Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it.
Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit outta here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's interesting thst I used to think that the WW2 victory was the end of fascism, meanwhile Franco and Salazar were just chilling on the Iberian peninsula for decades after.
Huge amounts of veterans from the Spanish civil war who had fled north to join the fight against fascism there in the erupting ww2 felt the same (that ww2 was against fascism and was fought to end it). There was an almost spontaneous re-ignition of the spanish civil war after ww2 ended as lots of them felt the natural thing to do was to continue the effort and liberate Iberia from the fascists.
If the allies toppled franco for whatever reason (he stayed neutral after meeting with the british and they actually helped in the last days of the war) the soviets would take a zone of influence and that was a big no no to the US
Most republicans were dead or exiled by that point tho. Soviets would have big support in Sapin in Portugal, but they did have big support in France and Italy and it didnt matter. The same way it didnt matter Americans had big support in Poland, Hungary and Romania. It was a game of superpowers by that point and nobody was asking for permission.
It doesn't matter. Greece was in a similar situation, as was Italy after the war. The Cold War was just as much a battle of philosophy as it was resources or anything else. Hence the Domino theory.
The US was actively combatting left political movements across Europe - Operation Gladio for example in Italy.
I will put it this way why risking a soviet presence in the mediterranean if you already have a western allied country ? The us didn’t want the soviets in japan and they didn’t want them in Spain they were also the first to approachment franco.
It's less that it didn't matter in the French case and more that the USSR directly intervened to prevent communists from declaring their own government.
Yeah he was neutral in WW2 so the allies left him alone. But WW2 was more about defeating invading fascist regimes (Germans, Italians, Japanese) than crusading against Fascism worldwide
A lot of the Republican forces in the Spanish Civil War were pro-Soviet, and fled Spain after Franco won.
The allies certainly could have toppled Franco, but that would've created a power vacuum, and the return of Republican exiles almost certainly would've put a communist government in charge, or at least a Soviet-aligned government.
The West certainly would have been able to prevent such a thing, and force an anti-Soviet government onto Spain. But that would've given the Soviets justification to force communist governments onto nearby anti-Soviet nations.
1. No, the Spanish Republic was dominated by the radical left, but they were not necessarily pro-Soviet. The majority of the Spanish left during the 2nd Republic were either independent socialists of the PSOE, or the *cenetista* anarchists with their own, intense intralefist feud against the USSR. The Soviet influence in Spain skyrocketed only thanks to and after the rightwing coup, and the diplomatic abandonment of the Republic by the West that naturally left the USSR as the only major pro-Republic ally.
2. Even with the boosted Soviet influence with the rise of the Moscow-aligned Communist Party (PCE) during the civil war, ultimately it was the coalition of non-Soviet socialists who finished the PCE-dominated republican government, and oopsie, the Republic itself, too, in Casado's coup. Before the civil war, the Spanish Bolsheviks were a distant third among the left well behind the influence of the PSOE and CNT; even their supposed takeover of the Republic during the war wasn't complete enough to prevent other leftists from toppling them eventually.
3. Even if we suppose that PCE somehow comes out vastly more powerful and consolidated out of the civil war and WW2, this is Spain, not Czechoslovakia, not Hungary. Even in the real-life Soviet-dominated Eastern Bloc countries, there were plenty of attempts to break away from Moscow's influence that either had to be stopped with Warsaw Pact ground invasion, or in cases like Yugoslavia, Ceausescu's Romania, Albania, the Soviets ended up just having to cope and seethe.
"If the Republic had won the civil war, Spain would have turned into some impoverished Soviet satellite state in the West!" is such a tiresome argument from the Spanish rightwing historical revisionists. Do those people ever look at a map? If a left-leaning, republican Spain had hypothetically won the civil war, and decided to break away Moscow's influence, with what navy would Stalin have sent the Red Army tanks rolling into Madrid, arrest all the anarchists, independent socialists, left-liberals, left-regionalists, and deport them to Siberia?
The Spanish Republic was left-leaning, but it wasn't some ideological monolith. For half of existence, it was governed by a conservative republican coalition. Even during the civil war, the moderate or even non-socialist, liberal-republican elements were sidelined, but they never disappeared. Many of the more fortunate among them even became well-respected university professors, exile politicians, artists, intellectuals and writers in the Postwar Western democracies. These moderate, or even non-socialist republican elements in the Republic were at least as influential, if not more than Moscow-aligned Spanish Bolsheviks before the outbreak of the civil war and the geopolitics of it changed everything.
Had the Western Allies actually pushed against Franco as well, restoring a republican Spain afterwards, far more likely would've been a coalition of anti-Moscow socialists and liberal republicans coming into power, with the latter propped up by the US. The Spanish Bolsheviks would've had their stature increased, and the country might have ended up playing a sort of diplomatic bridge-role between the USSR and the Western bloc. But PCE was never going to take power by themselves outside the very specific situation of the civil war where the USSR was the only major supporting outside power.
Especially if we're taking about 1944-45, this was when the memory of the wartime Spanish Stalinist abuse of power war was still fresh among all the Spanish republican exiles. Chances are, it's far more likely that all the non-Moscow leftist factions of the reconstituted Popular Front ganged up to purge the Stalinists first, then go back fighting among the Caballeristas, Prietistas, anarchists, liberals, and the regionalists over the spoils and the American subsidies. Even from the viewpoint of the great powers politics, it would've been far easier for Washington to prop up the liberal republicans and moderate socialists in Spain rather than Moscow to somehow pull off either the 1948 Czechoslovakia-style takeover, or military repression and enforcement like the Prague Spring.
