Juden ... Spanischer Bürgerkrieg

This board is open for all subject matters. Post information and discussion materials about open-debate and censorship on other boards (including this one) here. Memory Hole 2 is a RODOH subforum for alternate perspectives.
User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9206
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Juden ... Spanischer Bürgerkrieg

Post by been-there »

Scott wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 7:39 pm
Since this thread is about the Spanish Civil War and involves aspects of Jews and the semantics of the term "Imperialism," it might be useful for this thread to note the context where Lenin used the idea:
Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1917), by Vladimir Lenin, describes the function of financial capital in generating profits from imperialist colonialism as the final stage of capitalist development to ensure greater profits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism[...]
Although I do agree with some of his takes here, there is much of Lenin's analysis that I don't.

Interestingly, in this Wiki article it is mentioned that Lenin's Imperialism was influenced by the English economist J.A. Hobson, whom I have not read, but whose works apparently had some early anti-Semitic overtones.
Hobson merely identified the "peculiar race" that united many international financiers. So nothing 'anti-semitic' about it, merely an accurate observation but one that is unwelcomed by those being observed :)
Hobson wrote:Economic parasites of imperialism
If the special interest of the investor is liable to clash with the public interest and to induce a wrecking policy, still more dangerous is the special interest of the financier, the general dealer in investments. In large measure the rank and file of the investors are, both for business and for politics, the cat's-paws of the great financial houses, who use stocks and shares not so much as investments to yield them interest, but as material for speculation in the money market.
In handling large masses of stocks and shares, in floating companies, in manipulating fluctuations of values, the magnates of the Bourse find their gain. These great businesses—banking, broking, bill discounting, loan floating, company promoting—form the central ganglion of international capitalism.

United by the strongest bonds of organisation, always in closest and quickest touch with one another, situated in the very heart of the business capital of every State, controlled, so far as Europe is concerned, chiefly by men of a single and peculiar race, who have behind them many centuries of financial experience, they are in a unique position to control the policy of nations.
No great quick direction of capital is possible save by their consent and through their agency.
Does any one seriously suppose that a great war could be undertaken by any European State, or a great State loan subscribed, if the house of Rothschild and its connections set their face against it?
-- John A. Hobson, 'Imperialism: A Study'. Pg.45. [1902].

Available in PDF form here

Scott wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 7:39 pm
Imperialism: A Study (1902), by John A. Hobson, is a politico–economic discourse about the negative financial, economic, and moral aspects of imperialism as a nationalistic business enterprise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism_(Hobson)

[...]Hobson states that what he called the "taproot of imperialism" is not in nationalist pride, but in capitalist oligarchy; and, as a form of economic organization, imperialism is unnecessary and immoral, the result of the mis-distribution of wealth in a capitalist society. [Emphasis mine.][...]

Hobson's writings on the Second Boer War, particularly in The War in South Africa: Its Causes and Effects, attribute the war partly to Jewish influence, including references to Rothschild bankers.
Yes. And I would argue that that is NOT 'anti-semitic' if it is a true and accurate analysis.

Scott wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 7:39 pm
So, bringing this context back around to the Spanish Civil War, we have a global interplay of Communists, Capitalists, Jews, Fascists, and Nazis.
No 'liberals' then? ;)

Scott wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 7:39 pm
I am not an expert on the Spanish Civil War, but when I have time I'll try to put together a brief outline of my understanding, and hopefully that will help ─ or at least add ─ to the discussion.

I think it is also notable that the Left-Liberal writer Eric Blair (better known by his pen name as George Orwell) lost his admiration for Stalinist Communism while observing the Spanish Civil War as a journalist. Orwell was one of the first Liberals to expose the hypocrisy of what Prof. Harry Elmer Barnes later called 'Totalitarian Liberals'.
Whare do you get the idea from that Blair/Orwell ever admired Stalin or what you called "Stalinist communism"? I was not aware that he EVER "admired" Stalin. In 1941 he went against the common conditioned mindset to write this in his diary.
Eric Blair/George Orwell wrote:One could not have a better example of the moral and emotional shallowness of our time, than the fact that we are now all more or less pro-Stalin. This disgusting murderer is temporarily on our side, and so the purges, etc., are suddenly forgotten.
--  George Orwell, war-time diary, 3 July 1941
Your use of the categorisation 'liberal' seems to me to be a peculiar American distortion of the European meaning. Blair/Orwell is regarded in Britain as left-wing Socialist. That is considered politically quite far from what is regarded here as a centrist Liberal.
As I understand it 'liberal' in America is almost a term of abuse, isn't it?

