Politics Exhumation of Franco

[Mokordo]

Four-and-a-half decades after the death of Francisco Franco, the late dictator’s remains were exhumed on Thursday morning from the Valley of the Fallen monument before their transfer to a cemetery in Madrid.

Franco’s exhumation: Bringing an end to a symbol of the Spanish dictatorship

Forty-four years later, the remains of the late autocrat were transferred from the Valley of the Fallen today to a cemetery in Madrid, cheered on by supporters

elpais.com

Fotos: The exhumation of Francisco Franco from the Valley of the Fallen, in pictures

The remains of the dictator were today transferred from the controversial monument to the Pardo-Mingorrubio cemetery, where supporters gathered with banners and flags

elpais.com

Franco exhumation: Spanish dictator's remains moved

After a legal battle, the body of the late dictator is being reburied at a less controversial site.

www.bbc.com

I supose that PSOE is trying to obtain some extra votes in next general elections with this absurd show which nobody has ever claimed.

 

[Ivan le Fou]

Too bad they are not planing on dumping the remain in the sewer...

 

[Jake84]

Political decision before elections, true. How many “nostalgic” of Franco were still mourning him and leaving flowers to his grave anyway?

 

[berkut76]

Too bad they are not planing on dumping the remain in the sewer...

I have to disagree. Franco didn't let commies take power in Spain. He kept the country out of WWII. At the very least, he saved hundreds of thousands if not millions of Spanish lives given the alternatives.

 

[Chazman]

I have to disagree. Franco didn't let commies take power in Spain. He kept the country out of WWII. At the very least, he saved hundreds of thousands if not millions of Spanish lives given the alternatives.

Great point!

 

[muck]

I have to disagree. Franco didn't let commies take power in Spain. He kept the country out of WWII. At the very least, he saved hundreds of thousands if not millions of Spanish lives given the alternatives.

…and he killed tens of thousands as well, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed at his behest during the civil war, and established no less than 160 concentration camps in Spain. I agree Franco was nowhere near the league of psychopathic F***s like Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini, and he does deserve credit for having raised the living standards of Spain and for having paved the way for her transition to democracy.

And yet he wasn't just a benevolent concerned citizen driven to extreme measures under the spell of extreme times. He was a ruthless dictator who sought to mould every Spaniard to his liking, and those that couldn't be moulded he tortured into submission, and those that wouldn't submit he had murdered.

Spain is still reeling from his rule to this very day. Tens of thousands of Spanish families are still looking for relatives disappeared under Franco's rule, and thousands of parents are still looking for their children that Franco had had taken from them and given to "politically reliable" parents.

He shouldn't be remembered as a hero. The decision to exclude him from Spain's official pantheon seems quite right.

 

[Mordoror]

This is funny that as soon you scream "commies" some of the worst genocidal maniacs are excused...
Franco, Pinochet, Gallieri, the brasilian junta, the indonesian junta et al...
Often by people coming from the same corner of the world.
Definitively it seems that we do not share the same values....

 

[Mordoror]

…and he killed tens of thousands as well, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed at his behest during the civil war, and established no less than 160 concentration camps in Spain. I agree Franco was nowhere near the league of psychopathic F***s like Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini, and he does deserve credit for having raised the living standards of Spain and for having paved the way for her transition to democracy.

And yet he wasn't just a benevolent concerned citizen driven to extreme measures under the spell of extreme times. He was a ruthless dictator who sought to mould every Spaniard to his liking, and those that couldn't be moulded he tortured into submission, and those that wouldn't submit he had murdered.

Spain is still reeling from his rule to this very day. Tens of thousands of Spanish families are still looking for relatives disappeared under Franco's rule, and thousands of parents are still looking for their children that Franco had had taken from them and given to "politically reliable" parents.

He shouldn't be remembered as a hero. The decision to exclude him from Spain's official pantheon seems quite right.

My above rant aside, i dont think that he paved the way toward a demicratical turn.
If anything his regime was borderline stasi like with a pinch of christian fundamentalism and a huge dislike for republican/democratic systems.
The one that Spain can praise for the good democratic transition is the king back in the 80s that embraced progressive ideas (progressive in comparison with the hyper conservative -bordline backward- Franco's lead of the country)

 

[muck]

My above rant aside, i dont think that he paved the way toward a demicratical turn.

There's a curious ambivalence to Franco's policies prior to the transition period, I'll give you that; but there also is a lot that to my eye distinguishes his political testament from that of other dictators, who grudged no pain to ensure either their dictatorship would outlast their life or everything would go down in flames. As far as I know, Franco did not do either.

For instance, he did go back to the Bourbons who were notoriously anti-Francoists – and whilst he did try to influence Juan Carlos he also turned a blind eye to the future king's intentions and his undermining of him.

