Spanish Civil War.

Remove all ads!

Of course and no offence taken. I was justing pointing out that the Nazi over Soviet advantage in frag per year ratio wasn't such a given as you thought it to be. I don't think reds have killed many English folks, right?

 

The Red Army did exactly the same things .

Communism completely destroys a society , it is hard to realize just how deep the communist destruction goes

 

Yes, that's what I ment. They did it, however, in revenge.

In theory? No. In practice? 99 times out of 100, yes.

 

What if I start to call people like and Rutkowski commies? After all, you are always deffending these commie murders... I dont think you would like either.

A bunch of leftist media guys will surely bash Franco. Of course Che Guevara and Castro are world heroes.
And no, "Republicans" committed the worst crimes. Just read my original post. War casualities dont count you know.
-----------------------------------------------------

No, he was not. He was a conservative Christian. Read Chevaliers post.
Typical leftist media demonizing tactic. Everyone they dislike is a fascist or a nazi.

Dude, stop twisting the whole situation. These bastards murdered mostly PEASANTS! Do you think PEASANTS were the great representants of the Tzar and the White Army?
It is not double standards, but you dont have the least discerniment of morality or historical facts.
---------------------------------------------------

War casualities dont count. I would like to see SOURCES for Francos troops raping women. For a credible source.
---------------------------------------------------

Haha. I am no big fan of german nazi soldiers, but what you say is pure BS! Where did you get this info? Simon Weisenthal Center? No need to spew crap like that, we all know how bad nazis were.

Assumptions. The commies murdered over 100 million people in less than 100 years. How many the nazis killed? War casualities dont count.

Franco's purges were not revenge or punishment, but this is?
----------------------------------------------------

Just dont forget these were the asiatic Red Army troops. I sent you a PM before with an interview regarding that, remember?

Yes, but some Scandinavians and other westerns who never faced communism think they have the moral right to deffend communism, since they are fed by lies of their leftist media, thinkers and politicians.
PS: It would be good if this thread remained about the Spanish Civil War.

 

Sorry dudes, even Franco himself disagrees with you.


The liberal world, in giving adult suffrage, made them conscious of their own strength. Then the revolutionary process, accelerated by various crises, started. During the last war Russian demobilization led to a situation in which communism seized power and established a barbarian dictatorship of the proletariat. A similar phenomenon manifested itself in Italy after the war, but Mussolini's genius instilled all just and human elements interested in the Italian revolution into the Fascistis' aims.

Mussolini welded the two elements closely and united his own heart into the synthesis of the fascist revolution-a social urge and a national idea. Later, Germany found a new solution for the popular yearnings in national socialism, which unites the national and social idea for the second time in Europe with the special peculiarities of race thirsting for international justice.

Those are not isolated movements, but rather aspects of one and the same general movement and mass rebellion throughout the world. On the face, a new useful consciousness emerged, which reacts against the hypocrisy and inefficiency of the old systems.

Generalissimo Francisco Franco, Madrid December 8, 1942

 

I dont see that is his quote.

 

When you start using your double-standards on others, I'll defend them too.

I don't know what leftist channels you watch, but in Swedish media, they are pretty much considered scum of the earth.

Say that to the wives, husbands, sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, and siblings of the ones murdered during a war, but not in an actual skirmish.

And how about those 135.000 prisoners who died AFTER the war?

Read BOCs post.

Neither were the civilians executed in Spanish concentration camps, but what do you know?

Please don't flame, it's against the forum rules. I have morals, and I use historical facts.

Where did I get that from? I can begin with the book 'Operation Barbarossa' by Lieutanant Colonel Eddie Bauer, then I follow up with 'Stalingrad' by Anthony Beever, then 'the Red Front' by Anthony Beever, then I finish it up nicely with 'Stalin's Revenge' by Niclas Sennerteg. Or, any other source describing the Eastern Front during the World War II. How's that for ya, or are they all dirty commie liars who work for the NWO?

