The Axis Powers

[Salv]

nightandthecity - I'll have to get hold of Arms For Spain, it sounds very interesting. Do you know of any books dealing with the post-Civil War oppression of Republican supporters in Spain, or any about the lives of Republican refugees outside Spain post-Civil War?

Edit - while looking for Arms For Spain on amazon.co.uk I discovered that Anthony Beevor has revised his history of the Civil War and renamed it Battle For Spain:The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939. Amazon UK have it on pre-order for £12.48, a 50% saving. It's due to be published on 1st June this year.

 

[geo]

Interesting discussion. I believe the western world had very good reasons not to support the Republic. Spain, as the rest of the world at the time, was torn between two extremes: Communism and Fascism. Had Franco's rebellion lost, the Communists would have taken the power, like they did inside the Republican camp towards the end. Red terror was real, as was White terror. True, the Franchist camp killed more people, but that's why they won the war. Red terror was largely sponsored by the soviet NKVD and GRU, who sent special units into Spain to eliminate people from both camps. This was going on at the same time as Stalin's purges in the USSR.

 

[Salv]

Interesting discussion. I believe the western world had very good reasons not to support the Republic. Spain, as the rest of the world at the time, was torn between two extremes: Communism and Fascism. Had Franco's rebellion lost, the Communists would have taken the power, like they did inside the Republican camp towards the end. Red terror was real, as was White terror. True, the Franchist camp killed more people, but that's why they won the war. Red terror was largely sponsored by the soviet NKVD and GRU, who sent special units into Spain to eliminate people from both camps. This was going on at the same time as Stalin's purges in the USSR.

It's arguable that had the Republic been able to buy sufficient arms from the US, UK and France it would not have had to rely on Soviet Russia. Without the leverage of military supplies it's unlikely that the Soviets would have been able to influence the Republic in the way it did. After all the Communist PCE party only won 14 seats on the Cortes in the February 1936 general election, one more than the Monarchists, and one fewer than the Carlists. CEDA (a loose conglomeration of small right-wing parties) held 101 seats. The largest left-wing party was the Socialist PSOE with 88 seats, closely followed by the Republican Left with 79 seats with the Republican Union having 34 seats. The Communist party was hardly likely to wrest power from them with only 14 seats. The Socialists and the Falange shared a dislike and distrust for the Communists, and it's misleading to claim that Spain was polarised along Communist/Fascist lines.

The Soviets were certainly no friends of the Republic, and their brutality towards their supposed allies was one more disgrace among many.

 

[nightandthecity]

Salv, my knowledge of the post Civil War era comes from general reading on the Civil War and its aftermath, but there will be books specifically on the massacres, the resistance etc. Here?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s a few web links which discuss these issues, you should be able to find further links including ?¢‚Ǩ?ìhard copy?¢‚Ǩ? from these.

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/france_afa.html

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/after_afa.html

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Mauthausen/KZMauthausen/History/SpanishRepublicans.html

http://hnn.us/articles/1146.html

http://www.historyhome.co.uk/europe/spaincw.htm


Off hand, I know there are several books about one of the most famous resistance groups, the Sabater group. there is a book by Antonio Tellez called ?¢‚Ǩ?ìSabater?¢‚Ǩ? and a former member Miguel Garcia wrote a fascinating autobiography in the 1970s called ?¢‚Ǩ?ìFranco?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s Prisoner?¢‚Ǩ?. Eric Hobsbawm in his ?¢‚Ǩ?ìBandits?¢‚Ǩ? discusses the Sabater Group too.

Incidentally, I was privileged to know Miguel Garcia, one of the most quietly impressive people I have ever met.