This is funny that as soon you scream "commies" some of the worst genocidal maniacs are excused... Franco, Pinochet, Gallieri, the brasilian junta, the indonesian junta et al...

That's true, but let's not ignore the opposite position is just as widespread and just as contentious. Franco was backed by some of the most vile people of his era, but so were the Republicans. The havoc wreaked upon the world by fascism only a few years later seems to prove them right, but it's also been cloaking a veritable catalogue of crimes and ill intentions, much like the crimes of fascism have often deflected attention away from those of socialism.

Besides, the likes of Pinochet are a different kettle of fish altogether. Pinochet faced a bunch of students and workers to the radicalization of whom he contributed more than Marx and Mao. Unlike Franco, he didn't face all-out war, he didn't face the threat of a 1917-style socialist revolution, so his actions must be judged more harshly. I'll happily condemn Franco's deeds, but I'd also point you to the fact the widespread support of fascism in the 1930s was not just a response to political agitation but also to a very real threat of cruel civil war backed by Moscow.

It's about time, anyway, more people realise how badly socialism's refusal to back the cause of democracy in that period contributed to the rise of fascism. If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times: 'right' and 'wrong' are words for the court room. History only cares about causes and effects.
And one of the many untold truths about socialism is the tragically ironic fact that some Jewish Eastern Europeans – bearing in mind their treatment by the Central Powers during the First World War – initially supported the German invasion of the Soviet Union, believing their suffering under the heel of innately anti-Semitic socialist sentiments had come to an end.

 

[TheKiwi]

Nothing I've read about the behaviour of the Republicans during the civil war (especially once they started to get NKVD "advice") leads me to believe that the amount of mass murder etc. would have been any less rigourously applied had they won the civil war. In particular their behaviour towards each other during their own disagreements between the Socialists, Communists and Anarchists suggest that a mass murder purge was inevitable.

 

[Mordoror]

There's a curious ambivalence to Franco's policies prior to the transition period, I'll give you that; but there also is a lot that to my eye distinguishes his political testament from that of other dictators, who grudged no pain to ensure either their dictatorship would outlast their life or everything would go down in flames. As far as I know, Franco did not do either.

For instance, he did go back to the Bourbons who were notoriously anti-Francoists – and whilst he did try to influence Juan Carlos he also turned a blind eye to the future king's intentions and his undermining of him.



That's true, but let's not ignore the opposite position is just as widespread and just as contentious. Franco was backed by some of the most vile people of his era, but so were the Republicans. The havoc wreaked upon the world by fascism only a few years later seems to prove them right, but it's also been cloaking a veritable catalogue of crimes and ill intentions, much like the crimes of fascism have often deflected attention away from those of socialism.

Besides, the likes of Pinochet are a different kettle of fish altogether. Pinochet faced a bunch of students and workers to the radicalization of whom he contributed more than Marx and Mao. Unlike Franco, he didn't face all-out war, he didn't face the threat of a 1917-style socialist revolution, so his actions must be judged more harshly. I'll happily condemn Franco's deeds, but I'd also point you to the fact the widespread support of fascism in the 1930s was not just a response to political agitation but also to a very real threat of cruel civil war backed by Moscow.

It's about time, anyway, more people realise how badly socialism's refusal to back the cause of democracy in that period contributed to the rise of fascism. If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times: 'right' and 'wrong' are words for the court room. History only cares about causes and effects.
And one of the many untold truths about socialism is the tragically ironic fact that some Jewish Eastern Europeans – bearing in mind their treatment by the Central Powers during the First World War – initially supported the German invasion of the Soviet Union, believing their suffering under the heel of innately anti-Semitic socialist sentiments had come to an end.

For the first part, i am not sure to agree.
From what i gathered from my courses including in spanish language, the fact that Franco was back to the Bourbons through Juan Carlos was for him a clever move to ensure his position in regard to the church and royalty (so indirectly some kind of popular support as the king was popular) while undermining the most hard core far right parts of his faction (kinda a long knife night but institutional).
Cannot confirm if that analysis holds or not though.

For your second part i agree . On a pro left board having the same speech but reversed i would have had the same reaction that i did here. It is just the orientation of this board that points toward one target. But as you say, the opposite position is as widespread (and no less despicable)

 

[Mordoror]

Nothing I've read about the behaviour of the Republicans during the civil war (especially once they started to get NKVD "advice") leads me to believe that the amount of mass murder etc. would have been any less rigourously applied had they won the civil war. In particular their behaviour towards each other during their own disagreements between the Socialists, Communists and Anarchists suggest that a mass murder purge was inevitable.

A purge and internal infighting would have been inevitable. Depending of who would have prevailed (and forgetting the nearby WW2 context) a "red" spanish totalitarian state may or may have not lasted as long as the franquist state. That' s the main divergent point and question.

Let be clear, Franco was a dick.
I mean after the expectable years of purge he could have gone Salazar way (dictator, yes but of smooth kind) but he kept instead the iron gauntlet almost until the end.