6 million Jews, 1.5 million leftists of Europe(at least), and at least 10 million civilians on the Eastern Front that also were killed out of combat. That adds up to 17.5 million, multiply that by ten, and suddenly the Stalinists have lost their fifteen minutes of fame.

???

Yes, the Mongolians, for example, were responsible for a lot of these murders, but so were the Slavs. Don't try to minimilize the damage they have done.

Yes, but these are things that are comparable to the Spanish Civil War, and we haven't had problems with that before.

[ October 02, 2005, 22:33: Message edited by: Rutkowski ]

 

I don't have the time to start looking for endless amounts of sources and even then you could just condemn them as socialist propaganda. Anyway there's allways rape in wars and it happens on both sides, if you imagine that francos troops did no raping and acted 100% honorably throughout the war then you have a highly idealistic picture about him and his troops.

Also the 135 000 killed after the war can hardly be counted as war casualties. It was massmurder pure and simple or an act of revenge or whatever. It was not a just punishment in any way.

 

@Svyatoslav

Let's see, he is praising Hitler, he is praising Mussolini, he is obviously including his movement in this "mass rebellion", so you yes I think you are right, he wasn't a fascist, he was a raving leftist liberal commie .

 

You only defend commies, which is suspicious.

I already mentioned about 5 or 6 major US/UK leftist channels in another thread. You might check them if you are interested.

As I said before, I want sources for non-War casualities.

These were the ones punished for raping nuns and murdering clergymen. Or for supporting the "people" who did this.

As I said to him, I did not find anything close to an admittance there.

These were commies, people who supported the murderes who assassinated clergymen and nuns, and who still wanted to turn Spain into a mini SU.

I am not flaming you. It would be good if you did not try to make it sound as if I am breaking forum rules.
However, your response that said commie murderes were massacrating peasant because they were representants of the Tzar is just...

And you think these people know more than me or my grandparents who went through this? Or the other millions of survivors? No they dont. If you want a serious Western War historician you might check John Keegans books, who, despite being a bit russophobic, dont spread these stupid fairy tales.
The germans were brutal, yes, and I am glad they received their payback, but there is no need to create these lies.

Yes, and 99% of these were killings were made during the Wars. The commies killed 100 million people in peace times. You are telling me you cant see the difference? And it is not like the millions of Russian civilians who died during the War - whom were more than 10 millions actually - were killed in concentration camps you know. Most of them died in bombings or as collateral effect - as the great US air force like to put.

You said you could understand Red army soldiers taking revenge, but not Franco's forces revenging against nun's rapists and murderes?

No, you are actually wrong. The Slavs certainly took revenge, but rape is not something we did partake. And the most attrocities were committed by our Asiatic troops, fueled by our non-Slavic leaders such as Stalin and Ellie Ieremburgh.

I think we could open a separate thread really.
----------------------------------------------------

I dont want to be rude or anything, but if you dont have time to look for sources, dont enter in discussions in which you are going to be required to have them, in order to have credibility.
------------------------------------------------------

No, but not a fascist either. That is like saying Mussolini was a nazi, instead of a fascist, considering he was pro-hitler...

 

I defend those who you are using lies to put in an even worse position than before.

Right, and you've also said that FOX isn't a rightwinged channel.

And the ones killed by Lenin and his goons were punished for being against his rule. It's no difference.

Read his second post.

There you have it again, you blame the Stalinists for one kind of genocide, but praise Franco for another. Genocide is genocide, no matter for what reason.

...comparable to your slanders?

Wow, I pull up FACTS with SOURCES, and what do you do? Discredit them as liars. You are really ****ing ignorant, and as I've said before, discussing with you is like talking to a stone wall.

Except, I've provided facts and proof.

Also, don't discredit me for knowing nothing. 85% of my father's mother's family were killed in the WWII, by both Germans and Russians. I've researched into this for over eight years, I know more than you think.

It doesn't matter, since they were killed in incidents like the one I've mentioned before, and it was OUT OF COMBAT. Can you read it, or do you want me to send you a soundfile of me reading it out loud?