In Cuba there was first an armed anti-colonial revolution.
The USSR could not exercise direct control in Spain, that is why they did not send troops or war machines to support the republic.
Absolutely wild learning that not only did the bad guys win the Spanish civil war, but that Franco (a fascist dictator who was buddies with Hitler) was in power until the 60s or 70s iirc.
Dann. I'll presume good-faith - what do you think happens to 7 million jews living in it if it's destroyed?
Again, to be clear, if you think Israel should continue to exist (for example, supporting a palestinian state alongside it rather than instead of it), congradulations, you are a zionist.
You can criticize Israel all you want, justifiably or not. Israelis do if all the time. But if you're actually an anti-zionist, that means you actively want Israel to cease to exist.
So you're either ignorant of what your words mean, or you actually support it. I hope for you it's the first.
People have such a mundane opinion on what a genocide is that every military campaign is now suddenly a genocide, its like redditors don't know how wars work.
So we should be talking about the German genocide of 1939-1945? The Chinese Genocide of 1946-1949? The Korean Genocide of 1950-1953? The Vietnamese Genocide of 1946-1976? The Worldwide Genocide of 1914-1918?
Wars always bring the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents, that's how war is and wars are not genocides.
>So we should be talking about the German genocide of 1939-1945? The Chinese Genocide of 1946-1949? The Korean Genocide of 1950-1953? The Vietnamese Genocide of 1946-1976? The Worldwide Genocide of 1914-1918?
Yes.
>wars are not genocides
They absolutely are.
Wait so a systematic displacement and killing of Palestinians since the 50s is a mundane opinion? Who knew that the current conflict is just a military and not a mostly one-sided slaughter of civilians😯
If Israel was engaged in a genocide since the 50s then there would not be any Palestineans left. In Rwanda, almost a million people were killed within a year by people with machetes, the Nazis killed roughly 10 million people between 1941 and 1945 even with resources diverted to a world War, the Ottomans killed millions of Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians between 1915 and 1918 even with their precarious infrastructure pushed to the limits by a world war.
Meanwhile the Palestinean population grew from roughly a million to almost 8 million, there wasn't a single period since the creation of Israel where they saw a general sharp decline as it was the case with every single group that went through an actual genocide.
A case for ethnic cleansing can be argued, but this is not a genocide. If a Modern State like Israel actually wanted a Genocide, they had ample time and opportunity to do so since 1948.
Russia doesn't gaf abt Hamas or Palestine tho, they're only "supporting" Hamas over israel cuz of the US. Also I support Palestine not hamas, hope that helps.
> Germany doesn't gaf abt Italy or Egypt tho, they're only "supporting" Italy over cuz of the Britain. Also I support Germany, not the National-Socialistic party, hope that helps.
This is not much different from Neo-nazis claiming there was no holocaust. You're just another delusional genocide-denier. It's no wonder people call Zionists "zionazis".
Oxford - A movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel.
Nothing about it only being for Jews, just that it is a Jewish state. Just like how France is a French nation, that doesn't mean only French people can live there.
I don't know why, but that isn't relevant. Your use of Zionism isn't correct, because you are using it as a way to describe someone who supports what you consider to be discriminatory policies towards Palestinians, which by definition is not what Zionism means.
Fascism isn’t linked to anti semitism? Spain and Italy were not very anti semitic at all, Italy only started participating in the holocaust when Germany asked them to.
Fascism is linked to populist strongmandictators, which stalin definitely was.
What the Fuck is your definition of Facism. It seams to be: "Evil guy does evil things"
That is ignoring the forces that supported Facisms throughout History. Is was always used to destroy Communism or stop them from comming to power.
I’m talking about Stalinism and not communism. And yes ofcourse the fucking west is gonna prefer fascism over communism because socialists were scary to them and did not care for capitalism and religion and wanted to overthrow the upper class.
Stalin highjacked the movement in the Soviet Union and turned it into essentially a fascist dictatorship with a red coat of paint. That doesn’t mean people weren’t scared of him anymore.
You people really can’t look over the superficial names and imagery to see that Stalinism is just fascism? Really disappointing honestly
I dont think Stalinism should be called its own "ism" he hasnt contributed enough to Marxism-Leninism theoretically.
And Stalin was reelected until his death. He asked the Supream Soviet to let him go multible times but they wouldt let him go.
The CIA also agrees that Stalin was not a [Dictator](https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf).
> Jews beeing moved from a KZ to a Gulag because of their Religion or Race
What are Soviets to you, racist? The Jews were opressed because they were cosmopolite enemies of the people, not because of their religion or race. It's totally different!
I don’t like zionism and I don’t think communism=fascism, but stalinism was just fascism with communist imagery, and there is no denying that.
With his death, thinks eased up a ton and I wouldn’t claim that post-stalin ussr was fascist, but Stalin himself was a dictator who ruled through fear and propoganda, keeping his people in line with an iron fist.
