The Popular Front at NR
Yet more proof that National Review has redefined itself as a fashionable font of social democracy recently came from Canadian interloper David Frum, who used successive posts at his diary to claim that, "Among the European dictators, [Francisco Franco] ranks behind only Hitler and Stalin in monstrousness," and to denounce Jesse Helms for his "racialism." Of course, National Review used to be an unabashed admirer of both Franco—who saved Spain from Communism and the Catholic Church in Spain from destruction, and who was our ally in the Cold War—and Helms, who was the most principled conservative in the Senate during his era. But that was when NR was recognizably conservative and regularly featured writers worth reading, and not a playground for neocon hacks who thought Bush was the "right man, have promised to show us the way to "end evil," and who think the greatest threat we now face is "fascism."
Entries(RSS)
Eagle: Important to emphasize. We would surely not look with equanimity on the secession of parts of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Southern California, perhaps parts of Colorado. Yet, one suspects that these areas could be ripe for secession (La Republica del Norte) in, let's say, thirty or forty years as people of Mexico become an absolute majority in these states. One might conclude there is no way to prevent the event given the demographic collapse of European origin Americans. There are few means to assimilate this invading population. One can see the adumbrations in U.S. border cities where "Anglos" are already in a distinct minority.
George Kennan actually advocated breakup of the American Union into a more manageable confederation, though the scenario indicated above was likely not what he had in mind!
I'm neither a Spaniard nor a nationalist, so certainly not a Spanish nationalist. But the issue in the Spanish Civil War was not centralism vs. decentralism, but Communism vs. a traditional Spanish and Christian society. With respect to the Basques, many of them fought on the side of Franco - many if not most of the Carlists were Basques. They were the best fighters on Franco's side; this was attested to by none other than Radio Moscow. Like most Basques they wanted their autonomy, their local rights within a Spanish federation and in this Franco disappointed them. But their Catholic faith was more important to them and they had their priorities right.
Kirt Higdon is on target. When you have priest-killing, nun-raping, church-desecrating fanatics on one side of the fight (like Dolores Ibárruri aka La Pasionaria), you don't have much time to think about centralism or decentralism, you just fight them.
#50 Eagle. I was not referring to the expediency of secession in any particular case but to any people's RIGHT to self-government, which seems to me vital to the moral universe.
I doubt if the Mexican situation in the SW qualifies since it is an invasion by a foreign country and not a true independence movement. Likewise Chechnya and other Islamic revolts do not qualify because the end objective is a universal Muslim Empire.
Whether a particular people have a RIGHT to independence is necessarily determined by them alone as an articulated social organism. Whether they can make it good is another question.
As someone suggested above, I think the Spanish Civil War has become a bit of a litmus test. You are either for one side or the other, and this makes nuance and objectivity difficult. That is was also a proxy war at a particularly momentous time in history, and that there were religious motivations further contributes to this sort of all or nothing which side are you on dynamic. One can believe that the right side, however flawed, won, without overlooking Franco's flaws or without endorsing nationalism based on the dubious rational that that is what works.
Prof Wilson,
Thank you for your response and insights which I always value. I wholly agree with what your saying.
I don't at all disagree with Dr. Phillips' desire for nuance, but we can also nuance ourselves to death. Franco was not morally equivalent to Hitler or Stalin, nor was his regime anywhere near as totalitarian. I've made the point elsewhere that every western revolution since the French (and here I might even be willing to include the American revolution of the 1860s) was at its heart a revolution against traditional religion ("ye shall be as gods..."). Looked at this way the Spanish Civil War was the only successful modern counter-revolution. One doesn't have to be an apologist for Franco (Carlton Hayes certainly wasn't) to recognize that the world was better off that the right guys won. As if further proof of this is needed, the neocons line up, predictably, on the wrong side.
Prof. Willson's comment number 57 is on target, as usual.
Frum's claim that Franco was the worst European dictator behind only Hitler and Stalin is absurd; it means that Lenin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and Andropov were better than Franco, as were Tito, Ceausescu, Hohxa, Rakosi, Bierut, etc.
Tom Piatak
You're right - Ceausescu is often forgotten - despite that he was easily one of the most brutal. We here in the American Empire didnt care as he was seen as 'Pro Western' (Remember that?)
Hohxa - dictator of the only communist nation to officially ban all religion..be it the native Muslims or the Orthodox minority.
