History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedSpanish Civil War

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Poll Question: Which Party would you have joined or Supported?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
44 [35.20%]
81 [64.80%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 13:33
Spain under Franco subsisted on tourism and American aid. The Eastern European countries got neither, so they were harder off for hard currency true.
 
But then the country with way and away the biggest ever overseas debt is, and has been for a long while now, the USA.
 
Neither Eastern Europe nor Spain was going to prosper until they got rid of (a) fascism and (b) communism, since both are bureaucracy-ridden elitist oligarchies.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 901
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 13:44
Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:


I wouldn't really say so. Mexico at the time had one of the most anticlerical constitutions of the world (although by the 1930's not everything was enforced any more).
Enforcement declined because of the religously inspired Christero rebellions.  An unwritten compromise was then reached in which anti clerical laws remained (until the 1990s?) but the actual laws were only nominally enforced, especially in religous areas.   
Back to Top
Władysław Warnencz View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jun-2008
Location: Sofia
Status: Offline
Points: 175
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Władysław Warnencz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 16:14
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Neither Eastern Europe nor Spain was going to prosper until they got rid of (a) fascism and (b) communism, since both are bureaucracy-ridden elitist oligarchies.
 
I agree with that and that's why i wrote i hate both.The difference at least is that while both systems destroy the economy of the country,communism destroys also religion,intellectuals,nationalism,aristocracy,proper education etc...That's why i would choose Franco...
Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-May-2007
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 848
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 16:35
I voted Republican.
At least it would have been the side that I'd supported at the beginning of the war. First of all, the government of Azaña was democratically elected, secondly, it was a government that was actively taking measures to modernise the nation: reducing the powers of the church, redistributing wealth, and in educating the working classes.
I have nothing against Catholics or the Church as an insitution, but the role of the Catholic clergy in Spanish history has been mostly shameful. It was about time that Spain had woken up from the Inquisition!
 
However, after the war started, the Republicans were just as cruel and barbaric as the Nationalists. Worst of all, there was a great deal of infighting in the Republican camp that more anarchists died at the hands of the Communists than at the hands of the Fascists.
 
Another important point to make is the following:
In 1936, the Spanish Communist Party had negligible power. The Republican camp was made up of Democrats, Anarchists, Socialists, and Liberals. The Anarchist workers' militia, like that of the CNT, played a major part in the beginning of the war.
However, with the USSR being the only foreign superpower to support the Republican camp, the Soviets financed the Spanish Communist Party and turned it into the dominant force of the Republican camp. The Red Army ended up anihilating most of the independent workers' militias. In Barcelona, 1937, there was a civil war within a civil war which ended in a great purge against the non-communist republicans. 
The Republican army, as reformed under Soviet advisers, copied the organization of the Soviet army in that every unit had its own "Political Adviser" making sure that all officers and soldiers had "correct thinking". Apparently, they executed a fair percentage of their own troops.
 
Ideologically, the Nationalist camp was just as divided: between landowners, the church, the Carlists, army officers, and Falangists (fascists).
Politcally speaking, the Falange had an ideology that was closer to Socialism than to the interests of the elite; and one could be a member of the Falange being an atheist, as long as he respected the Catholic clergy.
However, during the war they put their differences apart and united under the "Caudillo" Franco to fight against the Republicans. As long as you obeyed Franco's orders, you were probably safe from persecution. Smile 
 
Back to Top
Władysław Warnencz View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jun-2008
Location: Sofia
Status: Offline
Points: 175
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Władysław Warnencz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 16:50
Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

I voted Republican.
At least it would have been the side that I'd supported at the beginning of the war. First of all, the government of Azaña was democratically elected, secondly, it was a government that was actively taking measures to modernise the nation: reducing the powers of the church, redistributing wealth, and in educating the working classes.
I have nothing against Catholics or the Church as an insitution, but the role of the Catholic clergy in Spanish history has been mostly shameful. It was about time that Spain had woken up from the Inquisition!
  
 
"Reducing the power of the church"?No,they wanted to DESTROY the church by soviet example.You write you have nothing against christians and yet support the leftists?This simply isn't possible,because leftists themselves were totally AGAINST christianity and any king of religion.You hate Inquisition,but in fact support people who killed more innocents in a few years than the whole Spanish Inquisition in a few centuries : Nearly 7,000 clerics were killed and churches, convents and monasteries were attacked. Some 13 bishops, 4184 diocesan priests, 2365 male religious (among them 114 Jesuits) and 283 nuns were killed. There are unverified accounts of Catholics being forced to swallow rosary beads and/or being thrown down mine shafts, as well as priests being forced to dig their own graves before being buried alive.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_of_the_Spanish_Civil_War
 
An example : leftists shoot at a statue of Christ -
 
 
That's why when someone supports the republicans he in fact declares himself against religion and for atheism...


