Franco's Mausoleum upsets Spain, again.

[Bob69Joe]

May I answer that? (on second half of your post: it doesn't make sense)

Any of us here can only state things and those things need time for thinking, or better for relating to others. Children are only allowed to absorb what is surrounding them, so it is no organization or a plan to mobilize the youth for the transformation of nature or whatever, but it is only what is going to be the outcome of our children in our American and European institutions, that they'll only have the "safe" options all the way until they're 16 and get a choice to discover something beyond the "sharing is caring" kindergarten method. To refuse to say that diversity and equality are necessary in part of the government to determine market values and citizens to deal out punishments and suits for infractions against the plurality, well those words extend just too far. Instead, remember back to when you were a child and reference that to what you really want and seek from life now.

[mishkin]

Sorry Heathe Hammer, whats your point?

[Ludicus]

After he had saved Moscow, Zhukov became a nationally renowned figure whose reputation preceded him: "Where Zhukov is, there is victory". Btw, Hitler had more more authority in Germany than Franco did in Spain. Hitler was "greater" than Franco. As I have told you: go learn history, stop trolling.

Franco turned Spain into a gigantic concentration camp. Spain had up to one million people detained in around 300 concentration camps. The southern region of Andalusia contained 52 concentration camps.The eastern region of Valencia contained 41. Central Castilla-La Mancha contained 38 camps;Castilla y León had 24; northern Aragón had 18.Southwestern Extremadura contained 17 camps; Madrid had 16, Catalonia counted with 14, Asturias had 12, Galicia and Murcia had 11 each, Cantabria had 10, the Basque region contained 9, the Canary Islands 5, Navarra had 4, La Rioja had 2 while Ceuta in northern Africa had 5.
The Mauthausen concentration camp was the main place where Spanish political prisoners were incarcerated by the Nazis. By 1941, three years after the main camp opened, 60% of the prisoners were Spanish Republicans. Spanish prisoners at work in Mauthausen camp,

[Bob69Joe]

Hi. The opposing sides in the Spanish Civil War were not catholics against virulent atheists or liberals against communists, were rebel fascist generals against the democratically established (and not communist at all) government of the Second Republic. I doubt that the message you want to spread is that the only thing that opposed anti-democratic fascism was communism, but if your real goal is to present communism like this, go ahead.

Regarding the phalanx, yes, really virtuous to side with some coup plotters and against the democratically elected government. I can't stop mentioning how franco he got rid of them after the war. Things you expose yourself to when you support the establishment of a dictatorship.

I ignore your last paragraph because it has no substance nor is it the subject of this discussion.

Bear with reality. Spain is not its constitution or its republic. Catholicism and the monarchy are more of what Spain is than ideology. Give it time, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, but it helps if others keep their eyes open to what is obvious tyranny by the mob and LEFTism's roots in the French Revolution and egalitarian ideology.

[mishkin]

I knew the day would come when someone in TWC would tell me what Spain is like. Spain has been a non-denominational state for a few decades. A large part of society declares itself Catholic but in reality not even God goes to church (bear with me, literal translation of an expression in Spanish). Likewise, there are followers of the royal family, as there are followers of other celebrities, but the king's social or political relevance is nil. If you want an example of this, realize the importance of the figure (or acts) in the crisis in Catalonia. The king is a decorative figure that once a year (on Christmas day) gives a televised speech in which he can (or may not) mention problems of political or social relevance.

If what you mean is that there is still national Catholicism in Spain (Franco's ideology), unfortunately it is true (Vox, Falange...), but to say that Spain was in the thirties (why the uprising?) or today a National Catholic (Francoist) country would be ridiculous.

El confidencial (google translation), regarding religion nowadays in spain

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Although the answer will be known only from December 21, some data make clear the departure of the Spanish society from the Catholic religion. The Spaniards who declare themselves Catholics before the recurring questions of the barometer of the Center for Sociological Research (CIS) are less and less. If in 2004 79% of the interviewees identified with this confession, the last time they asked, in January of this year, the portion was reduced to 69.3% of the company. Not even seven out of ten people.

Although the majority of Spaniards continue to declare themselves Catholic, the same does not happen with participation in the masses. In 2007, always according to the CIS Barometer data, a key change occurred. It has been the first year in which more than half of the Spaniards have declared not to go to Mass "never or almost never."

Religion as a family tradition is also lagging behind. Catholic marriages are the best example of this. Only fifteen years ago, seven out of ten weddings were celebrated according to the Catholic ritual, according to the data of the Population Movements Statistics of the INE. In 2013, only 3 out of ten were celebrated in a Church.

Baptisms have not had better luck. Since 2007, baptized children have not stopped decreasing. A spokesman for the Episcopal Conference has limited himself to blaming this descent to the decline in births, but the truth is that baptisms are going down at an even faster rate. In 2013, 13% of children were born less than eight years earlier, while 21% less baptisms were recorded, according to data from the same Conference.

Random comment: Do you know who has done more against the Catholic church in Spain? The Catholic Church siding with fascism during a civil war and the subsequent 40 years of dictatorship.

[Heathen Hammer]

Its almost like socialists violently oppressing Catholics caused Catholics to support the faction that at least didn't want to exterminate them.

[mishkin]

Its almost like socialists violently oppressing Catholics

What the hell are you talking about.

[Ludicus]

Do you know who has done more against the Catholic church in Spain? The Catholic Church siding with fascism during a civil war and the subsequent 40 years of dictatorship.

Precisely.
---

.. socialists violently oppressing Catholics...

...sending them to concentration camps? Read the post 139.
-----
As I said before,the Spanish Constitution of the Second Republic (1931) attempted to secure religious liberty for religious organizations other than Roman Catholics, namely Jews and Protestants.
Catholicism and clericalism are different things.
Clericalism is the pursuit of power, especially political power, by a religious hierarchy, carried by secular methods and for purposes of social domination. In Francoist Spain,the Jew was classified as an enemy of the reactionary, repressive Catholic church.In fact, there can be no doubt about the anti-Jewish philosophy of Franco and of the Spanish Church. The military generals blamed the Jews for the problems in the society, using this rhetoric of their supposed desire to dominate the world. A Francoist philosopher, Manuel García Morente, says, "Spain is made of Christian faith and Iberian blood". This was the conviction within the Catholic, racist, Francoist regime.
----
A school textbook used during Franco's dictatorship says " another decision made by the Catholic monarchs, to purify strange elements and to unite the Spanish race spiritually, was to expel Jews and Muslims". In the Francoist ideology, the idea of racial superiority was important.The military coup of Franco quickly transformed into a "religious crusade" that was wholly supported by the Spanish Church.
---
Historically speaking, tension between the Catholic church and the State had existed for centuries in the Peninsula. In Spain (and Portugal) mainly as a result of the almost complete identification between the Crown and the Church. The Spanish writer Gonzalo Álvarez Chillida, explains that "The political and social crisis that opened in 1931, and that did not make but escalated at the outbreak of the Civil War, was the breeding ground in which antisemitic ideas developed, especially amongst the diverse parts of the extreme Right, that is to say, the anti-liberal Right"

Salvador de Madariaga (a Spanish catholic) writes, "Clericalism is an evil unknown to Protestant countries. It is a disease of Catholic countries It is extremely difficult to attack Catholic institutions, that is, without being labeled a bigot" roman catholic clericalism - jstor
-----
This brings me to the final point. In May 1871 Antero de Quental stated that the first cause led to the decadence of both Portugal and Spain is the transformation of Catholicism by the Council of Trent (1545 a 1563): the Inquisition became the chief enforcer of Catholic doctrine. Historically, the causes of decline are named as three, and of three orders: moral, political and economic.
The moral cause was the Counter-Reformation's transformation of Catholicism into a Roman institution, stifling individual conscience and national Churches. Antero emphasized the necessity to bring the Peninsula into modernity. Speech given on the evening of 27 May 1871, in Lisbon.I encourage all of you to read the full speech in English. Brief excerpt on the moral cause. Causes of the decline of the peninsular peoples in the last three centuries

(...) Now then, there were three principal phenomena, and of three kinds: one moral, another political, and the last economic.
The first ... moral autonomy, appealing to enquiry and individual conscience, is completely the opposite of the Catholicism of the Council of Trent, for which human reason and free thought are a crime against God (...)

