Login/Sign up

World Association of International Studies

PAX, LUX ET VERITAS SINCE 1965
Post Franco Monuments...and General Custer
Created by John Eipper on 08/24/17 6:07 AM

Previous posts in this discussion:

Post

Franco Monuments...and General Custer (John Heelan, UK, 08/24/17 6:07 am)

Ten years ago, the socialist government of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero approved a law that forces the removal of all public symbols of the Franco era, such as statues and plaques, and to rename streets associated with Franco and the generals who fought alongside him in the Spanish Civil War of 1936-39.

(As to the killing of American Indians, does not a statue to Custer still exist in Monroe, Michigan?)

JE comments:  Monroe, George Armstrong Custer's hometown, is 45 minutes east of Adrian.  It's surprising that the Civil War's biggest dandy would hail from such a down-to-earth place.  (To wit, it's the Recliner Capital of the Free World:  La-Z-Boy.)  I believe the monument still stands (see below):  Custer is probably immune from historical expungement, as he already faced "justice" at Little Bighorn.

Returning to Spain, there must still be a Franco statue or two somewhere on public display.  Who can fill us in?

Custer Monument, Monroe, Michigan



SHARE:
Rate this post
Informational value 
Insight 
Fairness 
Reader Ratings (0)
0%
Informational value0%
Insight0%
Fairness0%

Visits: 119

Comments/Replies

Please login/register to reply or comment: Login/Sign up

  • More on Monuments: Custer, Sherman, Lee, Franco (Anthony J Candil, USA 08/25/17 4:08 AM)
    Why should a memorial to General Custer should be removed? That he was a dandy as John E suggests is not a sin.  Custer was probably a fool but he died in battle, and in my view with honor. Let him rest in peace, for God's sake!

    Are we thinking of removing all our historical memorials?  Why not remove William T. Sherman's memorial in NYC?  After all, he burned Atlanta, didn't he?


    I do think this is all foolishness. Once upon a time I was proud that we were able to respect all the fallen, no matter which side they fought on during the Civil War. To me it was an example of moderation, peace and reconciliation. Now that it's all over, we are no different from others.


    Regarding Spain, that is different to start with. In the US at least we remove the statues and memorials of the losers. In Spain they remove the statues and memorials of the winners! Can you imagine if we had started removing all memorials of Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, and many others who won the Civil War?


    The Spaniards, no matter what some prominent WAISers such as Ángel Viñas, Paul Preston, and others may think or say, are what they are today thanks to Franco and the Nationalists for winning their Civil War. Don't forget the monarchy.  Felipe and Letizia wouldn't be monarchs today if the Republic had won the war. It was Franco, in a wrong move in my view, who restored the monarchy.


    They shouldn't have removed at least Franco's memorial at the Spanish Military Academy, at Zaragoza. He was its first director there. To put up a memorial, anyway, dedicated to the father of Juan Carlos, naming him Juan III, when he was never actually a king and did nothing but live free at the expense of all Spaniards, that's a stupid thing!


    On the other hand, to qualify memorials to generals Robert E. Lee and Albert Sidney Johnston as symbols of "modern Neo-Nazism," as the president of the UT at Austin has said--quoting JE--is the most stupid and saddest thing I've ever heard.


    JE comments:  Perhaps Anthony Candil in Austin can answer this.  Is UT's President, Gregory Fenves, a Yankee?  He was educated at Cornell and U Cal-Berkeley, which suggests he is, but none of the on-line bios include a birthplace.  If he were a Texan, I'm sure the info would be plastered everywhere.  It's far easier to identify Fenves's religion (Judaism) and salary ($750K) than his place of birth.


    I saw Fenves speak at UT back in May.  The occasion?  The graduation of engineer extraordinaire Eric Simmons, who is competing this weekend at the SpaceX Hyperloop competition in California.  Godspeed, Eric!  (By the way, he's my nephew.)  Click below; he's done good.


    http://one.npr.org/?sharedMediaId=545558100:545558109



     

    Please login/register to reply or comment:

    • Yankees and Rebels Today: Let's Get Over It (Anthony J Candil, USA 08/26/17 9:16 AM)
      Just to continue talking in terms of "Yankees" and "Confederates" makes me sick, honestly. We are all Americans, and just to realize this is what should define us going forward.

      History is history and should remain as such, without hate or bigotry.


      I didn't know what John E says about the current president of the U of Texas, and I don't consider him a "Yankee" in the bad sense of the word. I used to know his predecessor, William Powers, who came from Berkeley and Harvard and was a professor of law. He resigned under weird circumstances but is still a professor of law.


      Fenves also comes from Berkeley, as well as Cornell, but he is an engineer. Maybe this training gives him a structural mind and he is much younger than Powers. I don't think that Powers would have labeled General Lee as "Neo-Nazi."


      Anyway, congratulations to John E for his nephew's achievement! It must be in the genes.


      JE comments: But Anthony, Texans if anyone are comfortable with identity labels that subdivide the nation. Aren't people from the Lone Star state Texans first and Americans, well, second?


      The Hyperloop competition is today. Go Team Eric! I always wondered, with my poet's brain, how I came from a family of engineers (father, sister, brother-in-law, and nephew).

      Please login/register to reply or comment:

      • Celebrating US Outlaws: Jesse James (Enrique Torner, USA 08/27/17 4:12 AM)
        I don't understand all these violent disputes over statues and other monuments erected in honor of Confederate figures. If they don't deserve being remembered in this artistic fashion, why do so many criminals in this country have a museum devoted to them, and nobody complains about them? On the contrary, they seem to be very popular.