Edited by Władysław Warnencz - 31-Aug-2008 at 16:54
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1809
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 17:23
Hello Calvo
 
As a Spaniard, was your family divided by the war or was it stauchly suppotive of one party?
 
Also, where, in Spain, were the Republicans strong and where were the nationalists strong?
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-May-2007
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 848
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 19:45
Regarding the Republicans and the church; yes, among the republicans there were militants who burned churches with people inside them, especially the anarchist groups and members of the extreme left. After the war broke out, these militia groups shot thousands of priest and nuns, most of whom were innocent.
However, none of these actions were actually backed up by the government of Azaña, who was moderate-Socialist in nature. They introduced social reforms such as separating the Church and state education, legalizing divorce, allow civil marriages, granting votes to women (who mostly voted for the Right), making state education mandatory etc.. Most of these reforms were far from a real proletarian revolution.  
After war broke out, the republican government did not have any military power, so they had to rely on these workers' militias for the war against the rebels, and many of these militia groups committed atrocities.
So the statement that "the republican government tried to destroy the church" is not entirely true because none of these actions had been consented by the government.
 
Almost all Spaniards today have family from both sides of the Civil War.
The Civil War started off as a military uprising throughout all the barracks. Except in Spanish Morrocco where the Moorish "Regulars" and the Spanish Foreign Legion took part unanimously in the Nationalist uprising, in most of the peninsula the uprisings were met with resistance from both within and outside the army.
During the first 3 days of the civil war the country was in a state of confusion where soldiers fought against soldiers, workers fought against falangists and fascists rebels.
By the 4th day, most of the fighting had stopped, and the "2 Spains emerged": the Republicans remained in control of MOST of the peninsula, including Madrid, Cataluña, the Basque Country, Asturias; virtually all the major industrial cities. The Fascist rebels controlled Castilla Leon, Galicia, Andalucía, the Canary Islands, and Zaragoza; roughly 1/3 of Spanish territory.
From then on, most Spaniards did not have an election as with whom they fought. If you lived in an area controlled by the Republic, you fought for the Republic, if you lived in an area controlled by the Nationalists, you fought for the nationalists. Many farmers living in enclosed villages simply got drafted without knowing who they fought for.
 
It was a war that divided families because many brothers living in different parts of Spain fought with opposing sides due to pure geographical coincidence. Even Franco had family who fought for the Republicans!
Back to Top
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Status: Offline
Points: 2127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 19:58
@ al jassas

at th time you can safely consider that Catlunya and Euskadi (Basque country) were mostly leftist, in the same way Madrid and Asturias as regions with a strong industrial economy were pro-government. Andalusia had pockets of the traditional Mediterranean left (a bite like Sicily, Languedoc in France or Alentejo in Portugal) but it was the first region to be invaded and it also had a strong rightist minority (traditionally it is a region divided in two parts a Eastern one and a Western one, I think the Eastern part around Toledo was more pro-government and the Western one around Sevilla more rightist, but I'm not sure).

The most clearly Franqusitas regions were Navarra and Galicia, two strongholds of the Catholic church. The Spanish colonies, specially the Rif were also dominated by the army.

Regarding Castile and the Levante region, I couldn't say.

@ WW
you have a way too simplistic vision of the problem. For instance did you know that a significant part of the French catholics started by supporting Franco but after the massacres in Majorca, they changed their mind and became supporters of the government.

Besides, you're having something like a Polish biais, the "leftist" were not all communists and with the exception of the violent anti-catholics feelings of the Catalan anarchists, most of the members of the government were merely opposed to the Church as an institution. Proof being that nothing was done against the Church before July 36 (after that the Church supported the rebellion so it is another matter). Nothing to do with the Soviet Union. If the government wanted to destroy smething it was the Chuch influence on politics, society as a whole and the economy (IIRC the chuch still owned some 35% of the land and sometimes more in some regions).

The fact that the pro-government militias commited awful acts is not denied, but the reverse is also true. For instance, how many Basque priest fighting for the Republic have been killed by the Franquistas? It was a bloody war, many suffered, but I'd say that the most Christian position would be to stand against the war-mongers.
I am a free donkey!
Back to Top
Mixcoatl View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 4581
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mixcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 23:23
Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:


I wouldn't really say so. Mexico at the time had one of the most anticlerical constitutions of the world (although by the 1930's not everything was enforced any more).
Enforcement declined because of the religously inspired Christero rebellions.  An unwritten compromise was then reached in which anti clerical laws remained (until the 1990s?) but the actual laws were only nominally enforced, especially in religous areas.   

You're right about that. My main point though was that it is not correct to say that Mexico doesn't have an anticlerical tradition.

Originally posted by Calvo Calvo wrote:


However, none of these actions were actually backed up by the government of Azaña, who was moderate-Socialist in nature. They introduced social reforms such as separating the Church and state education, legalizing divorce, allow civil marriages, granting votes to women (who mostly voted for the Right), making state education mandatory etc.. Most of these reforms were far from a real proletarian revolution.  
After war broke out, the republican government did not have any military power, so they had to rely on these workers' militias for the war against the rebels, and many of these militia groups committed atrocities.
So the statement that "the republican government tried to destroy the church" is not entirely true because none of these actions had been consented by the government.

Spot on. It was precisely the eruption of the civil war that allowed all this leftwing extremism  to boil up. The error people who say that at least Franco saved Spain from communism make is that without Franco communism would never become as influential in the Spanish republic. Without Franco Spain likely would have been a liberal democracy, not a communist dictatorship.

Originally posted by Władysław Warnencz Władysław Warnencz wrote:


That's why when someone supports the republicans he in fact declares himself against religion and for atheism.

Of course, just like when somebody supports the nationalists he in fact declares himself in favor of bombing Basque towns, propagation of judaeo-masonic conspiracy paranoia and overthrowing democratically elected governments.


Edited by Mixcoatl - 31-Aug-2008 at 23:23
"Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts"
"Atheists deny the existence of Satan, while simultaneously doing his work."

- Conservapedia
Back to Top
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Status: Offline
Points: 2127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 00:31
Not mentioning that Franco's regime allowed some bigotic laws to be passed by was not a very Christian one (colonies, support to Nazi Germany, etc).
I am a free donkey!
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 901
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 01:35
Originally posted by Maharbbal Maharbbal wrote:

 Euskadi (Basque country) were mostly leftist,
 
 
The Basques were internally divided and attempted to remain nueteral.  This was due to strong religous feelings amongst most of the Basque poulation mixing with a certain  number of left wing Basques. 
 
Though the Basques "supported" the Republicans due to their desire for independence , their support was only half hearted. This was especially so after anti religous atrocities increased. Basques fighting directly for the Republicans did so as individuals.  The Basque area did not place any units under Republican command. Instead, Basque militia units cooperated with the Republicans (to a degree) when Basque areas were invaded.
 
The fragmented Basque internal situation was demosntrated by a Nationalist column breaking the Republican siege of Olviedo and then marching to the French border while meeting only light resistance.    


Edited by Cryptic - 01-Sep-2008 at 01:37
Back to Top
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Status: Offline
Points: 2127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 03:44
I stand corrected

I am a free donkey!
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 11:30
Originally posted by Władysław Warnencz Władysław Warnencz wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Neither Eastern Europe nor Spain was going to prosper until they got rid of (a) fascism and (b) communism, since both are bureaucracy-ridden elitist oligarchies.
 
I agree with that and that's why i wrote i hate both.The difference at least is that while both systems destroy the economy of the country,communism destroys also religion,intellectuals,nationalism,aristocracy,proper education etc...That's why i would choose Franco...
 
What's good about preserving nationalism and aristocracy? And when did Communism have any bias against intellectuals, per se?
 
Both Soviet communism and the Falange (and other similar movements) destroyed proper education, for much the same reason, since they are essentially the same form of government.
 
Everybody else has pointed out the error in equating Soviet Communism with the Republican government, so I won't bother.
 
Thanks, Calvo.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-May-2007
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 848
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 12:12
What happened was that both camps used "fear propaganda" to demonize the opposing side.
The Nationalists created the impression that the Republicans were hell-bent on destroying the Catholic church and all Spanish traditions; and that the Republican government was identical to Stalin's red terror.
The Republicans created the impression that the Nationalists were identical to the Nazis whose propaganda included exterminating everyone who wasn't Catholic, a Spanish nationalist, or spoke a language different to Castilian Spanish; that a Nationalist government would be identical to returning to the Inquistion.
 
Both camps also had their fair share of ironies.
Supposedly, the "Nationalists" should be pro-Spanish and pro-Catholic in nature, yet the most important protagonists of the Nationalist military insurgency were foreigners: Muslims serving in the "Regulares" and foreign legion volunteers!
The "Spanish troops" serving in the mainland barracks had a wider divergence of ideologies among them, which was the main reason why most of the initial uprisings in the peninsula were met with resistance by troops loyal to the government and the workers' militias.
The entire rank-and-file and NCOs of the Spanish navy mutinied against the  Nationalist insurgent officers and remained loyal to the republic.
 
Nazi Germany also provided arms and troops to fight for the Nationalists, and they were not only foreigners, but also protestants!
The famous bombing of Guernica was done by German war planes.
 
It was a great irony that "foreign troops invaded Spain to impose Spanish nationalism".
 