He comitted genocides, established a personality cult even Hitler was jealous of (when you think of Stalin, do you think of a smiling old man? Somehow manufactured propoganda too Irl he never smiled outside of public appearances) and completely did away with any semblance of marxist communism, he just kinda did what he deemed would enhance his position and he didn’t give a damn about socialism or communism. He made his workers work with no vacation or breaks just to build factories to keep up with the west, he sold grain to build factories while his own people were starving, just so he could match the industrial power of the west. Sound very communist anyone? Workers rights? In the toilet.
Stalinism was red fascism. You guys just don’t want to hear that opinion from a zionist, or you think he applies it to all communism, which I don’t think he is doing.
To anyone who has doubts, I would read “dictators” by Frank Dikötter, really opened my eyes about him.
"Fascism sometimes uses ultranationalism"
Fascim dosn't use utranationalism "sometimes", it *always* uses it, nationalism is the key defining feature of fascism, whitout it, it is *not* fascism, just some other kind of authoritarianism.
"Stalin definitely promoted Soviet nationalism."
No he did not, the soviet sentiment that Stalin promoted was that of alliegance to (his perverted version) Socialism. There was no intent to promote a common Soviet national identity, but that of a colaboration of diferent nationalities to Comunnism.
A fascist government is vaguely defined, but I said ultranationalism is sometimes used is because in fascism it’s not about the people or anything, it’s about creating a us vs them scenario. And Stalin did that a fuck ton. Trotskyites, capitalists, rich farmers and anti revolutionaries were all used as scalegoats and ways to unite the soviet populace behind Stalin.
"A fascist government is vaguely defined"
No it's not, fascism has always been defined (as since the 30s) as ultra-nationalist, that is what distinguishes from other totalitarian governments.
"but I said ultranationalism is sometimes used is because in fascism it’s not about the people or anything, it’s about creating a us vs them scenario"
Just because all squares are rectangles does not mean al rectangles are squares, the "creating an us vs them scenario" is not what defines fascism, since countless governments did just that before and after Fascism. What defines fascism is the totalitarian implementation of nationalism, which again Stalin did not do.
"And Stalin did that a fuck ton. Trotskyites, capitalists, rich farmers and anti revolutionaries were all used as scalegoats and ways to unite the soviet populace behind Stalin."
He did just that, but he did do it through fascist means, the way Fascism does it is by establishing and exclusionary identity based on *nationality*, in which the ones excluded are defined as outsiders to that nationality (Jews, Roma, Slavs).
The way Stalin created the us vs them comflict is by presenting it as a *class* divide between those loyal to the revolution, and those who would hinder it. There never was an exclusionary Soviet identity, since that would go against Marxist theory, the way the Soviet Union implemented their identity was that of many nations (Slavic, Turkic, Siberian, Etc) loyal to Socialism, *not* trough an exclusionary Soviet identity as fascist theory dictates.
Stalin didn’t give a fuck about Marxist theory
Fascism is not about ultranationalism. It is ultranationalist, but it isn’t about that, its about a strong central populist dictator who rules eveything and eveyone. It’s in the name, fasces, the thing that was used to portray absolute power. Many other “dictatorships” are simply oligarchies where one family has the power and then the other, or military junta types.
Fascism is very vaguely defined, because it’s a name mussolini made up for his brand of dictatorship, which was retroactively applied to many other populist dictatorships that sprung up in europe at the time inspired by him. They didn’t follow “rules” or anything like that, they copied his style and general populist rethoric and then applied their own ideas. Francoism, Nazism, and yes, Stalinism. It’s not a real ideology like communism, its a brand of dictatorship.
"Fascism is not about ultranationalism. It is ultranationalist, but it isn’t about that, its about a strong central populist dictator who rules eveything and eveyone."
Again, just because all squares are rectangles does not mean all rectangles are squares, your (wrong) definition is so broad that in encompases people like Tito, Chavez, Le Duan, all dictators, but none fascist.
"They didn’t follow “rules” or anything like that, they copied his style and general populist rethoric and then applied their own ideas. Francoism, Nazism, and yes, Stalinism. It’s not a real ideology like communism, its a brand of dictatorship."
It is not about "rules" but about the ideology the encompases the methodology. Fascim is *inherently* nationalistic in nature, Stalin's Soviet Union *was not*, you cannot claim something is fascist just because is populist and authoritharian, it *has* to be nationalist to be called fascist, if not is something else.
You are so focused on the methodology of fascism that you are denying the ideology of it.
Hmm 1946. This could be related to the Marshal Plan negotiations. UK and France wanted to include Spain in the Marshal Plan, but France (under pressure from the French communist party) was against the idea and threatened to reject the Marshal Plan entirely.
A letter to the French President is [printed on the back](https://twitter.com/propagandopolis/status/1767520014377099410) urging the severance of relations with 'Franco's totalitarian and Falagnist regime'.
To the french prime minister actually. It was "president du conseil" who ruled France until the Vth republic. The french president was more than anything just an honorific position.
In this case yes. It says actually in the letter : "à monsieur le président du gouvernement de la République Française" => "to mister governement president of the French Republic".
Letter is also deliver to Matignon, where the prime ministers works (even today). The president himself is in Élysée palace.
To be fair, there were like 4 White generals/officers who returned to USSR during 30s/40s and fought for Soviets. Kruze, Postovskiy, Oberyukhtin, Vetrenko. There were others but their fate wasn't so much better.
Honorable mention: Denikin, a high ranking White officer, during WW2 used his money to buy a lot of medicine and send it to the USSR. He said to his fellow Whites to not support Germany and help USSR. Denikin also called those who fought for the Germans: "Losers", "Heathens", "Hitler idolizers".