Scott wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 7:39 pm
It is difficult to overemphasize that this was at a time when most Liberal intellectuals were still singing the praises for the Russian Revolution, and the Spanish Civil War was an extreme cause célèbre issue in the West, when many affluent young Liberals, especially of a certain non-Christian persuasion, yearned to make a pilgrimage to Spain to "Fight Fascism."
As I understand it, no liberals went from Britain to fight in Spain. Only left wing socialists who saw the civil war as an expanding global conflict between right-wing fascism and left-wing socialism/communism.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous


Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH, kindly contact Scott Smith. All contributions are welcome!


User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 2342
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 2:43 am
Location: USA, West of the Pecos
Contact:

Re: Juden ... Spanischer Bürgerkrieg

Post by Scott »

been-there wrote:
Your use of the categorisation 'liberal' seems to me to be a peculiar American distortion of the European meaning. Blair/Orwell is regarded in Britain as left-wing Socialist. That is considered politically quite far from what is regarded here as a centrist Liberal.

As I understand it 'liberal' in America is almost a term of abuse, isn't it?


Yes, sometimes.

Everybody from "Limousine Liberals" in the mainstream media to "Antifa Social Justice activists" tends to eschew the Liberal label and prefers to be called "Progressive" now.

I dislike that because I used to call myself "Progressive" or "Populist" (albeit one who is Nationalistic, Isolationist, and Ethnocentric--or openly "racist" if you prefer).

Also, I technically don't consider myself anti-Semitic, just convinced that Jews should not be given a pass for mischief any more than anyone else. I reserve the right to be critical of anybody, and as far as I'm concerned that is not Hate Speech (whatever this means).

I have never called myself "Liberal" either, except in maybe a general sense favoring freedom of speech and privacy concerns. Most of the American Founding Fathers were so-called classical-Liberals.

You could maybe substitute a term like "Leftist" or "Left-Liberal" in the context that I used above and basically mean the same thing.

In the USA crypto-Communists have often gone underneath the radar as "Liberals," long after they were accused by people like Senator Joe McCarthy, and only more recently has it finally been proved that they were in fact active Soviet agents, just as he said. Left-Liberal can be on a pinko spectrum, I guess.

Anyway, I am NOT saying that Orwell was a Stalinist, just that he was a Leftist whistleblower.

After George Orwell and Arthur Koestler─Darkness at Noon (1940) it is very hard for "Liberals" to be Stalinist apologists with a straight face, but that is exactly what some Hollywood "pinko" sympathizers were, e.g., Lillian Hellman─North Star (1943), etc.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_North_Star_(1943_film)

In June 1941 Ukrainian villagers are living in peace. As the school year ends, a group of friends decide to travel to Kiev for a holiday. To their horror, they find themselves attacked by German aircraft, part of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union. Eventually their village itself is occupied by the Nazis. Meanwhile, men and women take to the hills to form partisan militias.

The full brutality of the Nazis is revealed when the Germans send Dr. von Harden to use the village children as a source of blood for transfusions into wounded German soldiers. Some children lose so much blood that they die. [...]

Image

The House Committee on Un-American Activities would later cite The North Star as one of the three noted examples of pro-Soviet works made by Hollywood [...]


Sometimes there would be epic feuds between Jewish Leftists and non-Jewish Communist sympathizers over how far to support Leftist causes in vogue, especially during the time-period when Communists and Nazis were operating under the Ribbentrop-Molotov truce. Arguably, outspoken Jews like Hellman made more consistent Communist sympathizers than other establishment "Liberals."


[...] Martha Gellhorn, one of the most prominent war correspondents of the twentieth century, as well as Ernest Hemingway's third wife, said that Hellman's remembrances of Hemingway and the Spanish Civil War were wrong. [Mary] McCarthy, Gellhorn and others accused Hellman of lying about her membership in the Communist Party and being an unrepentant Stalinist.