        When I first arrived in the US as a student at Indiana University, in Bloomington, our guide (I came with a group of 30 other Spanish fellows) took us to Nashville, Indiana, where we had the opportunity to visit the John Dillinger Museum. My Spanish fellows and I were absolutely amazed that somebody had built a museum in honor of a criminal. I remember that we commented, "This can only happen in America!"  One year later, while visiting San Francisco, I discovered that the famous penitentiary of Alcatraz that I had seen in the movies had become a museum. I took a cruise to the island and took a tour of the prison, being able to see the jail where Al Capone had been! Oh, my goodness! Another major criminal honored! Some years later, after I accepted a teaching position at then Mankato State, I visited the Jesse James Museum in Northfield, Minnesota, built upon the last bank he and his gang tried to rob. For some reason, years later they renamed it Northfield Historical Society Museum, but the exhibits devoted to the famous criminal not only remain, but have grown! In the basement of the museum there is a glass-topped coffin with the skeleton of one of the members of Jesse's gang. Also, there is a desiccated ear of the same criminal sewn to a piece of cardboard!


        There are many other similar museums all over the US that I haven't visited: the Crime Museum in Washington DC, where you can learn the history of crime in the US; the Mob Museum in Las Vegas; and the Villisca Axe Murder House in Villisca, Iowa, scene of a still-unsolved murder that happened in 1912, where Sarah Moore, their four children and two young friends were all murdered in their beds. In the US, remembering crime is a great form of entertainment, as you can see from the poster I attach.


        And you say that crime doesn't pay? So, why do people think that Robert E. Lee and others like him don't deserve to be remembered, while all these criminals do? What sense does this make? Isn't this a crazy paradox?


        JE comments:  Don't all societies celebrate outlaws?  There is something culturally fascinating about those who refuse to play by the rules.  Who was the first?  Robin Hood?  Spartacus? 


        Part of the outlaws' appeal is pure economics:  they draw visitors to your museum or festival.  A similar phenomenon is happening in Colombia with Pablo Escobar tourism.  But where do you draw the line?  A Timothy McVeigh museum is out of the question, at least for now.  In another generation, it's impossible to say.


        Guess how Jesse James got his start?  As a Confederate guerrilla/bushwacker during the Civil War.


        Please login/register to reply or comment:

        • What Happened in Charlottesville; Looking to 2018 (Istvan Simon, USA 08/27/17 1:57 PM)
          Let me try to answer Enrique Torner's question (27 August).

          Virginians do not have any opposition to Robert E. Lee being in a museum. In fact, that is the whole purpose of moving his statue. What they do not want is for Robert E. Lee to be honored and commemorated in a public square, where he can and has become a rallying point for neo-Nazis and other haters that live in this country, who think that anyone with a darker skin color does not belong in the United States.


          There were a mere 700 of these right-wing domestic terrorists and Trump supporters from the entire United States in Charlottesville and they were outnumbered by local citizen counter-demonstrators who did not want the former's hateful garbage spewed and polluting Charlottesville's streets. As far as I know there was no significant violence between the neo-Nazis and counter-demonstrators until a neo-Nazi decided to commit an act of terrorism against the counter-demonstrators, driving his car into a crowd, injuring dozens seriously, and killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer.


          See https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/heather-heyer-charlottesville-victim.html?mcubz=1


          The pandering of this president to these hate groups is a disgrace and a shame on the United States, and the blot can be repaired only by removing this so-called president and his equally objectionable VP from the White House, and restore this country to at least half-decent leadership. In my opinion, the best opportunity for this is after the 2018 elections, when I expect that Democrats will retake both control of the House and the Senate and terminate this nightmare government.


          This will not be easy in spite of the amazing unpopularity of this government a mere 7 months after taking office with the smallest crowds in attendance in decades on January 20. That is because of the gerrymandering perpetrated by Republicans in recent decades, as well as because of the disgraceful Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court, which opened the floodgates for buying politicians to anyone with money. Nonetheless these huge obstacles, I believe that it will be accomplished because of the utter and complete failure of this government.


          JE comments:  It is still very early to forecast the 2018 mid-term elections.  Even with Trump's unprecedented unpopularity, the Democrats have fared poorly in the special elections held so far this year.

          Please login/register to reply or comment:

          • What Happened in Charlottesville; the Antifa Movement (Timothy Ashby, South Africa 08/31/17 3:44 PM)

            Istvan Simon (27 August) is wrong to write that "What [Virginians] ... do not want is for Robert E. Lee to be honored and commemorated in a public square, where he can and has become a rallying point for neo-Nazis and other haters that live in this country, who think that anyone with a darker skin color does not belong in the United States."



            According to an August 22 poll of Virginia voters, a majority--51 percent--want the statues to remain on public property while 28 percent would like them removed. A majority--52 percent--of voters polled also consider the monuments part of Southern heritage while just 25 percent believe the statues are symbols of racism.



            Voters were split on who was most responsible for the violence in Charlottesville, with 40 percent blaming the white nationalist marchers and 41 percent blaming the white nationalists and the counterprotesters ­equally.