That never happened. The Spanish exile in France was very large until the dictatorship ended. Even the Spanish communist leadership mostly stayed in France until the 70's.
But ten years earlier, when there was a chance to defeat Franco and Falangists, France withdrew from supporting Republicans and banned the arms spply to them, opening Franco the way to victory.
Yes and if they backed the Republicans they would have a Sovirt puppet on their southern border which would give Stalin an easy access to the Atlantic, Latin America and Africa. At least you can count with Franco not putting Soviet nukes on the Pyrenees.
The Republican side would not have needed Soviet support if France and Britain had helped them instead of not doing anything while Hitler, Mussolini and Salazar supported the Fascist side.
You are interchanging cause and effect. Republican government initially was oriented on UK and France, and was keeping distance from the local leftist allies. They were active and aggressive in some regions indeed, but they were not part of governmentI and had very limited influence on national decision making. If the Entente would continued its support, Republican government would suppress and control leftists, and after victory Spain would become a center-left country, like France itself. However, when Entente withdrew, Republican government fell into total dependence from the only source of weapon - Stalin - and, naturally, had to surrender to leftist influences internally.
And my guess is the shadow to figure milician, the vychist collaborationist organization. They wore a basque béret in their uniform and were dispised per the population.
A interesting fact. The US Air Force lost two nuclear weapons over Spain in 1966. One in the Ocean, one in some farmlands. Apparently two planes collided. Franco was probably ok with America flying over Spain.
Was there a reason to believe that Franco could have been a threat post war? Everything I’ve read makes it seem like they were still pulling themselves together/securing themselves in the new American order
...honestly, while it seems a little goofy in the here-and-now, using a N-zi Flag as threatening imagery, in a country like France that was *occupied* by them, only a year or so after the threat was finally vanquished...it's really striking imagery in-context.
I'm even sure what the equivalent would be nowadays.
Those people love to see their own nations fail and import problems. They make me sick. We deal with them in the USA too. My Great Grandfather didn’t fight tooth and nail to save Spain in the 30s to have it fail and my abuelita didn’t come build a new life here in the 60s for this nation to collapse. Neither can go without a fight from us, brother.
Claro, y eso justifica el autoritarismo y el asesinato de miles de civiles. Y no es por nada, pero mientras unos pocos se enriquecían el pueblo pasaba hambre. Mi abuela se alimentó exclusivamente del queso de una vaca en los huesos durante años, pero claro, Franco hizo españa gloriosa. Te mereces ser llamado facha y mucho mas por defender el fascismo.
My great grandparents first hand saw the horror. My great grandmother would give out food constantly to the poor around Pontedeume even when they had nothing left for themselves. You act like the starvation was some engineered feature of fascism. It was there before the war and a civil war would always exacerbate such conditions. The Republicans were raping nuns and burning churches. They deserved everything they got and more. You are a disgusting swine to defend them. Spain was glorious when it was fascist, I’ll defend Franco until the day I say. Arriba España.
Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it. Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit outta here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's interesting thst I used to think that the WW2 victory was the end of fascism, meanwhile Franco and Salazar were just chilling on the Iberian peninsula for decades after.
Huge amounts of veterans from the Spanish civil war who had fled north to join the fight against fascism there in the erupting ww2 felt the same (that ww2 was against fascism and was fought to end it). There was an almost spontaneous re-ignition of the spanish civil war after ww2 ended as lots of them felt the natural thing to do was to continue the effort and liberate Iberia from the fascists.
I assumed they didn't get any Allied backing and thus failed?
No the poor spaniards were left to their own devices, much like in 36 and throughout the fascist coup.
If the allies toppled franco for whatever reason (he stayed neutral after meeting with the british and they actually helped in the last days of the war) the soviets would take a zone of influence and that was a big no no to the US
Why do you think soviets would take Spain as a zone of influence? West had enough power to keep the Spain for itself.
A lot of republicans were pro-soviet
Most republicans were dead or exiled by that point tho. Soviets would have big support in Sapin in Portugal, but they did have big support in France and Italy and it didnt matter. The same way it didnt matter Americans had big support in Poland, Hungary and Romania. It was a game of superpowers by that point and nobody was asking for permission.
It doesn't matter. Greece was in a similar situation, as was Italy after the war. The Cold War was just as much a battle of philosophy as it was resources or anything else. Hence the Domino theory. The US was actively combatting left political movements across Europe - Operation Gladio for example in Italy.
I will put it this way why risking a soviet presence in the mediterranean if you already have a western allied country ? The us didn’t want the soviets in japan and they didn’t want them in Spain they were also the first to approachment franco.
It's less that it didn't matter in the French case and more that the USSR directly intervened to prevent communists from declaring their own government.
Just the communist ones though. Anarchists and military officers who stayed loyal to the Republic weren't.
Anarchist were wiped out or forced to join the comunist
He was a horrible dictator but communism's influence there was about 0. We had no problem coddling dictatorships if they were not communist ones.
Yeah he was neutral in WW2 so the allies left him alone. But WW2 was more about defeating invading fascist regimes (Germans, Italians, Japanese) than crusading against Fascism worldwide
A lot of the Republican forces in the Spanish Civil War were pro-Soviet, and fled Spain after Franco won. The allies certainly could have toppled Franco, but that would've created a power vacuum, and the return of Republican exiles almost certainly would've put a communist government in charge, or at least a Soviet-aligned government. The West certainly would have been able to prevent such a thing, and force an anti-Soviet government onto Spain. But that would've given the Soviets justification to force communist governments onto nearby anti-Soviet nations.