Now, what I did when comparing your quotes were showing another proof of your hypocrisy and where you have contradicted yourself. Nice job missing it!

Once again, read the books above. Out of the millions of slavs who fought for Stalin, there was more than one account of mass-rapings.

I don't. In fact, I think we should collect all your lies here and discredit them, as it's going pretty well, so you don't **** up the rest of the forums.

Except, that's what you've been doing in practically every discussion you've partaken in.

Yes, let's ignore all the eye-witnesses, all the survivors, history books all over the world, and historians all over the world. After all, they are only pinko commie liberal dissenters, right?

 

I think we should divert our efforts into a more relavent debate: If Napoleon Bonaparte was an American, would he have been a Tory or a Whig?

 

if he were American, he wouldn't have bothered with Whigs, he would have gone straight for Rogaine.

 

Yes, because it is certainly a lie to call criminals people who rape and kill nuns, among other facts I have mentioned - and presented sources.

I said they were typical neo cons pro-israel type of people. Since you constantly misquote me, it seems like a case of purposedly lying.

Do you have some kind of problem or what? There is an abysm of difference. He killed people he thought were useless to his regime. Franco killed people who wanted to turn Spain into a mini-SU, and who had committed all kinds of attrocities, or supported them.
Every time I refute you, but you decide to bring this again. But I take you dont have much arguments anyway.

I replied to that already.

Self defense shall always be self defense.

Which exactly? I dont remember breaking rules since I was warned some time ago.

Shall I take your sources against the testimony of my family, relatives, friends, etc? I dont think so.
You are probably misquoting them anyway.

Which contradicts the testimony of survivors. I am sure these books mention the attrocities made by the germans, because they were real, but I am sure you made a good job exaggerating them.

Why should I care? This has nothing to do with the Eastern Front.

Since you can not make a logical conclusion, let me spell out to you: These were incident within the War, which always happen, because you know, there are bombings, cross fire, etc. The 100 millions figure is devoid of these "details", because it was "peaceful times". Meaning 100 million people were put to death in concentration camps, shot, hanged, etc. I dont think it is so hard to understand.

No, because I never said we had no right to take revenge. We had, Franco had. Revenge is everyone's right.

Do you even know what a Slav is? You know, it is not because he lives in a Slavic land that he is a Slav. I am not surprised, since people think zhidnovsky is "Russian".

It is up to you if you want to keep breaking the Forum rules.
Also, I dont think you are up to the task of "discrediting" lies.

Maybe you could refresh my mind?

You are already changing your line of reasoning and appealing to sarcasm. It is not "eye-witness" and survivors who decide who is a fascist or not.

 

It does not matter if you don't want to be rude if you actually are rude. Don't patronize me, I looked for sources but I did not find anything which would have rape statistics for both sides of the civil war. I don't have the time to start doing extensive research in the subject, it does not however prevent me from taking part in the discussion. It's not like you've presented a source to every damn statement you've made.

EDIT: Asking for sources is not rude, but I don't appreciate people telling me where I should post and when unless they are mods.

 

I dont think it is rude to ask for sources. But I know some people are damn sensitive.

 

Well, well, I see here is another example of rules breaking of the highest order.

People -- Please follow the rules. It appears that some need to read them more carefully. There is a lot of denial, while at the same time blatant rule breaking on a grand scale. You have been asked repeatedly to use PM for personal flames, rather than detract from the topic at hand. Please do so.

[ October 03, 2005, 05:21: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

War is hell. Funnily enough, most people who've experienced bitter conflict first-hand have no desire to do it again. We should never accept war as just; at best, war and acts of war are defensible, not justified. I can't remember who said it (was it Robert E. Lee?): "It is good that war is so terrible, lest we become too fond of it."

Saying that everything is acceptable in war is a crock; while sites of conflict are by nature chaotic and uncontrollable, granting a blanket absolution with "These things happen in wartime" is tantamount to giving people license to indulge in unmitigated sadism (which history shows will be abused regardless of ideology). This is particularly true when the conflict is fuelled by ethnic tensions or has genocidal overtones, but as the massacre of My Lai demonstrates, horrible things happen in war.