[In an epic feud with Tallulah Bankhead, Screenwriter Lillian] Hellman countered her star: "I don't believe in that fine, lovable little Republic of Finland that everyone gets so weepy about. I've been there and it seems like a little pro-Nazi Republic to me." Bankhead, who hated Nazism and had become a strong critic of Communism since the mid 1930s Great Purge and for what she saw as a communist betrayal of the Second Spanish Republic, was outraged by Hellman's actions and thought Hellman a moral hypocrite. Hellman had never been to Finland. Bankhead and the cast suspected that Hellman's refusal was motivated by her fanatical devotion to the Stalinist regime in Soviet Russia. Hellman and Bankhead became adversaries as a result of the feud, not speaking to each other for a quarter of a century afterwards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lillian_Hellman


One other point, I would argue that Classical-Liberalism contains the seeds of its own destruction unless it is grounded in a lot of Realpolitik.

In my view, Classical-Liberalism ultimately purity-spirals into a grievance-and-spoils industry that either becomes full-blown Stalinism or "progresses" into cultural-nihilism.

:)

Image

“Now we have forced Hitler to war so he no longer can peacefully annihilate one piece of the Treaty of Versailles after the other.”
~ Major General J.F.C. Fuller,
historian – England

Alonso
Posts: 182
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Juden ... Spanischer Bürgerkrieg

Post by Alonso »

Scott wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 7:39 pm
Imperialism: A Study (1902), by John A. Hobson, is a politico–economic discourse about the negative financial, economic, and moral aspects of imperialism as a nationalistic business enterprise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism_(Hobson)

[...]

Hobson states that what he called the "taproot of imperialism" is not in nationalist pride, but in capitalist oligarchy; and, as a form of economic organization, imperialism is unnecessary and immoral, the result of the mis-distribution of wealth in a capitalist society. [Emphasis mine.]

[...]

Hobson's writings on the Second Boer War, particularly in The War in South Africa: Its Causes and Effects, attribute the war partly to Jewish influence, including references to Rothschild bankers.
That's an accurate description of the sense of the word imperialism I was using (with the exception that I avoid moral judgments). Blake's idea of imperialism is correct as well, of course, but it applies to an earlier period of history.

Scott wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 7:39 pm
Since this thread is about the Spanish Civil War and involves aspects of Jews and the semantics of the term "Imperialism," it might be useful for this thread to note the context where Lenin used the idea:
Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1917), by Vladimir Lenin, describes the function of financial capital in generating profits from imperialist colonialism as the final stage of capitalist development to ensure greater profits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism[...]
Lenin's description of imperialism seems also quite good, although I think it's a bit dated now, mainly because colonialism has been replaced by complex schemes of political and economic influence that favour the oligarchy mentioned by Hobson.

Scott wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 7:39 pm
In the SouthWest United States where I am, "Spanish Burger Krieg" sounds like an indulgent multi-ethnic restaurant promotional.
I thought just the same, but I felt embarrassed to say it! :D

Scott wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 7:39 pm
It is difficult to overemphasize that this was at a time when most Liberal intellectuals were still singing the praises for the Russian Revolution, and the Spanish Civil War was an extreme cause célèbre issue in the West, when many affluent young Liberals, especially of a certain non-Christian persuasion, yearned to make a pilgrimage to Spain to "Fight Fascism."
This is still very romanticized in Spain, and those who did make that pilgrimage to "fight fascism" are routinely regarded as heroes who gave their lives fighting for freedom. Which brings me to a question I've been trying to solve for some time: What is exactly fascism? Was Franco a fascist? In Spain it is universally agreed that he was, but that seems to be more based on propaganda than in facts.

Scott wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 7:39 pm
I dislike that because I used to call myself "Progressive" or "Populist" (albeit one who is Nationalistic, Isolationist, and Ethnocentric--or openly "racist" if you prefer).
Have you elaborated your Isolationist and Ethnocentric or openly "racist" ideas elsewhere in this forum? If not, would you like to tell us more about them?

Alonso
Posts: 182
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Juden ... Spanischer Bürgerkrieg

Post by Alonso »

been-there wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 6:38 am
Scott wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 7:39 pm
Imperialism: A Study (1902), by John A. Hobson, is a politico–economic discourse about the negative financial, economic, and moral aspects of imperialism as a nationalistic business enterprise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism_(Hobson)

[...]Hobson states that what he called the "taproot of imperialism" is not in nationalist pride, but in capitalist oligarchy; and, as a form of economic organization, imperialism is unnecessary and immoral, the result of the mis-distribution of wealth in a capitalist society. [Emphasis mine.][...]