Dr. Wilson @54
I agree with what you say except I dont think it being an Islamic independence movement automatically invalidates it. Good examples - the Kurdish - despite the fact that the main arm of the movement are a bunch of marxist terrorists. They happen to be Muslims, but their movement by and large is a classic nationalist movement at its heart.
Daniel Maxwell: And Ceausescu was also perceived to be pro Israel. If I recall, Golda Meier made a special stop in Romania to, presumably, cement the ties between the two countries. Hard to get better bona fides than that!
Tom Piatak
It seems to me its pretty hard for any person with any knowledge of Franco, the Spanish Civil War, and WWII to make a case that Franco was in the same class as the bad guys of Europe during the last named war. Was it Pinchas Lapidas who credited Franco with saving more Jews than even Pius XII? Franco, to be sure, had his faults, but in that age he stands out as one of the slightly soiled white hat guys!
Mr. Piatak, if I recall correctly the Croat Tito actually fought against Franco in Spain. Tito probably learned a thing or two from the commies there and applied it to suppressing Yugoslav Christians (Cathloic and Orthodox) while allowing massive migrations of Muslims from Hoxha's Albania and creating what we today call the "Kosovo conflict".
I appreciate your input,Red Phillips,and I have enjoyed provoking some of this discussion.But let's face it-a unified,militantly Catholic Spain has been an indispensable,I repeat indispensable, agent in the survival of the West.That Franco wished to continue this tradition only brings glory to Franco.I am not deaf to a different model for 2008 Spain but I know the present government should be buried and I am unimpressed with the leftist separatists.Again....for Franco...without apologies.
Leo
Amen to that!
Franco was among the 20th century's most astute politicians.
He kept Spain out of WWII, and defied Hitler at the height of the latter's power and influence, October of 1940. An incredibly gutsy and savvy move. He did send the Blue legion to the Eastern front.
I echo the sentiments re: Hugh Thomas's book- to me the definitive work on the war, and a fairly even-handed treatment at that. The Spanish civil war was a fascinating conflict- a preview of WWII in so many ways. Today it is all but forgotten- ask an educated person, even a history student about the war and they will no doubt trot out Guernica and the Lincoln Brigade. Very few foreign volunteers served on the Nationalist side- Franco, to his credit, wanted to keep the War a Spanish affair. That being said, he relied heavily on the Condor Legion but marginalized the Italian CTV quickly- even placing the troops under command of Spanish officers! Peter Kemp, an Oxford graduate and devout Catholic, served with the Carlists and the Foreign Legion, and was wounded several times. Yet to even find mention of his name requires a thorough search through the most obscure texts on the war.
For a moving read, check out Brent Bozell's article on the Valley of the Fallen in the Guadarrama (I think). That to me, captures in essence what the War meant to the Nationalists, and what it should mean to Catholics today. Imagine the outcry if such a monument were erected in America today....
Peter Kemp went to Cambridge, not Oxford, my apologies.
And surprisingly, he can be googled.
AWLC
Right you are, indeed. Hugh Thomas' book is excellent and relatively balanced. Another Oxbridgian and Carlist sympathizer was Arnold Lund. I have forgotten the title of his book, but it was a wonderful Catholic perspective on the War and Franco.
You expect our citizens, "educated" in the U.S. school system, educated at our universities to know anything at all about the Spanish Civil War? Forget it! But people of the Studs Terkel perspective know all about the heroic Abraham Lincoln Brigade, fighting for the right, against the facists, etc., etc.
To All:
Thanks for the many intelligent comments. Proof yet again that Chronicles readers are terrific.
Ah yes, the Lincoln brigade.
Very brave men, but incredibly poorly led. The vast majority were die-hard Communists. I wonder how many knew that Moscow was pulling the strings on the Republican side. Given their "politics" perhaps they knew and never gave it a second thought.
These men were examined carefully after the War. The Army at first refused to let them serve in combat, labeling them "pre-mature anti-fascists." Many eventually migrated into OSS-type jobs and served with distinction. Edwin Rolfe was a Lincoln brigader and the poet laureate of the Battalion. Though I cannot agree with his politics, he wrote some beautiful and relevant poems that cross ideological lines, among them "First Love" and "Recruit."
Guernica is another matter. I'd be interested to hear y'alls viewpoint on this. All but the most vehemently Nationalist sources on the war treat it as a deliberate terror raid (though Guernica was, at the time, a transportation centre for retreating Republican troops).
