Questions in Milan (2)

  • By:karen-millen



Pius Moa1018

2) Another thesis that seems deliberately concocted to arouse the indignation of progressives is that Spain should rejoice that the Civil War was won by the Francoists instead of the Popular Front. For what reason should we think that Franco's right-wing dictatorship was preferable to a left-wing dictatorship? The Popular Front was armed and conditioned by Stalin, but the nationals had the support of Hitler and Mussolini. Isn't it about two similar evils? There are many reasons, but I will present five here, which seem sufficient to me: 1. Stalin came to effectively lead the Popular Front, while Franco maintained its independence from Hitler and Mussolini. In the middle of the civil war, in 1938, due to the Munich crisis that was about to unleash the European war, Franco openly proclaimed that in case of war between the fascist powers and the democracies, he would remain neutral. This made a terrible impression in Rome and in Berlin, and shows the true situation. The leaders of the Popular Front would never have dared to do something similar in relation to Stalin.2. Another reason was put forward by Gregorio Marañón and Julián Besteiro. Marañón was a liberal intellectual who greatly influenced the arrival of the republic and for this reason he was called "spiritual father of the republic", but he admitted: "My respect for the truth forces me to recognize that the Spanish Republic has been a tragic failure". And he went further: "We will have to be cursing for years the stupidity and the villainy of these criminal cretins (he was thus referring to the Popular Front), how to put buts, even if there are, to those on the other side (to the Francoists)? " As for Julián Besteiro, he was a socialist leader who opposed the revolutionary drift of his party. At the end of the war he expressed that the Francoists, with their "anti-Comintern crusade", and even taking into account their defects, had freed Spain from Bolshevism "which is perhaps the greatest political aberration that centuries have known". These two intellectuals reflected the opinion of many more people: weighing the pros and cons, the Francoists had freed Spain from a real nightmare.3. Franco kept Spain out of the world war, he did not allow himself to be dragged into it, like Mussolini. This was an immense benefit for Spain, because he freed her from mortality and sacrifices much greater than those of the civil war. But it was also an enormous benefit for the Allies, because the entry of Spain into the war would have meant the closure of Gibraltar and the western Mediterranean by the Germans, which, for a few months in 1940 and 1941, could have changed the course of the war. . And also on the occasion of the Allied landing in North Africa. The strong pressure from Hitler to drag Franco into the contest in 1940-41 cannot be surprising, contrary to what a series of disoriented or disorienting historians claim today.4. There is a radical difference between an authoritarian dictatorship, such as Franco's, and a totalitarian dictatorship like so many others of the 20th century. The Polish intellectual Leszek Kolakowski, a former communist, recognized that Franco's Spain was much freer than the regimes of Eastern Europe, and Solzhenitsyn also clarified this, to the outrage of the Spanish left. A Polish professor explained it to me like this: "In Poland opposition to the dictatorship was much more difficult than in Spain, because in Poland the first thing that the dissident lost was his job, since the state was the general employer of the whole world, the owner of all companies. That in Spain never happened. The number of public employees and officials was always low and is today almost six times higher than under Franco. With a small state, like the Franco regime, totalitarianism is impossible. The number of police officers was also much lower than it is now, and there were no private, regional, and other police forces. And yet today there are five times more prisoners in jail than then. As for political prisoners, after the early 1940s their number dropped rapidly, and when the amnesties came after Franco's death, there were less than four hundred political prisoners in jail for a country of 36 million inhabitants. And almost all of them were communists and terrorists, that is, they were totalitarians. In Franco's prisons there were practically no democrats or liberals, nor socialists except in the first post-war period. Today there are also more political prisoners than in the Franco regime, since those of the ETA are politicians, as the government admits behind the scenes, when it speaks of "political solutions". These data reveal that the passions and hatreds of the republic and the war had been forgotten, and Spain was a reconciled country.5. Another reason why it was much better that the Francoists won was economic development. Of course, Spain started from an economic level lower than that of the rich countries of Europe, also that of Italy, but it did not receive the Marshall Plan, which restarted the European economies, and was also subjected to international isolation for many years. . Despite all this, in the years 60 to 75, the growth rates in Spain were the highest in Europe, and the income per inhabitant reached 80% of the average of rich Europe, a percentage that did not return to reached until the end of the 20th century. Economic prosperity, and above all the forgetting of the hatreds of the past, made possible a democratic transition without many traumas, and despite the opposition of terrorists and rupturists. Which also legitimized the Franco regime from the democratic point of view. Propagandists often compare Franco to Hitler or Mussolini, but this is absurd. Not only was Franco's regime comparatively more liberal, but he left behind a rebuilt country and not one in ruins like those. I believe that these are compelling reasons for preferring the victory of the nationals in the civil war, although there are many others. --------------------------------------------http://www. -------------------------------------------------- Today, in El economista QUALITY OF LIFE In the past, it was said standard of living, and later the concept of "refined" in quality of life, which indicates the same thing: level and quality of entertainment and the consumption of the most diverse merchandise, from clothing to education or condoms. Really barbaric concept, which reduces personal life to a pedestrian level and easily manipulated. A clearly visible feature of our time is a gigantic capacity for consumption and entertainment. It is not that the two things are bad per se, but it is probably the focus of life on them, to the point of occupying almost the entire vital horizon. Apparently, and according to more or less explicit ideologies, society advances quickly and almost relentlessly towards a growing consumption and entertainment achieved with less and less work, and this is the meaning of life and history. Some will see it as a nightmare and others as an ideal, depending on taste. But if, regardless of taste, it is something really bad, it must constitute a kind of social disease. In what would it manifest? Consider the spread of drugs, prostitution, or alcoholism, themselves part of entertainment culture, as well as other less amusing aspects, such as mass abortion and divorce, school failure, the rise in crime, nervous, family abuse, etc., which suspiciously accompany the "quality of life." Abortion, so enormously widespread today, is of special interest. It is an assessment: is the fetus a human life in the making or just a clump of cells, not too different from a tumor, in the mother's body? The difference matters, though I suspect abortionists don't care one way or the other. All things considered, if we understand human life as a race to consume and be entertained, it is not so tragic that many of those lives are frustrated in embryo.

Other blogs


 Preguntas en Milán (2)

Questions in Milan (2)
  • 476
  • how to match clothing dye for green tactical pants 5.11

Related Articles