So while other nations rose, we sank (...) And we sank, above all, in our religion. This was the prime cause of our moral decline. The Catholicism of the Council of Trent certainly did not inaugurate religious despotism in the world; but it organized it in a complete, powerful, formidable and, until then, unknown way.

But in reality Christianity existed, and can exist, outside Catholicism. Christianity is an ethos; Catholicism is above all an institution. One lives on faith and inspiration, the other on dogma and discipline.

(...) During the Middles Ages those of the Peninsula, like all the others, had their freedoms and initiative, national councils, their own discipline, and their own way of feeling and practicing their religion. From this came two great results, yielding beneficial consequences. Dogma, instead of being imposed, was accepted, and in a certain sense created; since, when morality is based on dogma, there can only be a good morality when it is derived from a dogma that is accepted, and to a certain extent created, and never imposed.

This was the first consequence, of incalculable impact. The feeling of duty, instead of being contradicted by religion, rested upon it. Hence the strength of character, the elevation in morality. Secondly, those national Churches, just because they were independent, had no need to oppress. They were tolerant. In the shadow of them--very much in the shadow, it is true, but in any case tolerated--lived Jews and Moors, intelligent and industrious races, to whom the Peninsula's industry and thought owe so much, and whose expulsion has almost the proportions of a national calamity.

This was the second consequence, of no lesser importance than the first. If the Peninsula was not then so Catholic as it was later, when it burned Jews and received from the Father General of the Jesuits the watchword of its public life, it was certainly more Christian, that is, more charitable and moral, as these facts prove.

(...).. What could that fearful machine of repression that was Catholicism after the Council of Trent offer to the people? Intolerance, brutalization, and then death.
In this way, gentlemen, the Catholicism of the last three centuries has been, through its principles, its discipline and its politics, the greatest enemy of the nations, and the true sepulcher of the national peoples. 'The cave of the Sphinx', a poet-philosopher said of it, 'can be recognized at the entrance by the bones of the devoured peoples.'

And for us, Spanish and Portuguese, how was it that Catholicism reduced us to naught? Catholicism lay heavily upon us on all sides, with its full weight. With the Inquisition an invisible terror spread over society: hypocrisy became an essential national vice; denunciation became a religious virtue; the expulsion of the Jews and Moors impoverished the two nations, paralyzed commerce and industry, and delivered a mortal blow to agriculture in all of southern Spain (...)
the persecution of the New Christians made capital disappear; the Inquisition crossed the seas, and by making the Indians hostile to us,.. in America it depopulated the Antilles, terrified the indigenous populations, and made the name of Christ a symbol of death; finally, religious terror corrupted the national character, and made two generous nations into hordes of fanatics, and the horror of the civilized world (...)

[Infidel144]

What the hell are you talking about.

Probably referring to the Red Terror.

[saxdude]

^ I get the feeling a lot of people here haven't been to Spain, haven't met spaniards, and haven't the slightest clue about the social and political climate in Spain.

[Infidel144]

^ I get the feeling a lot of people here haven't been to Spain, haven't met spaniards, and haven't the slightest clue about the social and political climate in Spain.

What does your "feeling" have to do with the Red Terror in Spain and murder of thousands of Catholic clergymen (and 10's of thousands of others)?

[mishkin]

Thousands of catholic clergyman? Maybe you mean hundreds, victims of a civil war initiated by the fascist side that they mostly supported?


Red Terror (Spain) (Wiki)

"The failed coup of July 1936 set loose a violent onslaught on those that revolutionaries in the Republican zone identified as enemies; "where the rebellion failed, for several months afterwards merely to be identified as a priest, a religious or simply a militant Christian or member of some apostolic or pious organization, was enough for a person to be executed without trial".[9]

In recent years, the Catholic Church has beatified hundreds of the victims, 498 of them on 28 October 2007 in a spectacular ceremony, the largest single number of beatifications in its history.[10]

Some estimates of the Red Terror range from 38,000[11] to ~72,344 lives.[12] Paul Preston, speaking in 2012 at the time of the publication of his book The Spanish Holocaust, put the figure at a little under 50,000.

Historian Julio de la Cueva wrote that "despite the fact that the Church... suffer[ed] appalling persecution", the events have so far met not only with "the embarrassing partiality of ecclesiastical scholars, but also with the embarrassed silence or attempts at justification of a large number of historians and memoirists".[7] Analysts such as Helen Graham have linked the Red and White Terrors, pointing out that it was the coup that allowed the culture of brutal violence to flourish: "its original act of violence was that it killed off the possibility of other forms of peaceful political evolution".[13] Others see the persecution and violence as predating the coup and found in what they see as a "radical and antidemocratic" anticlericalism of the Republic and its constitution, with the dissolution of the Jesuits in 1932, the nationalisation of virtually all church property in 1933, the prohibition of teaching religion in schools, the prohibition of teaching by clergy and the violent persecution beginning in 1934 in Asturias, with the murder of 37 priests, religious and seminarians and the burning of 58 churches.[14]"

I would like to make it clear that comments like yours based on lies or exaggerations are just attempts to justify a fascist coup d'etat against a democracy. Also that you don't care at all about the atrocities committed by the fascist side (already mentioned here in other messages). Probably because you consider the fascist side "the good side", or, having to choose, your side.

[Infidel144]

Thousands of catholic clergyman? Maybe you mean hundreds, victims of a civil war initiated by the fascist side that they mostly supported?

Red Terror (Spain) (Wiki)

Quoting your own source:
"News of the rightist military coup in July 1936 unleashed a social revolutionary response, and no leftist region escaped revolutionary and anticlerical violence, but it was minimal in the Basque Country.[6] The violence consisted of the killing of tens of thousands of people (including 6,832[7] members of the Catholic clergy, the vast majority in the summer of 1936 in the wake of the military coup) as well as attacks on landowners, industrialists and politicians as well as the desecration and burning of monasteries and churches.[7]"

Last I checked 6800 is 'thousands'. But maybe there is new math that I am unaware of that makes near 7000 out to be only 'hundreds'.
More from your source:
"1934 murder of priests and religious in Asturias
The murder of 37 priests, brothers and seminarians by leftists in Asturias marks what some see as the beginning of the Red Terror.[14]In October 1934, the Asturian Revolution was strongly anticlerical and involved violence against priests and religious and the destruction of 58 churches, which had been rare until then.[25]"
Last I checked, 1934 is before the 1936. But maybe there is some new math involved here.

I would like to make it clear that comments like yours based on lies or exaggerations are just attempts to justify a fascist coup d'etat against a democracy. Also that you don't care at all about the atrocities committed by the fascist side (already mentioned here in other messages). Probably because you consider the fascist side "the good side", or, having to choose, your side.

I'll reserve this bit of ignorant and hypocritical stupidity for response later.

[mishkin]

In the same source it is mentioned how much the church and the fascist regime exaggerated the number of "innocent priests killed". If you want a number of priests killed during the war, look for the number of canonized priests.

I look forward to your explanation of why you find the death of priests outrageous and not that of women and civilians carried out by the fascists.

[Infidel144]

In the same source it is mentioned how much the church and the fascist regime exaggerated the number of "innocent priests killed".