            From the Washington Post:



            https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/va-voters-split-on-blame-for-charlottesville-violence-want-confederate-statues-to-stay/2017/08/22/2f18f508-8759-11e7-a50f-e0d4e6ec070a_story.html?utm_term=.296813ce55a5




            While the counterprotesters included Charlottesville residents, a large number (if not a majority) of this group were outsiders from around the USA. In addition to "Antifa" members who seem to be professional anarchists, the counterprotesters included members of Black Lives Matter, the Democratic Socialists of America, the Industrial Workers of the World, the anti-racism group Showing Up for Racial Justice, the International Socialist Organization, legal aid groups, smaller left-wing groups and the clergy.


            Anyone who thinks that Antifa is dedicated to "peace and love" is sadly misguided. Take a close look at this photo published in the New York Times on August 14, 2017 identified as "A group of counterprotesters who identified themselves as antifa, or anti-fascists, rested during a rally of white nationalists in Charlottesville, VA, on Saturday." The young woman on the left is wearing a machete or large knife in a scabbard. The two men in the center are carrying AR-style "assault" rifles, and the woman on the right is armed with a folding stock rifle that I cannot readily identify.


            https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/who-were-the-counterprotesters-in-charlottesville.html?mcubz=0


            JE comments:  This image is straight from the NYT.  Are the liberals beginning to arm themselves?  Time magazine's Joel Stein asks this same question, with a much lighter tone, in a recent column.  His wife wanted to learn to shoot, to "protect herself from the people who had guns to protect themselves from people who wanted to take her guns, such as her."


            http://time.com/4913689/liberal-wife-gun-range-joel-stein/


            Please login/register to reply or comment:




      • "Your Son is Dating a Yankee? What a Pity" (Anthony J Candil, USA 08/27/17 4:50 AM)
        I've never felt what John E said about Texans being Texans first and Americans second. Maybe some fools say something like that or as a joke, but it's not a serious thinking at all.

        However, I have to admit that sometimes there is some antagonism against the North, and yes, they call them "Yankees," but it is always in a funny way.


        Our neighbor--her name is Lisa--is a true Texan and she told me one day: "What a pity Tony, your son is dating a Yankee!"  She had just met my son Fernando's girlfriend! Fernando is my eldest soon.  He is a young attorney, a grad from Texas Tech Law School, and is seriously dating a young lady, a professor of music from Illinois. Still, she's a Yankee! Oh my God!


        Have a nice weekend y'all!


        JE comments:  The dilemma could be solved by granting Texans dual citizenship.  Or you can just buy the t-shirt...


        How about "American by birth, Texan by the Grace of God"?  I've seen that bumper sticker on many a Suburban or Escalade.

        Please login/register to reply or comment:

        • Texas "Nationalism" (Timothy Brown, USA 08/28/17 2:40 PM)
          I stand to be corrected, but since Texas is a state of the United States, a Texan is a citizen of Texas and therefore only votes for Texas state officials and the members of Congress that represent them at the national level.  No citizen of a state has a vote as to who will be their president. They vote for the electors most likely to vote for the president they want. The electors then elect the president. So, legally, a Texan is, in fact, a Texan first. They are Americans because they are citizens of a sovereign state that is a member of the union of sovereign states we call the United States of America.

          A personal example. You must be a citizen of one of the fifty states to be a commissioned Foreign Service Officer. That's why I was officially commission as "Timothy C. Brown, of Nevada," as was our son.


          To be a Texan first and American second is a personal choice. It was precisely decisions by individuals that they were loyal to their state first, their nation second, that led to the Civil War.


          JE comments: The "sovereign state" concept is central to US federalism, yet it's also a fiction, as 1861-'65 proved.


          Still, my earlier point was slightly different, that Texas does have a national sentiment, an "exceptionalism" if you will.  Is there anything comparable in Nevada, Tim?  We Michiganders are taught to hate Ohio, but that's about as far as it goes.

          Please login/register to reply or comment:




    • Franco Monuments in Spain Today (Carmen Negrin, France 08/28/17 12:45 PM)
      In response to Anthony Candil (August 25h), first of all I don't think one can compare Lincoln to Franco!

      Second, yes, we owe a lot, too much, to Franco, in particular the useless king who, as the rest of his family, has lived at the expense of his "subjects."


      We owe to Franco the corruption, lack of ethics, the tremendous power of the church, the arrogance of a new elite still in place, and Spain's low educational and health levels, which have become better since he left but let's stress that it would have been difficult to get worse.  We also owe him the very high level of fear that still exists when it comes to talking about the Spanish Civil War, or wanting a Republic. I have witnessed it time and again, even though it is true that, after 40 years, the level has reduced. The central factor that kept Franco's dictatorship in place was fear--unfortunately a justified fear.


      In his specific case, all the monuments, streets, schools, hospitals, etc., named after him and his people do recall that fear and grievance, to half of Spain. And by law they should be removed, just like the corpses he had thrown in mass graves, but Rajoy is not enforcing the law, on the contrary. Perhaps this is why it is even more important to enforce its application at a grassroots level.


      JE comments:  Anthony Candil was not comparing Franco to Lincoln... I think.  Both won a civil war, but there the similarities stop.


      Carmen:  Have any institutions in Spain (besides the Foundation in Las Palmas) been named after your grandfather?


      Please login/register to reply or comment:

      • Franco Gave Us the Royals (Anthony J Candil, USA 08/30/17 3:40 AM)
        To answer Carmen Negrín (28 August), of course I was not comparing Franco to Lincoln. My thanks to John E for coming to my rescue, and I apologize to Carmen if I conveyed to her such a feeling.