Geo, I think you are expressing attitudes that have continually got the western powers into trouble in the past. Much as Franco?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s rebellion initiated his worst nightmare, a workers revolution, the western powers have a history of opposing radical reformist movements in backward countries and thus driving them in unwanted directions, when it might have been wiser to support those movements and steer them in the wanted direction. This is certainly the case in Spain. The Spanish Republic was a liberal/democratic/parliamentary socialist alliance that could have taken the steam out of the revolutionary movement by a series of long overdue reforms that amounted to little more than making Spain more like the rest of the west. The Communist party was tiny in Spain and the workers movement dominated by the Anarchists who were as hostile to Bolshevism as was Franco. The Communists became powerful only when Russia became the sole source of arms and aid to the republic. The western democracies could have filled this role and gained that influence, they chose to let Russia do it. And even then the Communists in no way represented a revolutionary force - most of their efforts went into suppressing the workers movement, preserving the structures of the state, militarising the militias, and preserving the property of the middle classes who flocked to the party in droves. As Orwell and others noted, by the end of the war the Communist party was effectively the party of the conservative propertied classes in the Republican zone.

Salv....I found Arms for Spain in a remaindered book store about a year ago, so it should be around cheap somewhere. It is a real eyeopener, even when you know the basics about "non-intervention" already.

 

[geo]

Geo, I think you are expressing attitudes that have continually got the western powers into trouble in the past.

But look where it's gotten the Western powers now, and where it's gotten the People's Republics.

Also, I don't think the Western powers could have helped the Spanish republic, nor that the Republic would have wanted help from capitalists, for ideological reasons based on opposed social classes. Moreover, one of the biggest problems of the Spanish government was that they couldn't control the worker's militias and their violence.

Do not underestimate the Communists. The USSR was a reality, and if you look at all the countries where the Communists have taken power, they were always a minority at first, and have worked their way up to total power. This goes for the USSR too; at first there was a Republic, with a parliament, etc, but then the Communists staged a coup d'etat and gained complete control.

Like I said in another thread, Hemingway was disgusted with both sides by 1938, and I think that there was no good side in that war.

 

[Salv]

nightandthecity - there are plenty of remaindered bookshops along Charing Cross Road so I'll have a hunt next time I'm up there. Annoyingly I was there on Tuesday evening. Amazon UK have links to used copies of Arms For Spain starting at about ?Ǭ£6.50 so that's an option as well.

I'll check those links later this evening - many thanks.

 

[Lincsong]

Spanairds and knives

Moreover, one of the biggest problems of the Spanish government was that they couldn't control the worker's militias and their violence.

I've heard those stories about Spanairds and knives.

Do not underestimate the Communists. The USSR was a reality, and if you look at all the countries where the Communists have taken power, they were always a minority at first, and have worked their way up to total power. This goes for the USSR too; at first there was a Republic, with a parliament, etc, but then the Communists staged a coup d'etat and gained complete control.

:rage: Never trust a commie!

Like I said in another thread, Hemingway was disgusted with both sides by 1938, and I think that there was no good side in that war.

I think if I was caught in the middle I would have had to shoot in both directions. Thank God my family left 50 years earlier.:arated: USA

 

[Lincsong]

What about Fidel?

Fidel was school by the Jesuits in Cuba. Most of the Jesuits were from that Spanish Civil War and spoke of the pure Roman Catholic society to be formed in direct contrast to the decadent, materialistic Protestant Britain and U.S. This logic influenced Fidel who would become an atheist and communist. Not to mention psuedo capitalist since all the money from the "nationalized" industries flows through him personally.

 

[Lincsong]

Each country defines left and right differently

I didn't mean to hijack the thread away from a discussion of the actual Axis powers, but Franco was - although not himself a fascist - heavily reliant on the Axis to win the Civil War.

No problem. I like the way this thread has evolved.

I agree with most of your points, especially about the US finding it easier to deal with Franco, but it's incorrect to think of the Franco-led rebels as left wing. The Falange were an authoritarian revolutionary fascist party, who believed in a corporate state, were devout Catholics and violently anti-Communist and anti-Anarchist; the Carlists were/are conservative monarchists, also devoutly Catholic; the bulk of the military generals were also devoutly Catholic and conservative, forming the Uni?ɬ?n Militar Espa?ɬ±ola which secretly communicated with Mussolinis regime; and the Catholic church and the landowners were all politically conservative too.

