George, your comment about the Franco-Hitler reunion made me look into other sources. These are excerpts from a very Franquista source ("Razón Española", Luis Alvarez de Estrada):
About GIbraltar:
"His Excellency the Chief of State answers to the Führer, saying that, while it is correct that Gibraltar is a peace of Spanish land in foreign hands and the the Spanish people would be greatly satisfied that it returned to the Fatherland, there is to be understood that an offensive against Gibraltar supposes to the people of Spain an excessive sacrifice, since the wounds of the recent civil war are yet to heal and Gibraltar would be a very small compensation for the destruction and difficulties Spain would suffer going into war with England".
About Morocco, also offered by Hitler:
"The Caudillo thanks all the offerings made of the French and the Oran zone, in case Spain enters the war, but understands that to offer things first it is necessary to have them at hand and that, up to now, the Axis does not dispose of them".
About entering negotiations with Petain (presumably to make the whole of the Basque country part of Spain):
"The Caudillo anwers that he doesn't believe Spain should participate in talks with a Power just defeated by Germany, a part of which is being offered, since this offerings are either a bait for the possible entry of Spain in the war or are not to be taken seriously, if Germany's attitude with France isn't excessively harsh".
The one thing Hitler could get was the offering of Spain to furnish oil to German oil-tanker ships "on hidden bays in the Spanish coast".
In a letter to Hitler, signed on February 26, 1941, Franco wanted to "dismantle all shadow of suspicion and insist on my disposition to be completely and decisively at your side, united in a common destiny; to desert from it would mean for me to surrender and betray the noble cause I've commanded and which I represent in Spain". He finished "securing my faith in the triumph of your noble cause".
We must not forget that Spain sent it's Blue Division (volunteers) to fight with the Germans agains the Soviets in the Russian front. This -says the author- "helped General Franco to get rid of the tough Germanophile fraction of the Falange, sending them to fight with their friends".
Franco had written that a United States intervention in the war would be "criminal madness". But when that "criminal madness" takes place, he moves to accomodate himself, fires his pro-Nazi Foreign Relations Minister, Serrano Suñer and substitutes him with the pragmatist Count of Jordana, he closes ties with Portugal -also a dictatorship, but close to Britain- and slowly moves into neutrality.
Spain was not neutral during most of World War II, it was "non-beligerant", which meant it supported the Axis, but would not get into war.
Franco changed the status to "neutral" in late 1943.
On May 1944, everything had changed. Franco declared: "For us, there are two different problems, the fight against Bolcheviks and the fight in the West among civilized nations". He was starting to make clear that he wanted no problems with the Western democracies, in case they'd win the war.
Make your own conclussions. Franco was shrewd and somewhat a pragmatist, but that doesn't make him less Fascist, IMO.
fbaezer wrote:George, your comment about the Franco-Hitler reunion made me look into other sources. These are excerpts from a very Franquista source ("Razón Española", Luis Alvarez de Estrada):
About GIbraltar:
"The Caudillo thanks all the offerings made of the French and the Oran zone, in case Spain enters the war, but understands that to offer things first it is necessary to have them at hand and that, up to now, the Axis does not dispose of them".
About entering negotiations with Petain (presumably to make the whole of the Basque country part of Spain):
"The Caudillo anwers that he doesn't believe Spain should participate in talks with a Power just defeated by Germany, a part of which is being offered, since this offerings are either a bait for the possible entry of Spain in the war or are not to be taken seriously, if Germany's attitude with France isn't excessively harsh".
We must not forget that Spain sent it's Blue Division (volunteers) to fight with the Germans agains the Soviets in the Russian front. This -says the author- "helped General Franco to get rid of the tough Germanophile fraction of the Falange, sending them to fight with their friends".
Make your own conclussions. Franco was shrewd and somewhat a pragmatist, but that doesn't make him less Fascist, IMO.
I think it all makes Franco a wiser and shrewder leader than Neville Chamberlain or Paul Reynaud. The answers you quoted to Hitler at the moment of his greatest power were quite extraordinary. The history of those weeks suggests Hitler was surprised and befuddled for several weeks after his encounter with Franco.
ehBeth wrote:georgeob1 wrote:[,While I concede that in certain circumstances the prospect of eventual justice for tyrants may, conceivably, have some benefits, overall I believe the tradeoffs in the eyes of such figures will be insufficient to deter the worst of them. Moreover I am exceedingly suspicious of the "justice" meted out by such self-appointed nations and tribunals. It is neither fair nor uniformly implied. Moreover it creates expectations for the power, justice, and efficacy of "international law" which the international community has repeatedly shown it is chronically unable to fulfill. Finally ,it is not even based on real power, just the crowing of a judicial cock on his particular dung hill.
Do you have any idea how odd that sounds coming from an American?
It IS odd, isn't it? What with Iraq going on - where there was NO judicial process - and other matters of history.
But - I had wanted to keep this thread to discussing the judicial process that IS going on.