This site is such a refreshing change from the pop culture blogosphere. Sadly, I cannot access it at work. I'm an Army Captain and the site is blocked as "extreme" and "distasteful." Move-on.org however, is readily available. Disgusting.
I often see subscribed copies of NR in homes of people from church. I wish I had the money to send each of them a subscription to Chronicles; I am sure they would like it much better and we would certainly have more to talk about. Especially this one Limbaugh fanatic, the poor, muddled fellow... but ya gotta love'm.
#72 AWLC,
The US properly kept out of combat and should have kept them out of the OSS, since most of them were communists and not American patriots. I'm sure a few were, and others no doubt served with distinction. But the vast majority were fighting for their real homeland -the USSR -and to advance communism. The Abe Lincoln brigade position from Sept 39 to June 22, 1941 was for the US to stay out the "imperialist war".
As for the bombing of Guernica - certainly a terror raid but given the vast atrocities committed during the war, why single that out? I suggest reading "Homage to Catalonia" by Orwell, where the Communists murdered any number leftists, and probably killed more of Republicans than died at Guernica
Finally, I find it hard to get misty eyed about a bunch of communists who went to Spain to help establish a Stalinist dictatorship.
David Frum, like most neocons, is definitely out of touch real conservatism. My question is why spend time deriding him when his opinions are of so little consequence except to Rush Limbaugh listeners, Fox News watchers, and National Review subscribers?
"My question is why spend time deriding him when his opinions are of so little consequence except to Rush Limbaugh listeners, Fox News watchers, and National Review subscribers?"
Why don't you ask Mr. Frum why he utilized his position at those very public venues mentioned above to revile, condemn and slander as unpatriotic Americans those who were trying to prevent the disaster called Iraq. You illustrate a good point in the duplicity of contemporary ethics that when the sauce for the goose is served to the gander, the sentimentalist in the flock always honk foul.
@ Pablo
I don't admire the cause or the ideals of those who served in the Lincoln Battalion. I merely find it ironic that many of these men, so eager to fight fascism, were denied the chance by the government, while millions of reluctant draftees went instead. To label the common American soldier in WWII as a "patriot" is a bit of a stretch. I would wager that few thought of their service in such terms.
As for Guernica, we are on the same page. I believe that the reason the incident has such a long half life is that it was one of the first times a civilian center was bombed from the air, in Europe at least. What the Germans did to Guernica was nothing compared to what Bomber Command and the USAAF did to nearly every German town and city in WWII. Of course, with the exception of the SCW, it's the victors who write the history.
Mr. West, I am under the assumption that the reason for concern about Frum's commentary is precisely because Fox News and NRO do reach such a number of potentially true conservatives, a number that unfortunately exceeds what influence Chronicles currently wields. It is my fervent hope that the efforts of people like Tom Piatak will help to topple the neo-con platform, and bring some of those people towards a sincere conservatism. A longshot? Yes. But to refuse to attempt would be a mistake.
#72:
Am I extraordinarily naive to be shocked that this site is blocked by the U.S. military for being "extreme", under a standard that permits MoveOn.org?
It is worse, in many ways, to have only leftist anti-war opinions available to active duty military than to have none at all.
Tom, you forget that NR also stands for New Republic. The late Dr. Francis -- of blessed memory -- mentioned that the content of the two NR periodicals was pretty much identical.
Conspiracy theorists often mention that Buckley was a CIA product sent to undermine the Right. Even in the 80s it was pretty squishy, but when they refused my money to buy classified ads to sell conservative bumper stickers I lost all respect for them.
"These men were examined carefully after the War. The Army at first refused to let them serve in combat, labeling them “pre-mature anti-fascists.”
This is a lie concocted by the veterans of the International Brigades:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=80D1D48A-4AAE-4254-ADCC-FDC6A7911294
"Despite all these confident assertions, “premature antifascism” is a myth. Not only is there no evidence that the United States armed forces ever used the phrase “premature antifascists” to describe those Americans who fought in Spain, there are indications that it was Communists and the veterans themselves who first employed the term. Moreover, many of the veterans were also “interim profascists” who in obedience to Soviet instructions dropped their anti-Nazism in September 1939 and opposed resistance to Fascist aggression while Germany conquered most of Western and Central Europe. Only when the Nazis turned against the USSR in June 1941 did the veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade rediscover their antifascism."