to suppress non-Catholic religions in countries with a Catholic majority and an established Catholic government. Anyway, I find that absolutely reprehensible.[/quote] It wasn't a campaign, it was Catholic policy at the time. Reprehensible or not, it was Catholic social doctrine. [quote]You know, you would make this Franco sound a bit better if you actually talked about some of the good things he did instead of making so much out of the whole Catholic government thing.[/quote] And you'd make him sound bad if you provided any evidence that he was so. The back and forth goes both ways. [quote]Well, as for murder, CatherineM has already divulged the story of the father of her Godfather being murdered by Franco for the accusation of being a Republican (ie. wanting a government that existed for him instead of he for it).[/quote] And I can provide stories of people living quite happily under him. Individual anecdotal stories, while they do play towards the emotional card, do not provide the whole clear picture on a man or a group. But just to balance out the field on this front:

"I am glad to see Franco defended here. I lived under him as a child, and a woman could walk alone at 3 a.m. in downtown Madrid without the least fear [and I don't mean a streetwalker]. Now you walk at 3 p.m. on the Gran Via and the Puerta del Sol afraid of being robbed at any moment, and having to gaze at every sort of lewd conduct and form of dress. One of the previous posters said Spain's Catholicism was in decadence since the 1800's, but I can tell you that it was alive and well in the 1960's. Churches were often jam packed, standing room only. Masses on the hour every hour starting at 6 a.m. - 1 p.m. We had three churches within walking distance. Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Holy Saturday, adults wore black and did not play the radio or watch T.V. We got off school on Holy Days, not national holidays, and everyone went to Mass. As a child, if you saw a priest or nun in the street, you would run up and hug them [if you weren't a shy kid] and they usually would give you a holy card or a piece of candy. . . . I know nothing of Catholicism in Spain in the 1800's. I just wanted to point out how it was under Franco. Perhaps he restored it from a fallen state? I don't know. He was very faithful I know. I do know that people in Spain generally think of themselves as "Catolico Apostolico Romano", Apostolic Roman Catholic, whether they practice the faith or not, because Catholicism is such a part of their identity. Other memories...I remember late at night El Sereno tapping his stick on the sidewalk outside our house to let us know all was well. Serenos were night watchmen who walked the streets, making sure all was safe. I remember the religious processions, especially during Holy Week. Sometimes we would catch one while traveling through Spain, coming into a little pueblo celebrating it's patron saint's holiday. During Holy Week, prominent members of the city would dress in what here would be termed a Ku Klux Klan outfit, in order to disguise themselves, and they would walk barefoot the entire procession, and do other penances. The costume was to hide their identity. It has no relation to the KKK!! At school, we would go to confession every two weeks without fail, to the same little old priest who listened patiently to all the sins of all the little girls in the school. During May we went every day to chapel to recite litanies and bring the BVM flowers. Our family, being American, celebrated Chrismas the American way. My Spanish friends celebrated it as a religious holiday, with families gathering that day, having dinner, going to midnight Mass. The day for getting presents was January 6, Three King's Day. Instead of believing in S. Claus,the kids believed in the three kings, and would leave their shoes out, plus food for the camels the night before. The preceding weeks, at the department store, the three kings would be there, and you had to pick one king, and tell him what presents you wanted. Kids did not receive a vast amount of gifts either. There was strict censorship of the movies. I remember a Jerry Lewis movie was deemed "no apto para menores de 14 anios" [Not apt for children under fourteen]. I can't remember which of his flicks it was, but their censorship was pretty strict, very protective of children. People have berated Franco for keeping Spain so closed. Now Spain is prospering economically, but at what price? Like here, "freedom" has befouled the entire country. You cannot serve God and mammon. I would prefer Franco's "poverty" to Spain's present day "riches."

[quote]As for "'stealing' power illegally", I never made such a claim. I said that he seized power for himself after an arduous and hard civil war in which the government of Spain was in disarray. The only reason many people liked the government under this guy is because he created stability out of the chaos that preceeded his reign. Other than that, I still think he was a tyrant:[/quote] Because he enforced Catholicism as the state religion? The Catholic Church supported this at the time (and Pius XII directly commended Franco for his Catholic victory). I'm sorry if you disagree with this, but that seems more like a personal problem. [quote]"After the end of World War II, Franco maintained his control in Spain through the implementation of repressive and authoritarian measures: the systematic suppression of dissident views through censorship and coercion,[2][/quote] It wasn't a democracy. I can just come back and say he was protecting the faithful. This is basically a subjective argument with no objective fact behind it. Maybe he did repress views, but I say he did this to protect the people. So in my opinion it was a good thing to do. [quote][3] the institutionalization of torture,[4][/quote] I'd need a more concrete example of the torture ordered by him. I'm not saying there was absolutely no wrong done by the Nationalist army, because no matter how noble a cause there will always be some who do wrong. Even the holy Crusades are riddled with controversy because of the unChristian actions of many of the knights. The thing we need to keep in mind is that I'm quite sure Franco's wrongdoings were few and farbetween in comparison to that of the Republican army. Again, maybe you would like to review some of the evils committed by his enemies? He was not a heartless tyrant imho, I know that he had many of the Republicans' (his enemies) bodies buried at Valle de los Caídos (The Valley of the Fallen) which he had built commemorating the heroes of the war, and where he himself was buried. I don't know why a heartless torturer would care to do that. [quote]the imprisonment of ideological enemies in concentration camps throughout the country (such as Los Merinales in Seville, San Marcos in León, Castuera in Extremadura, and Miranda de Ebro)[5], the implementation of forced labor in prisons[6][/quote] "Ideological enemies"? Please. Maybe you aren't familiar with just how much worse the other side was? [quote]and the use of the death penalty and heavy prison sentences as deterrents for his ideological enemies[7]." (taken from the Wikipedia article titled [i]Francisco Franco[/i].[/quote] Again that term... And I'm not opposed to the death penalty so that's not going to be helpful in an argument with me. [quote]I know many believe Wikipedia to be inaccurate and unreliable in many instances (which I believe it to be in some), but the great thing about Wiki is that there are references. I invite you to check out the page and check the references for the above statements.[/quote] Wiki can be useful for a quick check-up and I use it all the time. Couldn't have gotten through all my years of school without it. That doesn't mean I agree with the article. [quote]The article goes on to talk about Nixon toasting to Franco saying that "General Franco was a loyal friend and ally of the United States". Personally, I think he was wrong to do this simply because he was tough on communism. He toasted to a political thug.[/quote] And you think Pope Pius XII was wrong as well. I will side with the Pope and Mr. Nixon. There are claims that 100,000 died under Franco but no evidence of the graves. Franco saved 10,000's of Jews by issuing them Spanish passports. General Franco did not bring about genocides or destruction of villages like the Republicans did. 6,832 priests and religious were killed by the various factions on Republican side - Msgr. Antonio Montero lists the names, dates and places of their deaths in the appendices to his work Historia de la Persecucion Religiosa en Espana. The Nationalists under Franco did also kill a number of priests (though clearly no comparison to those slaughtered by the Republicans). However, even priests are not above the law. The difference is that the Nationalists executed a small number of priests for the crimes they had committed. The Republicans murdered thousands of priests just for being priests. I do think it would have been better, more prudent for the Nationalists to tread a little lighter in regards to the clergy who sided with the Republicans, but they didn't murder them simply because they were clergy like the Republicans did. Instead it was because there were pro-Republican priests, "...[preaching] homilies exalting nationalism, colaborating with and aiding the gudaris (Basque militia) , passing information on the positions of army units, intercepting messages and even carrying weapons to show off... (Tovar p. 252)

Again, there should be no denying that Franco's nationalist army did kill quite a few people and maybe some unfairly (that happens in war sometimes). But I believe his intentions were very good and did his best, despite some mistakes, to minimize the atrocities “Franco gave orders to the generals commanding their columns that 'the reduction of rebel strongholds should be carried out energetically, excluding cruelty, with absolute respect for women and children, and avoiding any type of outrage whatsoever'” (Torres, p. 230)

In 1954 Pius XII names Franco to the “Supreme Order of Christ” (The highest award given by the Holy See), in gratitude for the signing of the new Concordat between Spain and the Holy See. The imposition of the Great Colar of this Supreme Order, took place in the chapel of the Royal Palace the 25th of January of 1954, by the Cardinal Primate of Spain, Pla Y Deniel. 
Before receiving the colar, Franco made a profesion of his Christian and Catholic faith and he added the following paragraph to the profesion: “I promise and swear and I wish to maintain this oath until my last dying breath, that with the help of God, I shall constantly hold and profes integraly and inviolably this Catholic Faith in the same way that I have spontaneously declared it and profesed it now; and as far as it concerns me as governor I shall procure that it be profesed, taught and practiced by my subjects and for those who I have as my charges now and in the future. I Francisco Franco Bahamonte, promise lastly and swear to God almighty, to the Blessed and Immaculate Virgin Mary and to all the saints, that assisted by the grace of God, I shall allways lead an exemplary life with the virtues that should be practiced by a good soldier of Christ. May God help me and the Holy Gospel.”

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='iheartjp2' post='1948586' date='Aug 14 2009, 12:46 AM']That was NOT my sole objection. I objected to the fact that he didn't give everyone equal protection under the heavy hand of his regime.[/quote]

Other religions equal protection, and I don't care about that because based on Catholic policy at the time he had no requirement to do so.

I don't know of any evidence in which he didn't protect people of other faiths regarding non-religious matters. And actually I already posted that he had saved quite a few thousand Jews by providing them passage into Spain away from Hitler.

[quote name='iheartjp2' post='1948586' date='Aug 14 2009, 12:46 AM']Also, to add to that, he used propaganda for the purpose of controlling people (in other words, lying to his people). You're still claiming that he wasn't tyrannical? [/quote]

Yes that is my claim and I have provided at least a start to the defense of this claim. You on the other hand have not provided any evidence whatsoever, just many claims. I don't have time for that. What lies? Sources?

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='14 August 2009 - 04:52 AM' timestamp='1250239924' post='1948641']
<!--quoteo(post=1948586:date=Aug 14 2009, 12:46 AM:name=iheartjp2)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (iheartjp2 @ Aug 14 2009, 12:46 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948586"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That was NOT my sole objection. I objected to the fact that he didn't give everyone equal protection under the heavy hand of his regime.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Other religions equal protection, and I don't care about that because based on Catholic policy at the time he had no requirement to do so.

I don't know of any evidence in which he didn't protect people of other faiths regarding non-religious matters. And actually I already posted that he had saved quite a few thousand Jews by providing them passage into Spain away from Hitler.

<!--quoteo(post=1948586:date=Aug 14 2009, 12:46 AM:name=iheartjp2)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (iheartjp2 @ Aug 14 2009, 12:46 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948586"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, to add to that, he used propaganda for the purpose of controlling people (in other words, lying to his people). You're still claiming that he wasn't tyrannical? <img src="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dry.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="dry.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Yes that is my claim and I have provided at least a start to the defense of this claim. You on the other hand have not provided any evidence whatsoever, just many claims. I don't have time for that. What lies? Sources?
[/quote]

Okay, after talking to someone about the guy and doing a bit of reading up, I've come to the conclusion that he wasn't a [i]horrible[/i] man, but certainly not someone to hold up as an example. He was pretty much the lesser of two evils and Spain was lucky to have someone to stand up the left-wing faction of the country at the time. However, there's still the issue of a dictatorship and vesting power solely in himself. There's also the issue of people being murdered (and we're not getting into details, you'd be lying if you said no one got hurt under this reign simply because this guy wanted to thwack them). In short, he's not the greatest guy, but he was good enough for what the times called for, good enough meaning the preserver of the Spanish state from communism.

Edited August 21, 2009 by iheartjp2

[goldenchild17]

Fair enough. If thats the conclusion you come to I'm not going to take it any further. I completely disagree I think he was a great man in his times and was completely devoted to the Church (based on records we have of what he said on the matter). Its possible he made a few mistakes (yet no one here has been able to pinpoint exactly what those were and if those can be proven to be attributed to him and not someone under him), but I think he was a great man and a great leader and nothing in this thread (or in my reading) has shown me otherwise.