Reading Fbaezer with interest...
dlowan,
I assume you are referring to Saddam Hussein. It is a fact that he was in violation of the laws of several states that claim universal jurisdiction - Belgium, Spain, and perhaps even Germany. I do note that none of them raised a challenge to him. Even the vaunted UN Security Council was unable to bring itself to take any definative action against him despite his unprovoked aggressive wars against two neighbors, attempts to exterminate the Kurds, brutal suppression of the Shi ites, and innumerable crimes against his people.
Perhaps that is the key point. Such structures are useful only against relatively tame countries in economic duress, such as Argentina. Even there, they are useful only after the fact. No foreign country raised a hand when the repression was going on.
What action has the 'International Community' taken to protect the Africans of Darfur from the continuing attacks by Sudanese Militias?
The essential point is that there is neither the power nor the will in the International Community to enforce such justice in a fair and uniform matter, particularly in dangerous, egregious cases.
Your point appeared to be that neither should they.
The African Union (forget if that is the proper name) has sent troops to Darfur - my understanding was that the UN would if asked. I know ther ewas talk of Oz troops going at some point.
But - I agree - international law is a delicate and dicey thing - and the enforcement of it is in its infancy.
I hope it grows up.
Meanwhile, I DO see a point in prosecuting even aged and toothless monsters - if it can be done legally - perhaps it will make some a little more reluctant to sink their teeth into their peoples when they can???
dlowan wrote:
Meanwhile, I DO see a point in prosecuting even aged and toothless monsters - if it can be done legally - perhaps it will make some a little more reluctant to sink their teeth into their peoples when they can???
The problem is that only the relatively benign cases will be subject to such redress. Do you see any action on the part of Spain or any of the crowd of European nations - which specialize in solemnly handling only the trivial cases, involving impotent governments, - to take on even pathetic old Fidel Castro? (Lest we forget he executed 25,000 Cobans in drumhead trials at the sports stadium in the six months after his revolution took over. For Cuba that is a large number). On the contrary they are now slavishly currying favor with the old tyrant merely because he released ten of the 800 political prisioners he rounded up last year. Can you imagine the Chinese leaders who ordered the repression in Tienamin square ever being subject to such a court?
Should there be a system of justice for tyrannical leaders? Well I suppose there should. Aesop told a story about a convention of mice that resolved that someone should put a bell around the cat's neck so they could hear before it could strike. But who would do it and how?? I think that is the real question.
You say it is a good thing if it can be done legally. What does that really mean? Whose law? Whose judicial procedure? Whose jurisdiction? The fact is that international law consists only of what sovereign nations agree to. Countries like Spain and Belgium write laws that they presume to apply to all mankind. Who gave them that right? To whom are these courts accountable? Certainly not you or me. That is not justice: it is tyranny.
George George...25,000? You're not known for hyperbole.Come on...there were trials with lawyers defending Batista's torturers and there were some of Batista's soldiers who were summarily executed ..but 25,000?
That is my recollection from various intelligence reports I read a few decades ago while on active duty. I believe the number is quite accurate. Most of the killings were done in the months immediately following the fall of Batista's government.
Have you been to South Florida? it took a great deal to motivate the mass migration of over 500,000 people, most of whom left all their property behind them.
I live in South florida. I am an immigrant and I speak Spanish. You say 500,000 have emigrated? I guarantee you even if Castro's regime was benign there'd be 250,000 over here. It's the economy! Half the agricultural work force is made up of illegal aliens! Besides george, you conveniently forget that American embargos since 1960 have virtually strangled the Cuban economy...especially when the USSR imploded.
Funny the Cuban migration didn't start until Castro came on the scene. Was our economy less attractive then?
Our embargo hasn't strangled the Cuban economy. It is socialism and the stifling effect of an authoritarian bureaucratic regime that have done that. Cuba has no hard currency with which to buy our goods at any price. Cuba produces less sugar than it did under Batista and produces it less efficiently. Perhaps if there was no embargo some foolish banks would have lent them some money for sovereign debt. However the Europeans have no embargo, and somehow their banks have not seen fit to make any loans either. That's about it for the imaginary effects of the embargo.
The embargo was a significant factor while the Soviet Union was propping up the Cuban economy and using Cuba for its surrogate colonial army in Angola and as a way station for the support of revolution in Central America. That is all gone now and we continue the embargo only because it would be more trouble to lift it than continue.
Cuba is a basket case and will likely remain so for most of the generation that follows Castro's death.
BTW, how's the weather down there? I'm off for a week in Jupiter tomorrow AM. Getting tired of all this dirty old snow!
panzade wrote:George George...25,000? You're not known for hyperbole.Come on...there were trials with lawyers defending Batista's torturers and there were some of Batista's soldiers who were summarily executed ..but 25,000?
My Cuban cousin, when he was young and a party member: "We gave wall to 15 thousand" ("dimos pared": shot by execution).
(Actually he "gave wall" to no one. He was 12 at the triumph of the Revolution, and all the massive executions were on the first years... I saw him cry like a baby in 1990, when he told me that he realized that everything he had fought for in his life was a blatant lie... he is now a croupier in Las Vegas).
I don't think that a clear distinction can be made on the reasons behind Cuban migration since the 1990s, as the Cuban economic situation has deteriorated to incredible levels. But it's safe to say that the first waves were mostly politically moved.