Hobson's writings on the Second Boer War, particularly in The War in South Africa: Its Causes and Effects, attribute the war partly to Jewish influence, including references to Rothschild bankers.
Yes. And I would argue that that is NOT 'anti-semitic' if it is a true and accurate analysis.
I don't think it is antisemitic, but I think the reason is different. Antisemitism goes against Jews in general. Your quotes from Hobson don't seem to indicate that he blamed wars or other disasters on Jews in general, but rather on a specific group of Jews.

Alonso
Posts: 182
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Juden ... Spanischer Bürgerkrieg

Post by Alonso »

Huntinger wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 4:18 am
Alonso wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 9:00 pm
As a Spanish guy I'd like to know about discussion websites similar to this one, i. e., that protect freedom of speech, but in Spanish. Are you aware of any?
Your kind were supported during the civil war (36-39). The Republicans, was formed by the Spanish government together with unions, communists, anarchists, workers, and peasants and lost. The Nationalists won that war. It is noted that most of the mass executions were carried out by the Republicans who were communists basically.
Following the military coup in Spain at the start of the Spanish Civil War, the Spanish Second Republic turned to the Soviet Union and France for support, and the Nationalists requested the support of Hitler's Germany and fascist Italy.

There was no need for punching noses, but Spain owes the Reich a debt, never repaid.
I answer here this post from the Spanish debate thread because I think the topic is more suitable for this thread.

I just read a very interesting answer in Quora about the role of Spain in WW2. I know Quora, like any other MSM website, is not reliable, and I haven't checked the truthfulness of the info provided in that answer, but I have the intuition that it is correct. According to that answer, Franco essentially deceived and betrayed Germany. He pretended to be on Germany's side and even sent a division to fight alongside Germany in the USSR, but in practice helped the allies by shielding Gibraltar from Germany and taking Tangier, which granted control of the Mediterranean to the allies. This was, of course, far more important for the outcome of the war than a group of Spanish soldiers exhausted by the civil war getting lost somewhere in the middle of the Russian snow. If that is correct Franco was essentially a very high profile British double agent during WW2.

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 2342
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 2:43 am
Location: USA, West of the Pecos
Contact:

Re: Juden ... Spanischer Bürgerkrieg

Post by Scott »

I agree with most of the comments in the Quora thread.

The Axis getting control of Gibraltar was not doable because it would have been too difficult to defend more territory when the Allies started blockading Portugal and Spain. The British Navy, augmented by a supposedly neutral American Navy, could have done enormous damage just by blockading the oil shipments needed for Iberian fishing boats.

Allied policy in both World Wars was to blockade the enemy and to put neutrals onto a strict rationing scheme. This was one of the levers of economic warfare that severely restricted, for example, the amount of tungsten ore that Portugal and Spain could sell to Germany right at the time when it was needed the most for German armaments such as armor-piercing ammunition.

As mentioned in the Quora explanation, it was in Franco's interests to pretend to play boths sides according to the circumstances. Spain controlling Tangier is not that important since the Axis isn't going to be able to block Allied access to the straits under any circumstances. How Allied propagandists actually spin the story is therefore irrelevant.

Basically, Germany got as much from Franco as was possible. If Spain had actually joined the war for the Axis it would have been a huge headache for everybody--and one that ultimately would have only given the Allies more options to put pressure on the Axis. Since the straits were effectively not in danger of closing, any Allied intervention against another "soft underbelly of the Axis" would have been bothersome to some degree and then not decisive anyway--probably just not worth the otherwise considerable propaganda coup made from an Allied intervention.

It has been argued that Italian intervention in 1940 was ill-advised from the German point of view, and only complicated matters coming to terms with France. Having Italy as a friendly-to-the-Axis neutral would have been hugely bothersome for the strategic situation of the Allies, however, who were desperately looking for choke-points that would impact the German war-economy at little risk and cost to themselves. The danger here would have been keeping Italy committed to the Axis coalition if it was not fully sharing the glory and strife.