Notice here the adherence to Pillar of the Left #1: Who is saying something is always more important than what is being said.
One should also note that while mishkin is desperately trying to discredit the source he chose, he manages to approvingly quote ("Historian Julio de la Cueva wrote that "despite the fact that the Church... suffer[ed] appalling persecution", the events have so far met not only with "the embarrassing partiality of ecclesiastical scholars, but also with the embarrassed silence or attempts at justification of a large number of historians and memoirists") the author of the article his source cites for the number of clergy killed by his communazi heroes. Which happens to be in the peer reviewed Journal of Contemporary History.

As a side note, a word search does not find the 'exaggerate' nor the quoted phrase ""innocent priests killed"" in his source.

If you want a number of priests killed during the war, look for the number of canonized priests.

The stupidity of this comment is astounding. By mishkin's comment here, only some 500 clergy had been killed by his beloved communazis, before this particular act of mass beatification, and then went to some 1000.

I look forward to your explanation of why you find the death of priests outrageous and not that of women and civilians carried out by the fascists.

I am rather curious as to where I displayed 'outrage' at the murders.
And to return to the ignorance, stupidity and hypocrisy:

I would like to make it clear that comments like yours based on lies or exaggerations are just attempts to justify a fascist coup d'etat against a democracy. Also that you don't care at all about the atrocities committed by the fascist side (already mentioned here in other messages). Probably because you consider the fascist side "the good side", or, having to choose, your side.

Facts supplied by mishkin's own source (and the author his source cites is approvingly quoted by Mishkin) are "lies" and "exaggerations". Perhaps mishkin should actually read his source before citing it.
Then of course Leftist Pillar #2 (whatever you accuse someone else of, always be more guilty (and in this case soley guilty)) follows. I have made no attempt at justification. In contrast to mishkin who excuses and downplays the murders committed by his adored communazis. Indeed as mishkin approvingly quoted from Cueva the "attempts at justification of a large number of historians and memoirists" to which can be added mishkin.
And mishkin naturally attempts to change the subject of his query, which I addressed (mishkin wanted to know ("What the hell are you talking about.") about the violence his communazi comrades committed ("Its almost like socialists violently oppressing Catholics") indicating ignorance of the Red Terror), to the White Terror. As though he somehow thinks that I will fall for such a blatantly stupid attempt, even were I in the habit of accepting subject changes.

[mishkin]

Do you know why you think I ignore or minimize "red terror"? Because until fifteen or twenty years ago the commons of the Spaniards (like me) had never heard of it. I know that term now thanks to the fact that here in these forums some conservatives have mentioned it a couple of times in recent years. Maybe a friend who follows one of those programs or history blogs also knows the term. My parents and uncles, people born in the thirties and forties, have never heard the words "the red terror". What is the conclusion that I draw from all this? Revisionism (Spain):

"Revisionism is a term which emerged in the late 1990s and is applied to a group of historiographic theories related to the recent history of Spain. They are supposedly held together by posing a challenge to what is presented as a generally accepted, orthodox view on the history of the Second Republic and the Civil War. The term is used as stigmatization or abuse, and in usage it is paired with charges of incompetence at best or ill will at worst. Historians named revisionists reject the label and claim that no orthodox, canonical view of the recent past exists. Both groups blame each other for pursuing a hidden political agenda; those dubbed revisionists are branded conservatives or post-Francoists, their opponents are branded progressists and left-wingers".

I dare you to look for any mention of a "red terror in spain" before the 1990s.

You refer to my sources. My source was just a, could not be otherwise in this topic, confusing wikipedia article, the first option in a google search. Other results are copy-pastes of the same wikipedia article and some review of any recent book. I have found an interesting article for our discussion and even for the main topic of this thread. Feel free to post your sources regarding "the red terror in spain", I am curious.