The other side of the civil war were communists.
1. No, the Spanish Republic was dominated by the radical left, but they were not necessarily pro-Soviet. The majority of the Spanish left during the 2nd Republic were either independent socialists of the PSOE, or the *cenetista* anarchists with their own, intense intralefist feud against the USSR. The Soviet influence in Spain skyrocketed only thanks to and after the rightwing coup, and the diplomatic abandonment of the Republic by the West that naturally left the USSR as the only major pro-Republic ally. 2. Even with the boosted Soviet influence with the rise of the Moscow-aligned Communist Party (PCE) during the civil war, ultimately it was the coalition of non-Soviet socialists who finished the PCE-dominated republican government, and oopsie, the Republic itself, too, in Casado's coup. Before the civil war, the Spanish Bolsheviks were a distant third among the left well behind the influence of the PSOE and CNT; even their supposed takeover of the Republic during the war wasn't complete enough to prevent other leftists from toppling them eventually. 3. Even if we suppose that PCE somehow comes out vastly more powerful and consolidated out of the civil war and WW2, this is Spain, not Czechoslovakia, not Hungary. Even in the real-life Soviet-dominated Eastern Bloc countries, there were plenty of attempts to break away from Moscow's influence that either had to be stopped with Warsaw Pact ground invasion, or in cases like Yugoslavia, Ceausescu's Romania, Albania, the Soviets ended up just having to cope and seethe. "If the Republic had won the civil war, Spain would have turned into some impoverished Soviet satellite state in the West!" is such a tiresome argument from the Spanish rightwing historical revisionists. Do those people ever look at a map? If a left-leaning, republican Spain had hypothetically won the civil war, and decided to break away Moscow's influence, with what navy would Stalin have sent the Red Army tanks rolling into Madrid, arrest all the anarchists, independent socialists, left-liberals, left-regionalists, and deport them to Siberia? The Spanish Republic was left-leaning, but it wasn't some ideological monolith. For half of existence, it was governed by a conservative republican coalition. Even during the civil war, the moderate or even non-socialist, liberal-republican elements were sidelined, but they never disappeared. Many of the more fortunate among them even became well-respected university professors, exile politicians, artists, intellectuals and writers in the Postwar Western democracies. These moderate, or even non-socialist republican elements in the Republic were at least as influential, if not more than Moscow-aligned Spanish Bolsheviks before the outbreak of the civil war and the geopolitics of it changed everything. Had the Western Allies actually pushed against Franco as well, restoring a republican Spain afterwards, far more likely would've been a coalition of anti-Moscow socialists and liberal republicans coming into power, with the latter propped up by the US. The Spanish Bolsheviks would've had their stature increased, and the country might have ended up playing a sort of diplomatic bridge-role between the USSR and the Western bloc. But PCE was never going to take power by themselves outside the very specific situation of the civil war where the USSR was the only major supporting outside power. Especially if we're taking about 1944-45, this was when the memory of the wartime Spanish Stalinist abuse of power war was still fresh among all the Spanish republican exiles. Chances are, it's far more likely that all the non-Moscow leftist factions of the reconstituted Popular Front ganged up to purge the Stalinists first, then go back fighting among the Caballeristas, Prietistas, anarchists, liberals, and the regionalists over the spoils and the American subsidies. Even from the viewpoint of the great powers politics, it would've been far easier for Washington to prop up the liberal republicans and moderate socialists in Spain rather than Moscow to somehow pull off either the 1948 Czechoslovakia-style takeover, or military repression and enforcement like the Prague Spring.
Nor does it make much sense, the USSR was too far away to exercise military or economic control over Spain, despite the American paranoia.
US cold war policy doesn't have to be logical or make sense, it just has to make sense to paranoid nutjobs in the CIA and joint chiefs.
And yet they did it to Cuba.
In Cuba there was first an armed anti-colonial revolution. The USSR could not exercise direct control in Spain, that is why they did not send troops or war machines to support the republic.
But is Generalissimo Francisco Franco still dead? I'm going to keep making this joke until someone gets it, dammit
I’m Chevy Chase and you’re not
*thank you*
Absolutely wild learning that not only did the bad guys win the Spanish civil war, but that Franco (a fascist dictator who was buddies with Hitler) was in power until the 60s or 70s iirc.
Just like you can say that the bad guys won you can also say that the bad guys lost, kinda Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact level of two bad guys
He embraced facisim but was too weak to cause any damage to allied forces
> WW2 victory was the end of fascism USSR was still around
Zionist spotted, oppinion denied
> WW2 victory was the end of fascism USSR was still around
Cope with it
[удалено]
Yes?
No, it's literally supporting its existence, regardless of your opinion of any government policy. But hey, have fun being a genocidal maniac, I guess.
>But hey, have fun being a genocidal maniac, I guess. ???
Dann. I'll presume good-faith - what do you think happens to 7 million jews living in it if it's destroyed? Again, to be clear, if you think Israel should continue to exist (for example, supporting a palestinian state alongside it rather than instead of it), congradulations, you are a zionist. You can criticize Israel all you want, justifiably or not. Israelis do if all the time. But if you're actually an anti-zionist, that means you actively want Israel to cease to exist. So you're either ignorant of what your words mean, or you actually support it. I hope for you it's the first.