For an example of a strategic choke point, early in the war the British started mining Norwegian harbors, which would choke off trade in high-grade Swedish iron ore moving that way to Germany. Soon the Norwegian government would have been firmly coerced to allow Allied air and naval bases with which to attack Germany and extend the German encirclement.

The Germans got wind of Churchill's (First Lord of the Admiralty) operation and launched an invasion of Denmark and Norway and thwarted that scheme. The German Navy's surface fleet was years away from reaching its planned level of strength and was nearly destroyed in the process, but the victory provided Germany with control over the economic markets of Denmark, Norway and access to neutral Sweden that otherwise would have been denied to them, as well as giving Germany air and naval bases of their own on the Arctic, which could disrupt Allied Lend-Lease shipping to the Soviet Union on the Murmansk run.

For example, in his book on the subject, David Irving ably covers the Destruction of Convoy PQ 17, which was an Allied naval disaster that occurred due to mistakes made under the so-called "fog of war," when the German Battleship Tirpitz, sister of the sunken Bismarck, and stationed menacingly in a Norwegian harbor, was wrongly thought to be pouncing on an Allied convoy.

If the Allies could have brought Spain and Portugal to starvation with a simple blockade, had they entered the war or played favorites too openly, there is no way that the Axis could have mounted a capable defense or made up for the lost groceries when the Allies tightened the blockade. Hitler did not even occupy all of France after the Armistice, and there were many reasons for that, including avoiding an unnecessary widening of the war. The Armistice with France which left their navy intact did not stop the British from attacking the Vichy fleet, an atrocity no less deadly than the Pearl Harbor attack.

On the other hand, Norway and certainly Denmark were comparatively easy to hold, and neutral Sweden had benefit of access to the German and central European markets that the Allies would have otherwise denied them. Sweden had to get by with almost no petroleum at all, and Germany was obligated to keep trading favorably with them.

Neutrals always have to choose their battles wisely and I can't really fault Franco in this respect. The Allies could hurt him more than the Axis could have helped him. As was said in the article, it was in Franco's interest to appear to be playing both sides in the international propaganda. Hitler found Franco largely uncooperative but no doubt understood the situation.

Btw, the Germans had to keep lines of communication open through the Balkans to have access to raw materials from Turkey and Bulgaria, as well as oil from Romania. I have already mentioned armaments-grade iron ore from Sweden, but there were also non-ferrous metals such as Finnish nickel, Turkish chromium, and Iberian tungsten that were crucial for the German war-machine.

When the Soviets gave an ultimatum to Romania to gain Bessarabia / Moldava in 1940 and then threatened to gain strategic control over Romanian petroleum production, Germany had no choice but to cease thinking of the Soviet Union as an ally and plan for an inevitable confrontation. The Soviet Union would have only had to wait for the biggest offer made by the Allies to enter the war on their side, and they had plenty of forces available to do it with. Germany might have lost the war years earlier.

Here's an old article in an academic journal about Allied economic warfare in Spain that might be interesting:

https://www.nber.org/papers/h0132.pdf

Leonard Caruana and Hugh Rockoff,
"A Wolfram in Sheep's Clothing: Economic Warfare in Spain, 1940-1944."
The Journal of Economic History,
Vol. 63, No. 1 (Mar., 2003), pp. 100-126.


:)

“Now we have forced Hitler to war so he no longer can peacefully annihilate one piece of the Treaty of Versailles after the other.”
~ Major General J.F.C. Fuller,
historian – England

Alonso
Posts: 182
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Juden ... Spanischer Bürgerkrieg

Post by Alonso »

I've read about half of the article you linked to and I think I understand your point. Still, from the analysis of that article, it looks like overall Franco sided with the allies. Regardless of what he said or thought about the conflict, his actual actions benefited the allies much more than they benefited the axis. It looks like he did this because it was the most (or only) sensible option at the time, siding with the axis would have probably been catastrophic for a country which had just suffered a huge catastrophe in the form of the civil war. Still, regardless of how sensible this policy was, it doesn't detract from the apparent fact that Franco helped the allies to defeat Germany just after Germany helped Franco win the civil war. That seems to be a forced betrayal, a betrayal that was absolutely essential for the survival of Spain, but a betrayal nonetheless.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests