Either "Fascism" or "Franco", as you please.
BBC Two's overlong piece of what was essentially human interest rather than current affairs baldly referred to Franco and his regime as "Fascist" even though he was never so much as a member of the Falange, he never attended the whole of any of its conferences, and even his allies in that were thoroughly disliked and distrusted by the full-blown Fascists in things like the Fuerza Nueva.
So what, you may say? His was still rather an unpleasant system and manner of government. Indeed it was. But just as the practices under discussion, if it could be so described, were depicted as if they had been utterly unknown in Britain in the same period and had been motivated by nothing other than sheer callousness, so Franco's opponents were astonishingly referred to only as "the Antifascists". Really?
The Spanish Civil War was fought between those who entirely predictably went on to back the Axis while officially neutral, and those who wanted to turn Spain into a satellite of, initially, a de facto member of the Axis, as Spain would also have been if the Republicans had won. Indeed, she would have been so even more than she was under Franco, since the Soviet Army actually fought alongside that of Nazi Germany, notably staging a joint victory parade through the streets of Brest-Litovsk. If Hitler had also had such a relationship with a Soviet-dominated Spain, then he would probably never have reneged on the Nazi-Soviet Pact, and therefore might very well have won the War.
The Spanish Civil War has always split Old Labour into its constituent subcultures. It did at the time. The Hard Left is as ardently pro-Republican as ever, because of its myopia, even now, about Stalinism, because of its anti-Catholicism, because of the general overrating of Orwell and because it oddly supposes that he was one of its own. Meanwhile, Catholics, at least if pushed or if they know anything at all about it (as almost no younger Spaniards do, either), will still back the Falangists, whose ostensible Catholicism was a perversion defined by its reaction against other things, although there have been worse such before, at the same time, and since. No one else will have much, if any, view on the matter. But we need to face facts. Even if Franco was no Hitler, neither side deserves our historical sympathy. Franco, as much as anything else, maintained, and occasionally tried to press, a territorial claim to staunchly Catholic and staunchly British Gibraltar.
Since Soviet archives were opened up, all sorts of information has come to light. The entire Republican cause was Comintern-directed, and the Soviet intervention was in no sense parasitic as has traditionally been supposed or asserted. For example, far from being commanded by a Canadian volunteer, the International Brigade was in fact commanded by Manfred Stern, a Soviet Commissar. But then, there never was an anti-Soviet Left in Spain in the 1930s; that myth has been astonishingly long-lasting considering its complete and utter baselessness. Take, for example, Francisco Largo Cabellero, Socialist Party Leader and Popular Front Prime Minister. Entirely typically of his party, he defined it as a revolutionary force wholly distinct from British Labour or the French Socialists, and differing "only in words" from the Communists. The Socialist Party's 10-point programme of 1934 was wholly Leninist in form and substance, calling, among other things, for the replacement of the Army and the Civil Guard with a workers' militia, and for the dissolution of the religious orders and the expropriation of their property. One could go on, and on, and on.
Stalin only loosened his grip once the Civil War was clearly lost, long after the Republicans themselves had given up what little commitment to democracy that they might ever have had. So the best that can be said about the Spanish Civil War is that the not-quite-so-bad bad guys won. If the even-worse bad guys (the Republicans) had won, then Spain would actually have fought with the Axis just as the Soviet Union did, the Nazi-Soviet Pact would probably never have collapsed, and Hitler might therefore very well have won the War.
Before watching the BBC Two effort, I listened to a Radio Four programme on the physical abuse of children in Britain's madrassas, where corporal punishment is still legal, as in theory it would be in Sunday schools, for example. The usual suspects will not know what to say about this, since they want the cane back in state schools, the birch back for thieves and thugs, the return of policemen giving clips round the ear to unruly youths, and so on. But Auntie knows what to say, of course: "Muslims might end up as bad as the Catholic Church." Sometimes, I really do wonder why I bother.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I enjoyed this post. What books would you recommend for the Spanish Civil War?
ReplyDeleteStanley G. Payne, 'The Spanish Civil War, the Soviet Union, and Communism' (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004). Invaluable.
ReplyDeleteThe now suddenly all too celebrated (and overestimated) anarchists were the anti-Soviet Left. They were the main culprits in physical attacks on clergy and monasteries.
ReplyDeleteIf the Soviets were directing the rest of the Left, it probably was not to their disadvantage.
You need to read Payne's book. Or my last one, or my next one, since it is in both of them.
ReplyDelete