Funnily Salazar and him cannot stand each others over -among other things- their respective way of ruling

 

[Jake84]

Funnily Salazar and him cannot stand each others over -among other things- their respective way of ruling

There’s the old rivalry between Spain and Portugal, even to this day in football, but more seriously dictators often despised each others throughout History even if their political meandering were close enough.

Benito had very few respect for Adolf before the war and had a number of famous quote depicting the Führer rightfully as an insane madman that would only hasten the fall of Germany. And yet he went to war hand in hand with him later on (even during the Spanish civil war where both Italians and Germans were involved).

 

[Mordoror]

There’s the old rivalry between Spain and Portugal, even to this day in football, but more seriously dictators often despised each others throughout History even if their political meandering were close enough.

Benito had very few respect for Adolf before the war and had a number of famous quote depicting the Führer rightfully as an insane madman that would only hasten the fall of Germany. And yet he went to war hand in hand with him later on (even during the Spanish civil war where both Italians and Germans were involved).

That's true but Benito reversed the sail pretty rapidly, after the first german victories

Salazar and Franco were neigjbours with two very different personalities and policies.
Franco had set up a cult of personalities and implemented a concentration of power around the party, the church and the army.

Salazar was against cult of personality and on some aspects was borderline "socialist"
The power was distributed between the church and corporations.

Franco was all decorum, shining and pimp. Salazar was behaving like a monk.

Oh Salazar was a ruthless mofo when it suited him (in particular in the colonies)
But as in any dictatorship if you had political opposition hunt, political police and torture, it was far from being as widespread as you had in Spain.

Sure Spain was out of a civil war and grudges and paranoia were high and a civil war and follow up is probably the worst situation for a country. Yet terrible things were carried on with Franco and Phalange approval until mid 70s so pretty late.

 

[muck]

For the first part, i am not sure to agree.

Well, I'm no psychologist. Maybe he was getting gullible with age, maybe he softened seeing the end draw nigh as many men do, or maybe he was so full of himself he believed he still had his lock on everything. I was merely giving you my take on the matter. I'd interpret the last fifteen-or-so years prior to Franco's death as a period of tentative reforms.

epending of who would have prevailed (and forgetting the nearby WW2 context) a "red" spanish totalitarian state may or may have not lasted as long as the franquist state.

That's not a matter of ideology nor Franco's leadership style though, I think. Francoist Spain survived as long as it did due to the country's neutrality during the war, which kept it available as a partner to Western democracies. A "red" Spain, on the other hand, might have even outlived the Soviet Union by following a simple rule: joining the non-aligned states.

 

[Dercius]

This is one of the most retarded stunts I have seen in my entire life.

Jeeeeez….. like the biggest problem Spain has had for the last +40years was moving Franco out of "El Valle de los Caidos".
This retarded Socialist government beheaved exactly as hardcore Franquists would have done. They kept on fighting to get their great and beloved leaders last will granted, as Franco always said that he wanted to be buried in "El Pardo" with his wife. They didnt mind the millions of € spent on this charade in order to get their beloved leader finally to the place he always wanted to rest at.

And now what?? tomorrow morning everybody will ride a unicorn that poops rainbows?? Overnight the +4million unemployed will get a new job with a 3000€ paycheck??

I will let you know tomorrow.

 

[Mokordo]

A convenient smokescreen, to hide real and urgent problems, and creating confrontation, what usually benefits them in elections. Those manoeuvres and and dramatic effects are only lookin for partidist benefits, and are not due to general interest, and I doubt if also is a type of historic delayed revenge.

 

[muck]

It'd been in the making for years though, right? At least that's what's reported on my site of the language barrier.

 

[Mokordo]

It'd been in the making for years though, right? At least that's what's reported on my site of the language barrier.

Really serious from 2017, but they only remembered it before general elections, bombing with related news and televised talk shows conveniently .

 

[Mordoror]

Well, I'm no psychologist. Maybe he was getting gullible with age, maybe he softened seeing the end draw nigh as many men do, or maybe he was so full of himself he believed he still had his lock on everything. I was merely giving you my take on the matter. I'd interpret the last fifteen-or-so years prior to Franco's death as a period of tentative reforms.


That's not a matter of ideology nor Franco's leadership style though, I think. Francoist Spain survived as long as it did due to the country's neutrality during the war, which kept it available as a partner to Western democracies. A "red" Spain, on the other hand, might have even outlived the Soviet Union by following a simple rule: joining the non-aligned states.

The take was up to where it would have been red
Socialist may indeed have been more neutral. After all several NATO countries and NATO partners had socialist govs (like France and Italy)
Full commies may have aligned themselves with Moscow, threatened the South Western flank of NATO (so brace for political destabilization)
Anarchists; well i dunno, they would have been probably the more keen to get none-aligned.