Corporate State is what I meant by "left-wing" I may be a Roman Catholic, but I also wholeheartedly support American style free markets. The influence of the Roman Catholic Church on the Francoist side definetly would preclude them from being labeled "left leaning/left wing". But, if you look at the history of the United States there have been numerous Papal Edicts for 300 years declaring that there should not be "free markets, freedom of religion or emphasis on materialism" as what was happening in the U.S. This is what I think Franco was trying to create in Spain; a Roman Catholic society in direct contrast to the Protestant U.S. and Britain.
:cheers1:

 

[PADDY]

Best WW2 Buddies...Germany, Japan, Italy..?

QUOTE: "Germany, Japan and Italy. All three were aligned politically but which two are more closely aligned ideologically?"

Somehow we have got to Cuba now! Gosh, don't some threads become runaway trains

So...any nearer answers to the original thread starter?

 

[jake431]

No problem. I like the way this thread has evolved.



Corporate State is what I meant by "left-wing" I may be a Roman Catholic, but I also wholeheartedly support American style free markets. The influence of the Roman Catholic Church on the Francoist side definetly would preclude them from being labeled "left leaning/left wing". But, if you look at the history of the United States there have been numerous Papal Edicts for 300 years declaring that there should not be "free markets, freedom of religion or emphasis on materialism" as what was happening in the U.S. This is what I think Franco was trying to create in Spain; a Roman Catholic society in direct contrast to the Protestant U.S. and Britain.
:cheers1:

American style Markets are not free - they are propped up by government regulation to benefit Americans. You might like that, but it's not free in the real capitalistic sense of the word.

-Jake

 

[geo]

Ideologically, none were real close. In fact, the country that came the closest to National Socialist Germany was Communist Russia. They were both revolutionary workers' and peasants' states, the difference between the two being the German persecution of Jews and the lack of private property in Russia. All the rest was the same.

 

[Lincsong]

Give an example

American style Markets are not free - they are propped up by government regulation to benefit Americans. You might like that, but it's not free in the real capitalistic sense of the word.

Good point. But how does government regulation prop up Markets to benefit Americans? Are you hinting at the Farm Programs?

 

[Lincsong]

Fine examples

Ideologically, none were real close. In fact, the country that came the closest to National Socialist Germany was Communist Russia. They were both revolutionary workers' and peasants' states, the difference between the two being the German persecution of Jews and the lack of private property in Russia. All the rest was the same.

Some could argue that the fight between Germany and Russia was over who was the correct interpretor of Karl Marx. Who was the heir to Karl Marx? Another similarity between Germany and Japan was that both believed in racial superiority. The Japanese beleived that Hirohito was directly descended from the Sun God and that they were the "master race". Hitler was in search of any land that "aryans" crossed and wanted to unite them. So; Paddy, we did come back to the orginaly intent of the thread, we just took a side trip through Spain and Cuba.:cheers1: Again, I'd like to say that I don't mind at all the directions this thread is going. Everyone here has so much information and I like getting a perspective other than the U.S.

 

[nightandthecity]

Ideologically, none were real close. In fact, the country that came the closest to National Socialist Germany was Communist Russia. They were both revolutionary workers' and peasants' states, the difference between the two being the German persecution of Jews and the lack of private property in Russia. All the rest was the same.

Nazi Germany and the USSR had a lot in common, but you cannot seriously describe either as a ?¢‚Ǩ?ìworkers and peasants state?¢‚Ǩ? given that workers and peasants had no power in either, their independent organizations were violently abolished in both, and they were murdered in their thousands in both.