And I repeat once more, for the common Spaniards, especially those living in the countryside, the war was simply a slugging match between 2 mass-conscripted armies.
There were as many Right-wingers fighting for the Republicans as Leftists fighting for the Nationalists. It all depended on which area you got caught in and many people didn't even know for whom they fought for.
All they saw were armed men taking control of their village one day and forcing everyone to march to the frontline at gunpoint.
In this aspect, both the Republicans and the Nationalists were identical.
 
Franco was clever enough to spread the rumour of the "fifth column", as refering to Nationalist sympathisers caught-up in Republican-controlled areas.
 
 
 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 13:29
It's interesting, though strictly off topic, that navies everywhere are always less conservative than armies.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Władysław Warnencz View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jun-2008
Location: Sofia
Status: Offline
Points: 175
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Władysław Warnencz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 13:53
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

What's good about preserving nationalism and aristocracy? And when did Communism have any bias against intellectuals, per se?
 
Both Soviet communism and the Falange (and other similar movements) destroyed proper education, for much the same reason, since they are essentially the same form of government.
 
Everybody else has pointed out the error in equating Soviet Communism with the Republican government, so I won't bother.
 
Thanks, Calvo.
 
Nationalism helps preserving your own nation. Aristocracy is composed of the most wealthy people in society who run business,trade,industry and in fact almost the whole economy.Like todays high-class people such as lawyers,bankers,businessmen and so on...Destroying it leaves only poor-educated farmers and workers to run the country,which results in idiotical political decisions,economical decline and country bankrupt,as happened in all Eastern European countries.
 
Intellectuals were ALWAYS number one target when communists came to power.In ALL communist countries they were persecuted and destroyed.Anyone who had a litle bit more education was considered an enemy of the state and either killed or send to a labour camp.The same would happen in time in Spain...
 
 
 
Maharbbal,nationalists shot republican priests because they were considered as soldiers - armed and fighting,not because they were priests,while republicans murdered thousands of priests and nuns solely for being christians - that's the difference.
 


Edited by Władysław Warnencz - 01-Sep-2008 at 13:53
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4232
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 14:18
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

It's interesting, though strictly off topic, that navies everywhere are always less conservative than armies.
 
I would agree with that, but only since about the mid 19th century.  Before that, most of the command structure was drawn from the same aristocratic class.
 
The industrial advancement of the 19th c. forced technological change on everyone, but moreso on navies than armies.  Technical personnel became the most important component of a navy's manpower, and many of those were drawn from a more educated middle class:
 
Marine engineering, metalurgists (armor/high tensil steel), propulsion engineers...speed, speed, speed.....gunnery experts handling ever more complex ordnance (optical range finders/ propellants), heavy and complex mechanical equipment of every conceivable type.....and electrical power!
 
In 1880, modern navies were essentially theoretical.  In a generation, they were using wireless telegraphy, implementing turbine technolgy and developing submarines, torpedoes and were flying airplanes.  As they did so, more and more non aristocrats rose in admiralties, bringing their more liberal ideas onto naval staffs and into commands (not the fleet commander or the First Lord types, but still rather widespread).
 
Kind of a windy response.  Sorry. 
 
    
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 901
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 14:37
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

It's interesting, though strictly off topic, that navies everywhere are always less conservative than armies.
Good point.  It was the German Navy tha mutinied forst agaisnt the Kaiser, despite having seen little combat. IJN and Nazi German naval units rarely commited atrocities (Manilla, 1945 being an exception)
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

As they did so, more and more non aristocrats rose in admiralties, bringing their more liberal ideas onto naval staffs and into commands (not the fleet commander or the First Lord types, but still rather widespread).
And not only at the senior level, but at the level of he NCOS and men as well. Technological demands placed on navies led them to recruit from better educated, industrialized urban populations. Urban populations were far more likely to have been exposed to different social concepts and to have actually spoken with foreigners and listened to their "foreign ideas" (rare in the days before mass migrationa nd airplanes) than the source populations (socially conservative, rural) for comparatively low tech army recruits. 
 
Thus, naval recruits are far more likely to question the broader picture and tend to be more resistant to hate propaganda etc. 


Edited by Cryptic - 01-Sep-2008 at 14:59
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Status: Offline
Points: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 19:20
Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

Nazi Germany also provided arms and troops to fight for the Nationalists, and they were not only foreigners, but also protestants!


Germans are not Protestants, there are just as many Protestants as Catholic.
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Status: Offline
Points: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 19:23
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

It's interesting, though strictly off topic, that navies everywhere are always less conservative than armies.


that's because the army was strictly in the hands of the old aristocratic families, also serving in the Army is always more prestigeous than the navy. non-aristocrats who want to make a career would join the navy because their career-road would be blocked by the old aristocracy in the army.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.