Red Terror (Spain)

"The Red Terror in Spain (Template:Lang-es) was a semi-organized activity carried out by sections of nearly all left-wing groups involved in the Spanish Civil War against people associated with right-wing groups or the Catholic Church, including arrest and executions.[3] It included the killing of tens of thousands of people (including 6,832 members of the Catholic clergy).[4] A process of political polarisation had characterised the Spanish Second Republic – party divisions became increasingly embittered and questions of religious identity came to assume a major political significance. Those who sought to lead the 'ordinary faithful' had insisted that Catholics had only one political choice. " Voting for the CEDA was presented as a simple duty; good Catholics would go to Mass on Sunday and support the political right." [5]

Historian Julio de la Cueva has written that, "despite the fact that the Church...suffer[ed] appalling persecution" behind Republican lines, the events have been met by much silence and even attempts at justification by some scholars and memoirists.[4] Then again, a recent commentator, Giles Tremlett of The Guardian, has written: "The killings by rojos – especially by anarchists – formed an essential part of the Franco regime's internal propaganda for decades. Hundreds of the priests and nuns they killed have been proposed for beatification at the Vatican in recent years. Pope John Paul II beatified 233 of them in 2001. The left's victims were eventually accorded burial in cemeteries, hailed as martyrs and saw their names added to the Caídos por Dios y la Patria plaques put up in every town and village in Spain. Thousands of the victims of Franco's repression were, however, left in roadsisde graves or even stuffed down wells. The full history of the losers - by which I mean the losers' stories rather than the left's version of what happened – is only just being broadcast."[6] – Most historians agree that the death toll of the White Terror was much higher than that of the Red Terror, and the White Terror occurred over a much longer period, continuing after the war. While some estimates of the Red Terror range from 38,000[7] to 72,344 lives.[8] most of the estimates of the "White Terror" range from 150,000[9] to 200,000.[10] Comparisons of death tolls may be inapt, not only because the White Terror continued for much longer, including long after the war, but also because Stanley Payne states that during the war, the white terror may have caused 50,000 deaths or fewer.[3] Nevertheless, other authors have said that the death toll of the "White Terror" only during the war was far higher than 50,000 (Hugh Thomas: 75,000;[11], Julian Casanova: 100.000;[12] and Gabriel Jackson: 200.000.)[13]".

I grant you that the number of dead clergyman was 6.832, my apologies for saying otherwise. From your words (from your slience) I understand that these deaths (and the 37 dead in the Asturian workers revolt of 1934) are the only ones that matter to you.

[Ludicus]

I would like to make it clear that comments like yours based on lies or exaggerations are just attempts to justify a fascist coup d'etat against a democracy. Also that you don't care at all about the atrocities committed by the fascist side (already mentioned here in other messages). Probably because you consider the fascist side "the good side", or, having to choose, your side.

Exactly...
In many aspects,Pope Francis is a revolutionary Pope.I Like him.

And yet, The Silences of Pope Francis

...However, the recent Tarragona service (honoring the members of the Church who had fallen during the Spanish Civil War on the fascist side) casts doubt on what motivated Bergoglio’s silence ... a silence that parallels the Catholic Church’s silence in front of the brutalities carried out during the 1936 military coup in Spain and the ensuing dictatorship, characterized by enormous brutality.

For every political assassination Mussolini carried out, Franco issued 10,000. Under the systematic repression of this fascist state, thousands upon thousands of Spanish Republicans, defenders of the pre-existing, democratically elected government, were killed, tortured, and exiled, with many of these Republicans (114,000) still missing.

It is safe to assume that Pope Francis knows very well that the Catholic Church supported this military coup and dictatorship of General Franco, as evidence of this abounds. The statements of the highest Spanish ecclesiastical authorities are well-known, as these Church leaders publicly encouraged the military coup and supported the repressive government over the previous democratically elected government. In fact, the Church worked with the fascist regime closely, not merely cooperating, but essentially functioning as part of the dictatorial state itself. As a result, the Spanish Catholic Church benefited in its earthly interests, including its properties and business affairs...

In fact, the Church worked with the fascist regime closely, not merely cooperating, but essentially functioning as part of the dictatorial state itself.
As a result, the Spanish Catholic Church benefited in its earthly interests, including its properties and business affairs. The Catholic Church was one of the major landowners in Spain and opposed the land reform initiated by the democratically elected Republican government.