It is true that the USSR described itself as a ?¢‚Ǩ?ìworkers and peasants state?¢‚Ǩ? but here we enter the bizarre realms of Bolshevik double-think ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú what one high level defector in the 70s described as ?¢‚Ǩ?ìsaying one thing, doing something else, and thinking something entirely different to both?¢‚Ǩ? (so actually treble-think)

The Bolshevik party came to power following a worker-peasant uprising against a feudal autocracy. This revolution had created a system of ?¢‚Ǩ?ìdual power?¢‚Ǩ?, where a conventional state and a western style parliament dominated by various leftist groups existed alongside an alternative system of local direct democracy represented by the soviets, village councils, factory committees and the like. The Bolsheviks staged a coup d?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢etat after which they abolished or emasculated all these institutions, set up a dictatorship, abolished all other political groups, abolished the trades unions and other independent working class organizations, killed or imprisoned the Russian left starting with the Anarchists and the Social Revolutionary Party and ending with the dissidents in their own ranks, and suppressed a series of peasant and working-class revolts against their rule, culminating in the massacre of the Kronstadt sailors in 1921. To achieve all this they relied heavily on elements of the former Tsarist secret police and military including several of the Tsar?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s most reactionary generals. At which stage you may wonder in what sense this was a movement of ?¢‚Ǩ?ìthe left?¢‚Ǩ? at all. Indeed, as the regime consolidated its power over the following decades it became increasingly and deeply big-C Conservative?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú nationalistic, militaristic, traditionalist, puritanical, patriarchal etc.

Socialism (the social ownership of the means of production) arose as a means of extending democracy from the political to the economic arena. Some forms of socialism advocated state ownership of industry as a means of achieving this, but it was a basic pre-requisite that the state should be democratic. Bolshevism practiced state ownership without the democracy, giving birth to a new kind of society. Some have described it as ?¢‚Ǩ?ìstate capitalism?¢‚Ǩ?, that is, the Russian state became a kind of giant corporate monopoly dedicated to the accumulation of capital and the industrialization/modernization of Russian society. This makes a lot of sense if you actually look at who the Communists were. The Bolshevik leadership were almost entirely men of the middle-classes and throughout the history of the USSR the party was dominated by the professional, bureaucratic and managerial classes and those who aspired to enter those groups. In Marxian terms you could say that Bolshevism initiated Russia?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s ?¢‚Ǩ?ìbourgeois revolution?¢‚Ǩ?, which interestingly is exactly what the more orthodox Marxists the Mensheviks said was going on back in 1917.

But this was not Fascism. For a start, it claimed to be building ?¢‚Ǩ?ìcommunism?¢‚Ǩ?, a society of total freedom and equality without government or hierarchy. Thousands of people throughout the world actually believed this, which is one reason why we need to distinguish between western Communists and the Russian regime. Also, in Russia the state owned the main means of production - this was the legacy of Bolshevism?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s socialist origins.

Fascism had totally different origins and aims. It was first and foremost an anti-socialist movement and arose after WW1 as a direct response to the threat of socialism. There had been a revolution in Russia and attempted socialist revolutions in Hungary and Germany. Throughout Europe the growth of democracy had created mass Socialist parties who looked like taking power through the ballot box. Thus many of the upper and middle classes turned to Fascism, a mixture of authoritarianism, nationalism and moral traditionalism backed up with violence ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú most of the fascist parties had roots in right-wing paramilitary and vigilante organizations. This core anti-socialism tends to be overshadowed by the racism issue nowadays, and it needs to be remembered that the first victims of Fascism in every country were the left-wing organizations and the trades unions.

Fascism had its own character in each country, (as befits Nationalist movements) yet all remained ideologically close. All (including Nazism) were more or less based on Mussolini?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s movement. All (including Italian fascism) became increasingly influenced by Nazism as German power grew. Certain core traits were common to all, above all an obsession with authority - the authority of the state over the people, of men over women, of adults over children, of managers over workers etc, all backed up with brutal force. All were violently Nationalist and militarist and made a cult of conformity and discipline, fetishising uniformed groups and the military. All had a strong patriarchal leadership cult centered round one individual.