        And I was half joking when I said that Spaniards should be grateful to Franco. He certainly made a lot of mistakes and was ruthless with his enemies in the very first years. Later on maybe we can debate this. Spain in the 1960s, and maybe '70s, was not a country living with such a fear, as Carmen points out. At least I didn't perceive it. It was a pretty easygoing country, and public safety in the streets and towns was high. But of course, I'm sure everything that glittered wasn't gold.


        On the other hand, I wanted to emphasize that those who should be more grateful to Franco are precisely the Royals. I agree with Carmen about Juan Carlos. He is a very corrupt person, still living on his subjects and getting a very generous allowance, in spite of not being the king on the throne. And Felipe VI is just his sequel; like father like son.


        What really surprises me is that when the Spaniards are getting rid of everything Francoism meant, why they don't get rid of the Borbón family once and for all? Especially taking into account that it was Franco who restored them to the throne. Don't they realize that Royals are the main corruption force behind the scene?


        How can it be that the Socialist Party is so much a "monarchist" party nowadays? It makes no sense at all. I won't be surprised if Felipe Gonzalez is rewarded with a dukedom or similar, any day.


        I don't think the Spanish military would be an obstacle to dismantling the monarchy. The Spanish military count very little in Spanish society today. So? What's the problem?


        I wonder what Carmen thinks.


        Anyway, best wishes to y'all from the wettest state in the Union, today. We survived Harvey.


        JE comments:  Who can give us an appraisal of Felipe VI's popularity today?  Isn't he considered far less corrupt than his father (and brother-in-law)?  Still, Anthony Candil makes a convincing point.  If Spain by law is removing its monuments to Franco, why not take down the most visible and expensive "monument" of all--the Monarchy?


        Here, Carmen Negrín and Anthony Candil are in full agreement.  Next, Carmen comments on how her grandfather is remembered in Spain.

        Please login/register to reply or comment:

        • Fear in Spain: Then and Now (Carmen Negrin, France 09/05/17 4:13 AM)
          First of all, all my best wishes for recovery to the inhabitants of the wettest state in the US (Texas)! Also, all the best to all of us if the moods of the leaders of North Korea or the USA get itchy.

          Responding to Anthony Candil (30 August), strangely enough, according to different inquiries, it seems that if we had elections today, the monarchy would be confirmed. We must not forget that Azaña, President of the Republic, tried to negotiate the return of the monarchy in exchange for peace; a number of Republicans approved of that idea, a sort of "anything but Franco," until the monarchy was actually back in place. But then, in the same order of ideas/absurdities/contradictions, although the PP has been the party the most involved in corruption, it still receives the most votes. Try and figure it out!


          As far as fear is concerned, I can only talk of what I have witnessed: at the end of the 1960s, many classics such as Sartre could not be found in Spain, except in hidden cellars. Books were still censured. The army was very present, even when Juan Carlos was on the throne, the coup attempt of 23 de febrero de 1981 is not so far away.


          Two small anecdotes: about four years ago, at the Spanish Embassy I overheard two military officers salute each other with an "Arriba España," and five years ago, after I gave a lecture in a small village near Valencia, an elderly lady, maybe in her nineties, came up to me in tears and gave me a hug saying "Thank you, I can finally start taking about what I have gone through." This was not a unique case. It is not what you will hear in a university, but it does reflect the suffering and fear of lost villages, where people know who denounced their fathers or grandfathers in order to take over the family's small piece of land, they often had to live next to the one who murdered the family members either directly or through denunciation and they kept--had to keep--quiet during all those years.


          Having said all this, of course, Spain is not what it was, but my feeling is that people have been brainwashed. I had a similar feeling in countries like Romania and Hungary, for supposedly the opposite reasons.


          JE comments:  Living next to those who murdered your family and took your land:  this is the reality of civil war.  Aldona's family has similar stories from Poland in WWII.  Such experiences must be remembered, and give a more accurate picture of war than the "grand scheme" of arrows on a map.

          Please login/register to reply or comment:

          • What Does the Monarchy Do for Spain? (Anthony J Candil, USA 09/08/17 3:41 AM)
            I am grateful for Carmen Negrín's comments (5 September), but I still don't understand. What is it the monarchy provides to Spaniards?

            Nor did I know that President Azaña considered bringing back the monarchy in exchange for peace. When did that happen?


            I cannot see how it would have worked out. Would the Communists or Anarchists have accepted it? Doubtful. If true, I don't think that Franco would have been the main obstacle.


            The real obstacle would have been the Republic itself.  If the monarchy had been restored, what role would Carmen's grandfather have had? I cannot imagine Juan Negrín being the Prime Minister of King Alfonso XIII.


            On the other hand I hope Carmen will agree with me that the Republic didn't bring down the monarchy. It was the other way around, the monarchy brought the Republic when Alfonso XIII decided on his own to leave the country without any pressure of any kind.


            The Republic, a few months later, deprived the whole Royal family of Spanish citizenship on the grounds that the king himself had instigated the coup of General Primo de Rivera. And they were right; he did. In the same way that many years later, Juan Carlos instigated and encouraged the coup of February 23, 1981. He used the Army and some foolish generals--actually, only three--to his advantage.


            I know many WAISers don't want to believe it, and prefer to continue thinking that Juan Carlos was a true believer in democracy, starting with my friend John E and others, but he wasn't. And he is not. He is just a "bon vivant," as they say in France.


            It is always nice to exchange views with Carmen Negrín, anyway. I'm pretty sure we are much closer in thinking than anybody would imagine. I wonder why she hasn't written in more detail about her grandfather. I believe it is about time.


            JE comments: I too would love to read Carmen's memories of growing up in the Negrín household.  She has given many lectures and interviews, but a full-sized book would be, as my students say, awesome.

            Please login/register to reply or comment:

            • Juan Carlos and Spanish Democracy (Paul Preston, UK 09/09/17 8:23 AM)
              Just a couple of comments regarding Anthony Candil's recent WAIS post about the Spanish monarchy (8 September) The idea that Alfonso XIII "decided on his own to leave the country without any pressure of any kind" is absolutely without foundation. Municipal elections on 12 April 1931 had seen a massive majority for Republican candidates in the towns where, unlike much of the countryside, elections were not rigged. It was clear that for Alfonso to stay would have involved massive bloodshed, and it was made clear to him by his generals that they could not defend him.

              What Juan Carlos did for Spain was to use his position as Franco's official successor, and therefore commander-in-chief of the armed forces, to neutralise the Francoists in the armed forces and the political establishment, thereby allowing more moderate elements of the right and left to negotiate the process of transition to democracy.


              Whether Juan Carlos was a democrat is irrelevant. In order to secure his throne, he helped facilitate the democratic process, often at considerable risk to his person.


              I would like to see proof from Anthony Candil for his categorical statement that "Juan Carlos instigated and encouraged the coup of February 23, 1981."  If Juan Carlos wanted a government with military participation, he could have done so legally and without encouraging the international ridicule that came with a military coup by accepting the offers made after the resignation of Adolfo Suárez by the leaders of the main political parties to accept a coalition government, including a general.


              JE comments:  Anthony Candil has long argued that Juan Carlos was complicit in the 23 February coup.  (This was the topic of his 2013 talk at Adrian.)  It is not a commonly held belief.  Anthony:  Could you tell us how and when you formulated your hypothesis?


              Carmen Negrín (next) also sees some involvement of the King in the coup--at least insofar as several conspirators received no more than a slap on the wrist as punishment.

              Please login/register to reply or comment:


            • What Does the Monarchy Do for Spain? (Carmen Negrin, France 09/09/17 12:02 PM)
              Answering Anthony Candil's post of 8 September on the Spanish monarchy, I personally don't think that the monarchy has provided anything to Spaniards, except, perhaps, at the very beginning, a consensus for a transition towards democracy after 40 years of dictatorial brainwashing and, mainly, a lot of sales for Hola.

              As for Azaña, although he was a brilliant and wonderful person, he was not the right person, in the right place, at the right time. He was the perfect peacetime President.  I would say he was the exact opposite of Churchill during WWII.


              If I recall well, he started "betraying" (perhaps the word is not adequate and is too strong since he did what he thought was the best for the Spanish people) the Republic, as well as the Government, around the time of the departure of the International Brigades (September-October 1938). Ángel Viñas and Paul Preston certainly know much more about this episode than I do. He did another "betrayal" just after crossing the border: he was about to resign and go to his country house in France; my grandfather who had accompanied him across the border, told him--after reminding him that the soldiers were still fighting in Spain--that he had to stay at the Embassy in Paris.  He ended up doing this, but not for long--since he resigned from his position, days later, at the end of February, leading to the almost immediate recognition of Franco by the UK and France, even though the war was ongoing until 1st April. My grandfather, just before that tragic decision, went back to Spain and only returned to France by mid March, when he asked the few representatives left in France to formalize the government-in-exile, mainly to attend the needs, as a governing body, of the 530,000 or so refugees. It took a while before they even accepted to meet, but it was eventually accepted.



              The question of the Monarchy is not properly posed. Communists did recognize the Monarchy a few---quite a few--years later in exchange for their own recognition by the Monarchy. Anarchists are a totally different story, starting by which Anarchists?



              Negotiations can lead to anything, depending on what you want, which are your priorities, especially how badly you want them, and also depending on ethics.



              True Royalists left Spain during the Republic.  Many didn't return until after Franco's death.



              I don't think, in fact I am sure, that had the war ended up with a king, my grandfather would have refused to become his Prime Minister, even if, as was the case with Alfonso XIII, he personally knew him: Alfonso XIII had charged him in 1927 with the construction of the Ciudad Universitaria, the Decreto Real will be exposed in October in the library of the University of Valencia, next to a selection of my grandfather's books. Besides the opening of the Physiology Laboratory in the Residencia de Estudiantes, that task was probably his most enjoyable one while being his least recognized achievement.



              My grandfather was given a task, which he accepted, and that task was to defend the Republic, which he did until the end. The Republic meant simply people and people's will. There was no possible bargaining.



              Anthony and I agree absolutely that the Monarchy brought itself down. I didn't know that the nationalities of the Royals had been taken away by the Republic, but I did know that the Republic offered to take care of the King's sister who was ill--the King refused and also that the Republic continued paying the retirement pensions of the Monarchy's ministers, something of course, Franco never did but the following Monarchy did, although late, with the retired soldiers (I am not sure about the government members). And of course, yes, the king was part of the coup, probably more distant than he would have wanted to be, but a real part.



              I am also convinced like Anthony that his grandson was also part of the February 1981 coup. Many people, including Carrillo had told me the opposite, but how can one explain otherwise that all those responsible were set free relatively shortly after?  One of those who went to prison, I think it was Tejero, used to be seen shopping with his wife in the streets of the town while he was said to be in prison.



              No memoirs in sight! I admire those who are able to write a full book, I have "corrected" a few, but it is not the same to write some notes or short texts as you all know.  Emotionally it was stressful enough to slightly participate in the film on my grandfather!


              JE comments:  Carmen, you can write your memoirs in small installments--for WAIS!  Items such as these fascinating tidbits about Juan Negrín need to be preserved.

              Please login/register to reply or comment:

              • King Juan Carlos and the Coup of 1981 (Paul Preston, UK 09/11/17 5:18 AM)

                I totally agree with Carmen Negrín (September 9th) that her grandfather would have loyally served as prime minister in the unlikely event of a negotiated settlement of the Spanish Civil War with a restoration of the monarchy, and the even more unlikely event of his being invited.



                I too was surprised by Anthony Candil's statement that the Republic deprived the royal family of Spanish nationality. I do not think that that is true. In an arguably ill-advised process carried out by the so-called "comisión de responsabilidades," the new Republican government sought to try those considered guilty of the abuses committed from 1923-1930 by the Primo de Rivera dictatorship. Having approved and instigated the dictatorship, Alfonso XIII was accused of high treason. His properties were seized but, as far as I know, he was not deprived of his nationality. In any case, all of the sentences laid down in the process were nullified by an amnesty in early 1935.



                As for the Juan Carlos's alleged participation in the coup of 1981, I would like Anthony to provide some proof. I continue to ask why Juan Carlos would take such an extraordinary risk in the hope of securing something that he had already been offered legally?


                JE comments:  Juan Carlos was born in Rome in 1938.  When did he receive Spanish citizenship?  Was this something Franco conferred on him when he named the young King his successor?


                Please login/register to reply or comment:

                • Citizenship of Alfonso XIII and Juan de Borbon (Anthony J Candil, USA 09/14/17 4:40 AM)
                  First of all, I apologize for not having answered Paul Preston and Carmen Negrín earlier. I'm traveling through the US Northwest and sometimes I am not even looking at my iPhone, besides not having Internet access at all times. I'm in Montana right now. I wanted always to pay respects to Custer and to all who died at the Little Big Horn, Whites and Reds alike.

                  I'll be back home sometime next week and then I'll answer Paul in kind about February 23, 1981.


                  Nevertheless, two things real quick:


                  I don't think that Carmen Negrín meant for a minute that her grandfather would have accepted to serve as Prime Minister under King Alfonso XIII!! Just the opposite, isn't it? This is what I understood, anyway, from her post. It couldn't be otherwise.


                  On the issue of the citizenship of the Spanish royals, I have always understood that the Second Republic had deprived them all of all their rights including citizenship, but I could be wrong. I have read this in many books and essays published in Spain.


                  In any case, some facts:


                  On November 19, 1931, if I'm not wrong, the Republic approved a law declaring ex-king Alfonso XIII guilty of high treason on several grounds: the disaster at Annual, in Morocco, the coup d'etat of General Primo de Rivera of which he was apparently a principal instigator. It is true that he was judged and sentenced "in absentia," however the Count of Romanones acted in his defense. The sentence established that the ex-king and all his relatives were deprived of all titles, honors, prerogatives and even properties, but above all of their "Paz jurídica" (legal peace?). I don't understand what that could even mean in plain English, but I was told that in Spain, according to the law, it means all rights including citizenship and so forth.


                  I'm sure that Paul Preston could give us all the right answer.


                  In any case, General Franco, on December 15, 1938, from his provisional government in Burgos, approved another law invalidating the Republic's law from 1931 and returning all rights to the Spanish royals. Another reason for Juan Carlos to be thankful to Franco, I guess.


                  On the issue of Juan Carlos's citizenship, John E is right to a point. If I am not wrong, Felipe V approved a law in 1713 ("Auto acordado de La Corona") regulating the access to the Crown, and establishing that being born abroad, outside Spanish territory, was an impediment to becoming the king of Spain, but that law was also rejected in 1789, to make it possible for Carlos IV to become king (the so-called "Pragmática Sanción").


                  By the way, did Infante Juan de Borbón, Juan Carlos's father, have British citizenship? His mother, Queen Victoria Eugenia, was a British royal, and he served in the Royal Navy, I guess he had the right at least.


                  JE comments:  Carmen Negrín also wrote to correct my editing mistake.  She doubts her grandfather would have served Alfonso XIII as Prime Minister.  (Carmen's post is next.)


                  If you're still in Montana, Anthony, send us photos!  The high-strung, impetuous Custer is not one of my favorite military commanders, but he was a Michigan boy (from Monroe, near Adrian).  I have never been to Montana or the Dakotas.  Time to revisit the Bucket List.


                  Please login/register to reply or comment:


                • Would Juan Negrin Have Served a Monarchy? On Statelessness (Carmen Negrin, France 09/14/17 5:04 AM)
                  My thanks to Paul Preston for his comments supporting my 9 September note.

                  I do have to point out, in the name of honesty, that one of my sentences wasn't clear. It said: "I don't think, in fact I am sure, that had the war ended up with a king, my grandfather would have refused to become his Prime Minister."


                  It started with "I don't think" (unfinished sentence) but continued with "I am sure ... my grandfather would have refused to become his Prime Minister."


                  However, Paul and I don't fundamentally disagree, since it is true that my grandfather could have loyally served under the king, had he considered it absolutely indispensable for the good of Spain, for a dignified end of the war and mainly if it agreed with the will of the majority, after an election. He did request elections in his "trece puntos," and under all those conditions he might have accepted continuing in his position. As Paul also pointed out: too many "if"s! But, yes, Juan Negrín was a man of duty, not of personal ambition.


                  About the Monarchs losing their nationality, I would like to know where it comes from.


                  I have often noticed that the reproaches made by the Francoists to the Republicans were in fact often carried out by Franco himself. For instance, Franco did take away the Spanish nationality of all the exiles. My grandfather had a Nansen Passport and whenever he had to fill in migration forms he would write under "Nationality": "Spaniard," the customs officer never failed to cross it out and change it to "Stateless." It was so systematic that it had become a tragic game, a game for my brother and me who would wait to see if the officer had noticed and tragic for my grandfather who was refused his identity.


                  Among so many accusations, one, among the most ridiculous ones, was my grandfather's supposedly excessive eating, but it is astonishing to read Franco's April 1st 1939 menu: the "sober man" had an 18th-century-style menu with entrées, fish, meat, wines, cheeses, desserts, etc. while the rest of Spain was starving. In the same order of ideas, he criticized the Republican government for having kept food for itself while in fact it had been stored (mainly beans) in Barcelona for the population for the exact six months it took for the Second World War to start. It was simple planning, even though they were considered reckless.


                  More seriously, there are the killings attributed to the "Reds," when in fact there were 20 Paracuellos if not more, carried out by the rebels. Recently, I went to Paterna. In what seemed to be the tomb of one person, there were around 50 bodies thrown in. Day after day the shootings would go on, one day 20, the next day 36, and so on for months. Each day they would open up a new grave. Who talks about Paterna or the Málaga road? And more symbolically of course, is the fact that the rebels called themselves the "Nationals" and called the legal and official government the "rebels." Hitler used the same method with the Jews, accusing them of stealing the nation while he was stealing from them (and taking their lives)!


                  They were already playing around with the concept of "fake news"!


                  JE comments:  Isn't fake news as old as news itself?  My apologies to Carmen Negrín for the editing error.  I had interpreted "I don't think...he would have refused" as a classic double negative.  Two nos in English equals a yes, although we all know that no means no, and two nos doubly so.  ("I ain't got nobody...")


                  Legal statelessness is a WAISworthy topic we've never discussed.  How is the concept being applied to the present refugee crises (Syria et al.)?  And what about the Ukrainians of Crimea?

                  Please login/register to reply or comment:







      • Remembering Juan Negrin in Spain Today (Carmen Negrin, France 08/30/17 4:06 AM)
        To my knowledge, there are three institutions with the name of Juan Negrín: the Fundación Juan Negrín in Las Palmas, the very recent Asociación de amigos de la Fundación JN in Valencia, which was created this year (http://www.lasprovincias.es/agencias/valencia/201701/08/nace-valencia-primera-asociacion-861018.html ), and the Agrupación Ateneista Juan Negrín within the Ateneo of Madrid (in which I am not involved).

        As far as I know that is it, in spite of his having been, among many other things, Prime Minister for almost 9 years (from 1937 to '39 in Spain and until 1945 in exile, needless to say not recognized by all). No streets, just a hospital, again in Las Palmas, a huge hospital, partly built on what was the family's land--which led my uncle, a doctor, not to attend its inauguration.


        The discussion about memory and streets or statues seems to be a complex debate, but in fact it is very simple, it is just about what the officials want to transmit to the future generations.


        In Paris for instance, we do not have a "rue Napoléon," but we do have a "rue Bonaparte," Not the same message.  On the French coast and in Denmark, bunkers have become museums.


        In Madrid, a number of streets are about to be rebaptized, taking away a number of names related to Franco. There was a discussion about having one put in my grandfather's name, but it seems the matter was put aside. However they will name one for Besteiro who already has a metro station and who joined Casado to give the coup de grâce to the Spanish Republic. (By the way, the text concerning Casado in Wikipedia needs a total rewriting!) In spite of the fact that Besteiro had been a well-respected person, he ended up betraying the Republic; this does not seem to bother those working on Spanish memory at the Alcaldía.


        Ignorance? It's certainly a confusing message for the Madrileños! And let us not mention the Valle de los Caídos which has not followed the European instructions to change its message! (http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-EN.asp?fileid=17417&lang=en )


        In Frankfurt's Städel Museum, there is a bust of Franco (the replica was given by Hitler to Franco), but next to the sculpture is a long explanation about who he was, on what occasion it was done and how the artist was forced to do it, next to it is another piece of art expressing the real hidden feelings of the artist.


        So basically, a monument or whatever will only express whatever one wants it to transmit.


        The problem arises when the message (not the monument) is contradictory and/or unethical and in particular if, under these conditions, it is supported by the politicians. And if the politician is unethical, we have a real problem!


        Next question: how does one define ethics in history?


        JE comments:   One silver lining of even the most controversial monument is that it teaches history--not through the monument itself, but through the debate surrounding its preservation or removal.  And yes, to address Carmen Negrín's final question, this is when the question arises of historical ethics.  Without a public discussion, history is static, irrelevant, and ultimately forgotten.


        Ukraine announced just a few days ago that it finally removed every one of the country's 1320 Lenin statues.  I am surprised this wasn't done years ago, but it's a lot of stone and bronze to move around.  Shouldn't the cash-starved Kiev government sell the surplus Lenins?  What theme park or eccentric gardener wouldn't want one for display?  Maybe Roman Zhovtulya, who is presently in Ukraine, can tell us what the government is doing with the statues.


        https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ukraine-has-finally-removed-all-1320-lenin-statues-our-turn/2017/08/25/cd2d5b06-89ae-11e7-961d-2f373b3977ee_story.html


        Please login/register to reply or comment:

        • Ethics in History...and my Memoirs (Robert Whealey, USA 08/31/17 4:16 AM)

          Carmen Negrín (August 30th) raised an important question: "How does one define ethics in history?"