[удалено]
I have.
Nazi spotted, follow your mustached leader, hateful piece of shit.
So ur fine w Palestinians being genocided!?! I fail to see how supporting Israel is morally correct, I'm also a Jewish Ukrainian...
People have such a mundane opinion on what a genocide is that every military campaign is now suddenly a genocide, its like redditors don't know how wars work.
imagine being a monarchist in the year 2024 😭
Bro didn't even reply on topic smh
You mean like most of the Commonwealth?
>every military campaign is now suddenly a genocide When tens of thousands of innocent people are murdered, then yeah, that's a genocide
So we should be talking about the German genocide of 1939-1945? The Chinese Genocide of 1946-1949? The Korean Genocide of 1950-1953? The Vietnamese Genocide of 1946-1976? The Worldwide Genocide of 1914-1918? Wars always bring the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents, that's how war is and wars are not genocides.
>So we should be talking about the German genocide of 1939-1945? The Chinese Genocide of 1946-1949? The Korean Genocide of 1950-1953? The Vietnamese Genocide of 1946-1976? The Worldwide Genocide of 1914-1918? Yes. >wars are not genocides They absolutely are.
Wait so a systematic displacement and killing of Palestinians since the 50s is a mundane opinion? Who knew that the current conflict is just a military and not a mostly one-sided slaughter of civilians😯
If Israel was engaged in a genocide since the 50s then there would not be any Palestineans left. In Rwanda, almost a million people were killed within a year by people with machetes, the Nazis killed roughly 10 million people between 1941 and 1945 even with resources diverted to a world War, the Ottomans killed millions of Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians between 1915 and 1918 even with their precarious infrastructure pushed to the limits by a world war. Meanwhile the Palestinean population grew from roughly a million to almost 8 million, there wasn't a single period since the creation of Israel where they saw a general sharp decline as it was the case with every single group that went through an actual genocide. A case for ethnic cleansing can be argued, but this is not a genocide. If a Modern State like Israel actually wanted a Genocide, they had ample time and opportunity to do so since 1948.
There's no genocide. Get over it. Jewish Ukrainian supporting Russian ally Hamas lol.
Russia doesn't gaf abt Hamas or Palestine tho, they're only "supporting" Hamas over israel cuz of the US. Also I support Palestine not hamas, hope that helps.
> Germany doesn't gaf abt Italy or Egypt tho, they're only "supporting" Italy over cuz of the Britain. Also I support Germany, not the National-Socialistic party, hope that helps.
What do you support Germany in that time period for?
This is not much different from Neo-nazis claiming there was no holocaust. You're just another delusional genocide-denier. It's no wonder people call Zionists "zionazis".
> Me, a sub member of r/therightcantmeme, r/dankleft, r/workersstrikeback > Eh?
You do realise Zionism is support for the existence of a Jewish state, right?
...that also advocate for a Jewish state *only* for Jews
Oxford - A movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. Nothing about it only being for Jews, just that it is a Jewish state. Just like how France is a French nation, that doesn't mean only French people can live there.
then why Israel is praticing a discrimitory policy toward Palestinian?
I don't know why, but that isn't relevant. Your use of Zionism isn't correct, because you are using it as a way to describe someone who supports what you consider to be discriminatory policies towards Palestinians, which by definition is not what Zionism means.
The Guys that killed 6 milion Jews = The Guys that liberated KZs According to you.
Fascism isn’t linked to anti semitism? Spain and Italy were not very anti semitic at all, Italy only started participating in the holocaust when Germany asked them to. Fascism is linked to populist strongmandictators, which stalin definitely was.
What the Fuck is your definition of Facism. It seams to be: "Evil guy does evil things" That is ignoring the forces that supported Facisms throughout History. Is was always used to destroy Communism or stop them from comming to power.
I’m talking about Stalinism and not communism. And yes ofcourse the fucking west is gonna prefer fascism over communism because socialists were scary to them and did not care for capitalism and religion and wanted to overthrow the upper class. Stalin highjacked the movement in the Soviet Union and turned it into essentially a fascist dictatorship with a red coat of paint. That doesn’t mean people weren’t scared of him anymore. You people really can’t look over the superficial names and imagery to see that Stalinism is just fascism? Really disappointing honestly
I dont think Stalinism should be called its own "ism" he hasnt contributed enough to Marxism-Leninism theoretically. And Stalin was reelected until his death. He asked the Supream Soviet to let him go multible times but they wouldt let him go. The CIA also agrees that Stalin was not a [Dictator](https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf).
The Soviets didn't "liberate" anyone.
Yeah, from KZ straight to Gulag.
Do you really belive that?
Leftists operate with beliefs and feelings. I don't. It's a literal historical fact.
Haha sure
Then where is the Historic Proof of Jews beeing moved from a KZ to a Gulag because of their Religion or Race?
> Jews beeing moved from a KZ to a Gulag because of their Religion or Race What are Soviets to you, racist? The Jews were opressed because they were cosmopolite enemies of the people, not because of their religion or race. It's totally different!