Probably the most important division within fascism is between ?¢‚Ǩ?ìtrue?¢‚Ǩ? or ?¢‚Ǩ?ìdeep?¢‚Ǩ? Fascism as it existed in Italy and Germany, and authoritarian conservatism, as in Franco?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s Spain or Imperial Japan. What was different about true Fascism was that it claimed not to represent the traditional elites (e.g. the aristocracy, monarchy, church) but to be creating new and more meritocratic elites; and it claimed to offer a serious alternative to both socialism and laisser-faire capitalism, variously expressed as the ?¢‚Ǩ?ìcorporate state?¢‚Ǩ? or the ?¢‚Ǩ?ìorganic national community". The theory was that capitalism and classes would still exist but class struggle would end as all pulled together for the good of the nation ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú capitalists and workers would work harmoniously together in shared corporate institutions. In practice the corporate state proved to be not so much a ?¢‚Ǩ?ìreferee?¢‚Ǩ? as a way of controlling the workforce in the interests of the employers, for example, by outlawing strikes and labour unions.

And in practice there was little difference between fascist and authoritarian conservative regimes. The Fascists rapidly accommodated to the traditional elites, and the conservatives tended to ape all the trappings of fascism including corporatism.

Another division some observers make is between western and eastern European Fascism. As with the hard/soft division it is mainly a matter of degree. In eastern Europe fascist movements were less pragmatic and more ideological, more mystical, more nationalistic, more racist, basically more fascist. Even many Nazis considered organizations like the Romanian Iron Guard and the Hungarian Arrow Cross to be too extreme.

 

[nightandthecity]

Some could argue that the fight between Germany and Russia was over who was the correct interpretor of Karl Marx. Who was the heir to Karl Marx? .

The idea that Hitler was a Marxist and that his struggle against communism was over rival interpretations of Marx is quite frankly bizzare. Adolf will be spinning in his grave. He was obsessively anti-marxist. More than any other form of socialism he hated Marxism and he frequently uses the word ?¢‚Ǩ?ìMarxism?¢‚Ǩ? where others would have used ?¢‚Ǩ?ìsocialism?¢‚Ǩ?. This is because he was not simply opposed to its political aims, he was opposed to every aspect of Marxism as a philosophy.

Bullock writes of Hitler's views on Marxism:

"While Hitler's attitude towards liberalism was one of contempt, towards Marxism he showed an implacable hostility?¢‚Ǩ¬¶ Ignoring the profound differences between Communism and Social Democracy in practice and the bitter hostility between the rival working class parties, he saw in their common ideology the embodiment of all that he detested -- mass democracy and a leveling egalitarianism as opposed to the authoritarian state and the rule of an elite; equality and friendship among peoples as opposed to racial inequality and the domination of the strong; class solidarity versus national unity; internationalism versus nationalism."

But let Hitler speak for himself:

"The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism."

"In the years 1913 and 1914, I?¢‚Ǩ¬¶ expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism."

"In the economic sphere Communism is analogous to democracy in the political sphere."

"The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the national intellectual world, destined by them for extinction."

"Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews."

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight."

 

[BellyTank]

They protected all their Jews. So did the Danes, to the best of their ability.

Were you suggesting that Denmark was an Axis power..?
Denmark was occupied by Germany.

B
T

 

[Lincsong]

Good point but,

The idea that Hitler was a Marxist and that his struggle against communism was over rival interpretations of Marx is quite frankly bizzare. Adolf will be spinning in his grave. He was obsessively anti-marxist.

But Hitler's hostility towards Marxism was what you said;

"

While Hitler's attitude towards liberalism was one of contempt, towards Marxism he showed an implacable hostility?¢‚Ǩ¬¶ Ignoring the profound differences between Communism and Social Democracy in practice and the bitter hostility between the rival working class parties, he saw in their common ideology the embodiment of all that he detested -- mass democracy and a leveling egalitarianism as opposed to the authoritarian state and the rule of an elite; equality and friendship among peoples as opposed to racial inequality and the domination of the strong; class solidarity versus national unity; internationalism versus nationalism."