          As one who sympathizes with Spanish democracy, I define this in my draft memoir in the Table of Contents below.


          There are Jewish ethics and Christian ethics. See especially the Section on Civilizations.


          Returning to my manuscript, I invite questions or suggestions for improving the style.


          Democracy requires a continual debate within each nation-state in the EU and within each of the 50 states in the US.


          The Constitution of the US guarantees the free exercise of individuals to a free religion. This includes

          Atheists.  Like Voltaire, I am a skeptic about life after death. Carl Sagan, an astronomer, was a rationalist

          and an atheist. My ethics are limited to Newton's solar system.


          JE comments:  Thanks, Robert!  At 420 pages, this is a most impressive book-in-the-making.  Is the draft complete? 


          The Table of Contents lists treatises on politics, philosophy of history, comparative civilizations, and religion.  Where is the part about you, Robert?  Shouldn't you rethink the title "Memoirs" and go with something more accurate, such as "Keep Thinking:  A Historian's 80 Years of Reflection"?


          Finally, how do you address the often non-democratic nature of political Christianity, which in the US is monopolized by the Evangelical Right?











          Please login/register to reply or comment:

          • Finishing One's Memoirs (Robert Whealey, USA 09/01/17 4:48 AM)
            No, to answer John E, the draft of my memoirs will never be complete.

            But the Sections from FDR to Reagan are reasonably complete. I am working on Section 11 on Governor Dukakis right now, since I know him personally. Part II on Religions and Civilizations is reasonably complete. I may live 1, 2, 5 even 10 more years. When I die, I hope my daughter Alice will find an editor.


            Trump is in an Epilogue.


            I make no predictions about his future and the fate of the Constitution.


            JE comments: Hang in there, Robert! As our Illustrious Founder Ronald Hilton often said, WAIS needs you.  (I'm going to append the 1915 Kitchener poster.  It's a classic.  Just replace "your country" with WAIS.  As a matter of fact, can anyone do this for us with Photoshop or equivalent?  Kitchener would be the perfect poster child for WAISdom's next fundraiser--he's stern, authoritarian, and motivational.)


            And yes:  Trump is an epilogue...but to what?

            Please login/register to reply or comment:






Trending Now



All Forums with Published Content (39207 posts)

- Unassigned

Culture & Language

American Indians Art Awards Bestiary of Insults Books Conspiracy Theories Culture Ethics Film Food Futurology Gender Issues Humor Intellectuals Jews Language Literature Media Coverage Movies Music Newspapers Numismatics Philosophy Plagiarism Prisons Racial Issues Sports Tattoos Western Civilization World Communications

Economics

Capitalism Economics International Finance World Bank World Economy

Education

Education Hoover Institution Journal Publications Libraries Universities World Bibliography Series

History

Biographies Conspiracies Crime Decline of West German Holocaust Historical Figures History Holocausts Individuals Japanese Holocaust Leaders Learning Biographies Learning History Russian Holocaust Turkish Holocaust

Nations

Afghanistan Africa Albania Algeria Argentina Asia Australia Austria Bangladesh Belgium Belize Bolivia Brazil Canada Central America Chechnya Chile China Colombia Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark East Europe East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador England Estonia Ethiopia Europe European Union Finland France French Guiana Germany Greece Guatemala Haiti Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran (Persia) Iraq Ireland Israel/Palestine Italy Japan Jordan Kenya Korea Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Latin America Liberia Libya Mali Mexico Middle East Mongolia Morocco Namibia Nations Compared Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North America Norway Pacific Islands Pakistan Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Polombia Portugal Romania Saudi Arabia Scandinavia Scotland Serbia Singapore Slovakia South Africa South America Southeast Asia Spain Sudan Sweden Switzerland Syria Thailand The Pacific Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan UK (United Kingdom) Ukraine USA (America) USSR/Russia Uzbekistan Venezuela Vietnam West Europe Yemen Yugoslavia Zaire

Politics

Balkanization Communism Constitutions Democracy Dictators Diplomacy Floism Global Issues Hegemony Homeland Security Human Rights Immigration International Events Law Nationalism NATO Organizations Peace Politics Terrorism United Nations US Elections 2008 US Elections 2012 US Elections 2016 Violence War War Crimes Within the US

Religion

Christianity Hinduism Islam Judaism Liberation Theology Religion

Science & Technology

Alcohol Anthropology Automotives Biological Weapons Design and Architecture Drugs Energy Environment Internet Landmines Mathematics Medicine Natural Disasters Psychology Recycling Research Science and Humanities Sexuality Space Technology World Wide Web (Internet)

Travel

Geography Maps Tourism Transportation

WAIS

1-TRIBUTES TO PROFESSOR HILTON 2001 Conference on Globalizations Academic WAR Forums Ask WAIS Experts Benefactors Chairman General News Member Information Member Nomination PAIS Research News Ronald Hilton Quotes Seasonal Messages Tributes to Prof. Hilton Varia Various Topics WAIS WAIS 2006 Conference WAIS Board Members WAIS History WAIS Interviews WAIS NEWS waisworld.org launch WAR Forums on Media & Research Who's Who