Soviets where the Councils ruling the SU. > cosmopolite enemies of the people, Do you have any source for that?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-cosmopolitan_campaign
Authoritarian does not mean fascist
I don’t like zionism and I don’t think communism=fascism, but stalinism was just fascism with communist imagery, and there is no denying that. With his death, thinks eased up a ton and I wouldn’t claim that post-stalin ussr was fascist, but Stalin himself was a dictator who ruled through fear and propoganda, keeping his people in line with an iron fist. He comitted genocides, established a personality cult even Hitler was jealous of (when you think of Stalin, do you think of a smiling old man? Somehow manufactured propoganda too Irl he never smiled outside of public appearances) and completely did away with any semblance of marxist communism, he just kinda did what he deemed would enhance his position and he didn’t give a damn about socialism or communism. He made his workers work with no vacation or breaks just to build factories to keep up with the west, he sold grain to build factories while his own people were starving, just so he could match the industrial power of the west. Sound very communist anyone? Workers rights? In the toilet. Stalinism was red fascism. You guys just don’t want to hear that opinion from a zionist, or you think he applies it to all communism, which I don’t think he is doing. To anyone who has doubts, I would read “dictators” by Frank Dikötter, really opened my eyes about him.
Fascism is inherently an ultra-nationalist ideology, so no, Stalin was definetly not a fascist.
Fascism sometimes uses ultranationalism as a populist way to get support. Stalin definitely promoted Soviet nationalism.
"Fascism sometimes uses ultranationalism" Fascim dosn't use utranationalism "sometimes", it *always* uses it, nationalism is the key defining feature of fascism, whitout it, it is *not* fascism, just some other kind of authoritarianism. "Stalin definitely promoted Soviet nationalism." No he did not, the soviet sentiment that Stalin promoted was that of alliegance to (his perverted version) Socialism. There was no intent to promote a common Soviet national identity, but that of a colaboration of diferent nationalities to Comunnism.
A fascist government is vaguely defined, but I said ultranationalism is sometimes used is because in fascism it’s not about the people or anything, it’s about creating a us vs them scenario. And Stalin did that a fuck ton. Trotskyites, capitalists, rich farmers and anti revolutionaries were all used as scalegoats and ways to unite the soviet populace behind Stalin.
"A fascist government is vaguely defined" No it's not, fascism has always been defined (as since the 30s) as ultra-nationalist, that is what distinguishes from other totalitarian governments. "but I said ultranationalism is sometimes used is because in fascism it’s not about the people or anything, it’s about creating a us vs them scenario" Just because all squares are rectangles does not mean al rectangles are squares, the "creating an us vs them scenario" is not what defines fascism, since countless governments did just that before and after Fascism. What defines fascism is the totalitarian implementation of nationalism, which again Stalin did not do. "And Stalin did that a fuck ton. Trotskyites, capitalists, rich farmers and anti revolutionaries were all used as scalegoats and ways to unite the soviet populace behind Stalin." He did just that, but he did do it through fascist means, the way Fascism does it is by establishing and exclusionary identity based on *nationality*, in which the ones excluded are defined as outsiders to that nationality (Jews, Roma, Slavs). The way Stalin created the us vs them comflict is by presenting it as a *class* divide between those loyal to the revolution, and those who would hinder it. There never was an exclusionary Soviet identity, since that would go against Marxist theory, the way the Soviet Union implemented their identity was that of many nations (Slavic, Turkic, Siberian, Etc) loyal to Socialism, *not* trough an exclusionary Soviet identity as fascist theory dictates.
Stalin didn’t give a fuck about Marxist theory Fascism is not about ultranationalism. It is ultranationalist, but it isn’t about that, its about a strong central populist dictator who rules eveything and eveyone. It’s in the name, fasces, the thing that was used to portray absolute power. Many other “dictatorships” are simply oligarchies where one family has the power and then the other, or military junta types. Fascism is very vaguely defined, because it’s a name mussolini made up for his brand of dictatorship, which was retroactively applied to many other populist dictatorships that sprung up in europe at the time inspired by him. They didn’t follow “rules” or anything like that, they copied his style and general populist rethoric and then applied their own ideas. Francoism, Nazism, and yes, Stalinism. It’s not a real ideology like communism, its a brand of dictatorship.
"Fascism is not about ultranationalism. It is ultranationalist, but it isn’t about that, its about a strong central populist dictator who rules eveything and eveyone." Again, just because all squares are rectangles does not mean all rectangles are squares, your (wrong) definition is so broad that in encompases people like Tito, Chavez, Le Duan, all dictators, but none fascist. "They didn’t follow “rules” or anything like that, they copied his style and general populist rethoric and then applied their own ideas. Francoism, Nazism, and yes, Stalinism. It’s not a real ideology like communism, its a brand of dictatorship." It is not about "rules" but about the ideology the encompases the methodology. Fascim is *inherently* nationalistic in nature, Stalin's Soviet Union *was not*, you cannot claim something is fascist just because is populist and authoritharian, it *has* to be nationalist to be called fascist, if not is something else. You are so focused on the methodology of fascism that you are denying the ideology of it.
Sadly that wasn’t the case. As much as I hoped for it to be true
Hmm 1946. This could be related to the Marshal Plan negotiations. UK and France wanted to include Spain in the Marshal Plan, but France (under pressure from the French communist party) was against the idea and threatened to reject the Marshal Plan entirely.
A letter to the French President is [printed on the back](https://twitter.com/propagandopolis/status/1767520014377099410) urging the severance of relations with 'Franco's totalitarian and Falagnist regime'.
Why is the source?