Hitler opposed Marxism because of the racial equality he saw advocated by the Soviets. He wanted to create a society of the Master Aryan Race and ventured into Iran and Nepal looking for Aryan's. But, economically he wanted to follow the Soviet line of socialism; free health care, free schooling, public ownership of industry etc. He was trying to create a Soviet style authoritarian structure with an Aryan model. The Japanese were just as obsessed with this "racial superiority" as the Germans. The Japanese weren't so much influenced by National identity as Mussolini as they were with racial superiority in the German sense. Japan killed millions of Chinese from 1932-1945. Mussolini went into Ethiopia and didn't start wholesale slaughter.


Keep the posts coming. I'm enjoying getting a non-Yank viewpoint.:cheers1:

 

[nightandthecity]

Hitler?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s hatred of Marxism was formed long before the Russian revolution and the Bolshevik state. It was a reaction to Marxism in western Europe, particularly the growing power of the German Social Democrats.

The only positive ways Russian Communism influenced Hitler were organizational ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú he was impressed by their dedication and fervour, and by the vanguardism, centralism and discipline of the Communist party. Otherwise the only influences were negative i.e. he hated everything he thought it stood for. His attitude to socialism was totally and unremittingly hostile, and his movement originated as a direct counter to socialism.

It?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s important to realize that just as thousands of deluded leftists thought Bolshevism was building a society of total freedom and equality, so did thousands of deluded rightists. Most right-wingers in this period had no fundamental objections to authoritarian rule as such, what worried them was the fear that Communism was ultimately leading to greater democracy and freedom.

Socialism means the social ownership of the means of production (land, factories etc). It evolved out of the 19th century democratic movement and was concerned with democratizing the workplace. The two extremes of socialism are Anarchism and state socialism. Anarchists would replace the state with a federation of direct democracies and put production under the direct control of the workforce. State socialists believe that the advent of universal suffrage means that when a democratic state owns the means of production that ownership is therefore invested in society.

In the days when Hitler was formulating his ideas most schools of socialism leaned to the Anarchist end of the spectrum ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú syndicalism, distributism, guild socialism, council communism etc. Even the most statist of socialists were interested in ideas like workers control of industry (i.e. state owns but workforce controls). This is the context in which Hitler described Communism as the economic equivalent of political democracy.

Hitler never advocated or practiced public ownership of industry (?¢‚Ǩ?ìWhat need have we to socialize land and buildings? We socialize people!?¢‚Ǩ?) and Welfare-ism ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú what you describe as ?¢‚Ǩ?ìfree health care, free schooling, etc?¢‚Ǩ? is not socialism.

One root of welfarism lies in managerial liberalism ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú things like free compulsory education (which we have had in Britain since 1870) were seen as essential to the functioning of modern industrial capitalism. But to a great extent welfarism originated with conservatives as an alternative to socialism. They saw it as a way of drawing the workers away from socialism and blunting its economic appeal. This was particularly the case in Germany where the great architect of welfarism was the arch-conservative Bismark. He reasoned that welfarism plus a limited democracy would weaken the appeal of both liberalism and socialism and preserve the aristocratic/imperial old order. Hitler?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s welfarist ideas were absolutely mainstream in German conservative thinking.

 

[Lincsong]

Two sides of the Atlantic

That was a great synopsis Night. That's why I like the way this thread has evolved because we are getting the views of topics from both sides of the Atlantic. The way people in Britain view, describe and define different economic structures are very different from the way we Yanks in the States view, descrive and define the same structures. Are there any Loungers from outside the U.S. and U.K. who would like to chime in how the Axis powers are viewed from their postion? Keep up the great posts.