Off the top of my head, I can name a few cases where this applies: Bosnia, the invasion of the USSR in WW2, and Rwanda. Hell, in the second case, Hitler granted amnesty for war crimes committed against the Slavic and Russian people to his troops. This is not unexceptional, since the same thing happened in Poland, but this time, that amnesty was granted before the invasion. Certainly in Rwanda, exhortations to commit atrocities and violations of the most vile nature were not uncommon. Srebrenica was not a spontaneous thing - murder and rape were purposively deployed as weapons of genocide during that conflict (especially the latter, given the beliefs of the victims).

I don't know much about the Spanish Civil War. All I know is that a lot of people died, a lot of war crimes were committed, and that Franco's forces won. Franco went on to become a highly successful (read: repressive) dictator - his unemployment laws are a perfect case study in political control and abuse of power. The fact that one side committed atrocities doesn't absolve the other from responsibility for its conduct. While Communist states have proven to be gruesome, violent and repressive, that is not to say that the alternative - any alternative - is wholly justified because of its opposition to communism. Personally, I see nationalism as a form of institutionalised racism, but that's just me.

Franco was a tyrant, and history can demonstrate that. I don't imagine the Spanish communists would have been any better, and I think that the truism about the victor writing the history may be relevant here. Ultimately, and with admittedly lamentable ignorance of the subject, it seems like it was a "neck-deep in urine/bucket of vomit" situation for the Spanish people to me.

I know I'm being a little unfair to Svy with this selective quote, but this is the heart of the problem. Revenge is not a right, and should never be seen as one. I believe that justice is a right, and that justice implies a certain level of civility and due process. Killing, raping, torturing and abusing civilian populations or prisoners of war is never justifiable, no matter what the circumstances are; "victor's justice" is just another term for cold-blooded murder, if conducted without formal process.

 

Well, I dont mind that you point this out. However, this is a matter of ideology I guess. This same discussion can be applied to penal laws. There are those who defend the point of view that penal laws exist to make the criminal payback - to restitute - the society for his crimes. There are others who believe criminals should be punished for their crimes, and that is all. You can find this discussion in Durkheim - who is already outdated, but speaks about this matter anyway. I am one of the second group of people. I am just like that, if someone does something vile, I dont expect him to restitute anything back to the society or to me, I just want to see him punished and suffering. I guess I am just too much rightist, but I dont like this leftist idea of taking away the responsability of the individuals, or trying to destroy the idea of punishment of the penal laws.
I think it is more a ideological stance than anything else, although I could back it up with a more "sociological" approach.

 

Svy,

I don't believe in positivist explanations for criminality; if someone commits a crime, there will always be a variety of reasons why. I'm more leftist in my perspective on criminality than most, I would imagine, but to a point, there is always an element of choice involved. The greater the element of free will and lack of compulsion or necessity in the crime, the more culpable I believe the offender to be, and thus the emphasis on punishment (rather than another aim of sentencing) should be greater. It's probably one of the reasons why I tend to spit hellfire about corporate and political criminality; in my experience, it's so much more calculated and deliberate.

Of course, the issue of "what is a crime?" will vary dependent on the nature and complexity of the society in question. I don't think Durkheim is entirely outdated on this one - I think that his arguments about the "cult of the individual" in more complex societies are particularly salient today - but that the rationalisation of punishment has changed. To an extent, it does and will always fulfil a vengeful instinct, but that should not be the sole emphasis of the justice system in a supposedly civilised nation.

To argue that the criminal had no choice in their actions, that it was pre-determined from birth, is to undermine one of the essential elements of justice (that mens rea is necessary for a crime). However, we should never stoop to retribution without a consideration of all that is relevant to the crime, even if we determine that someone is in fact guilty.

Sorry about the -ness of this... back to the Spanish Civil War, folks!