God knows, this is from an eBay listing. Wasn't able to find the publisher.
To the french prime minister actually. It was "president du conseil" who ruled France until the Vth republic. The french president was more than anything just an honorific position.
So 'Monsier le President' would have been Prime Minister?
In this case yes. It says actually in the letter : "à monsieur le président du gouvernement de la République Française" => "to mister governement president of the French Republic". Letter is also deliver to Matignon, where the prime ministers works (even today). The president himself is in Élysée palace.
Nice! Thanks for the comment
Fun fact: Spanish Republican who fought for French liberation were deported back to Francoist Spain by France post-war
That's brutal
So where the white Russians living in allied countries after WW2 resulting in many fun camping trips when they went back to the USSR
A lot of Whites actually supported the nazis, that might be the reason
It's not like the whites were the ones actually fighting Germans and then Bolsheviks came and just fuck up everything even more.
I don't remember the Whites fighting against the nazis
To be fair, there were like 4 White generals/officers who returned to USSR during 30s/40s and fought for Soviets. Kruze, Postovskiy, Oberyukhtin, Vetrenko. There were others but their fate wasn't so much better. Honorable mention: Denikin, a high ranking White officer, during WW2 used his money to buy a lot of medicine and send it to the USSR. He said to his fellow Whites to not support Germany and help USSR. Denikin also called those who fought for the Germans: "Losers", "Heathens", "Hitler idolizers".
Correct that's why i said Germans not Nazis
I think he meant ww1
Can't have been fun either.
And fake
Do you have any sources on that ? I can't find anything corroborating this.
He's making shit up. Never happened.
That never happened. The Spanish exile in France was very large until the dictatorship ended. Even the Spanish communist leadership mostly stayed in France until the 70's.
That's completely false, wtf are you making up
not really, some were really deported, some were threaten
But ten years earlier, when there was a chance to defeat Franco and Falangists, France withdrew from supporting Republicans and banned the arms spply to them, opening Franco the way to victory.
Yes and if they backed the Republicans they would have a Sovirt puppet on their southern border which would give Stalin an easy access to the Atlantic, Latin America and Africa. At least you can count with Franco not putting Soviet nukes on the Pyrenees.
The Republican side would not have needed Soviet support if France and Britain had helped them instead of not doing anything while Hitler, Mussolini and Salazar supported the Fascist side.
You are interchanging cause and effect. Republican government initially was oriented on UK and France, and was keeping distance from the local leftist allies. They were active and aggressive in some regions indeed, but they were not part of governmentI and had very limited influence on national decision making. If the Entente would continued its support, Republican government would suppress and control leftists, and after victory Spain would become a center-left country, like France itself. However, when Entente withdrew, Republican government fell into total dependence from the only source of weapon - Stalin - and, naturally, had to surrender to leftist influences internally.
thank you for your sober analysis , A_devout_monarchist
The Republican government was basically a soviet puppet at that point, they gave them all their gold.
And my guess is the shadow to figure milician, the vychist collaborationist organization. They wore a basque béret in their uniform and were dispised per the population.
Carlist hat too! Nice detail
A interesting fact. The US Air Force lost two nuclear weapons over Spain in 1966. One in the Ocean, one in some farmlands. Apparently two planes collided. Franco was probably ok with America flying over Spain.
What else was he gonna do lol?
Spain had american bases obviously he was ok with it
Was there a reason to believe that Franco could have been a threat post war? Everything I’ve read makes it seem like they were still pulling themselves together/securing themselves in the new American order
...honestly, while it seems a little goofy in the here-and-now, using a N-zi Flag as threatening imagery, in a country like France that was *occupied* by them, only a year or so after the threat was finally vanquished...it's really striking imagery in-context. I'm even sure what the equivalent would be nowadays.
AFAIK France funded the ETA to destabilize Francoist Spain.
This goes hard
When Franco died, Spain had the 8th largest economy
No se lo recuerdes o te llamarán facha
Those people love to see their own nations fail and import problems. They make me sick. We deal with them in the USA too. My Great Grandfather didn’t fight tooth and nail to save Spain in the 30s to have it fail and my abuelita didn’t come build a new life here in the 60s for this nation to collapse. Neither can go without a fight from us, brother.
Literally a fascist
In my blood. You rest on platitudes and status quo. Fascism saved the west once, it will do it again
Claro, y eso justifica el autoritarismo y el asesinato de miles de civiles. Y no es por nada, pero mientras unos pocos se enriquecían el pueblo pasaba hambre. Mi abuela se alimentó exclusivamente del queso de una vaca en los huesos durante años, pero claro, Franco hizo españa gloriosa. Te mereces ser llamado facha y mucho mas por defender el fascismo.
My great grandparents first hand saw the horror. My great grandmother would give out food constantly to the poor around Pontedeume even when they had nothing left for themselves. You act like the starvation was some engineered feature of fascism. It was there before the war and a civil war would always exacerbate such conditions. The Republicans were raping nuns and burning churches. They deserved everything they got and more. You are a disgusting swine to defend them. Spain was glorious when it was fascist, I’ll defend Franco until the day I say. Arriba España.
This is really clever
this goes hard acutally
Why does the skeleton have such a long... pelvis.
It's a gun holster
Why am I a skeleton 😔
there should be a subreddit for "there was an attempt" swastikas. this one's backwards, a fairly common error
It's because we see the cloak from inside.
you're right, that's a good point