The Church was even directly involved in the repression of the Republicans who lost the war, giving support to the courts that issued death squad orders and imprisonment. There is even further evidence that many of the alleged “martyrs” honored at Tarragona were in fact individuals who had directly facilitated this repression (see “Beatos y Cínicos” by Jose M. García Márquez in Público 14.10.13).
These facts are publicly available, known to anyone who chooses to know.

Reconciliation? With whom? With the families of the murdered Republicans still missing, murders in which the Church collaborated and participated? And in this post-dictatorship period, after the establishment of democracy in Spain, the Church as an institution still hinders the recovery of the Republican lost dead, denying the recognition of and tribute to these real martyrs of democracy? The inconsistency and hypocrisy that the Church engages in is extraordinary.

Spain’s brutal repression was against the Popular Front government (with Catholics among its members), a government characterized by the struggle against poverty, a fight that threatened the material interests of the Church. Again, the evidence is overwhelming.

[Prodromos]

I'm gonna let you in on a little secret: fascists, socialists and communists are all equally God-hating, mass-murdering tyrants. If we side with one of them, thinking they'll save us from the others, we'll just join them in Hell for all eternity. We're not effeminates in prison who have to go with one thug as protection from all the other thugs. Have a little pride. We can and should fight against all evildoers, whether they're communists, socialists, fascists or whatever other label Satan's minions identify with nowadays.

“[The devil] always sends errors into the world in pairs – pairs of opposites. And he always encourages us to spend a lot of time thinking which is the worse. You see why, of course? He relies upon your extra dislike of the one error to draw you gradually into the opposite one. But do not let us be fooled. We have to keep our eyes on the goal and go straight through between both errors. We have no other concern than that with either of them.” Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis

[mishkin]

So... if wou were a spaniard in 1939 you would have fought boths sides. Cool.

And... I suppose you agree with the transfer of the remains of a fascist dictator and that at least the function of the mausoleum that was built around the grave be changed. Cool cool cool.

[Ludicus]

I'm gonna let you in on a little secret... if we side with one of them, thinking they'll save us from the others, we'll just join them in Hell for all eternity

I'm gonna let you in on a little secret.Supposing that hell is something that exists only in the imagination, your faith is admirable.Anyway, religion and democratic socialism are not incompatible. European Social Democracy is alive and well, and has helped to build most humane societies by universalizing the rights of freedom and democracy,including religious freedom.
--
Let's move on. During and after the Civil war, Franco carried out one of Europe's largest programs of repression. Hundreds of thousands were interned and murdered in concentration camps (previous post). One of the Franco's generals declared, "It is necessary to spread terror. We have to create the impression of mastery, eliminating without scruples or hesitation all of those who do not think as we do".
Fascist murders squads from one village would be sent to a neighboring village where the victims would not be known. Many of them were executed by the "garrote vil" ( see below *)
I quote Anthony Beever,

The Caudillo used to read through the sentences of death when taking his coffee after a meal, often in the presence of his personal priest, Jose Maria Bulart. He would write an "E" after those he decided should be executed, and a "C" when commuting the sentence. For those who he considered needed to be made a conspicuous example, he wrote "garrote y prensa". After coffee, his aide would send off the sentences to be passed to the military governor of each region or each province who would communicate them by telegram to the head of the prison. The sentences would then be read out in the central gallery of the prison. Some officials enjoyed reading out the first name, then pausing if it was a common one such as Jose or Juan, to strike fear into all those who bore it, before adding the family name. In the women's prison of Amorebieta one of the nuns who acted as warders would perform this duty.

Anthony Beevor concludes that at least 200,000 more Spaniards died by execution, suicide, hunger and sickness in prison. According to Carlos Hernandez (previous post) 296 prison camps were built in Spain, through which passed between 700,000 and 1 million prisoners.

I suppose you agree with the transfer of the remains of a fascist dictator and that at least the function of the mausoleum that was built around the grave be changed.

Let's wait for his reply...
This hideous catholic/fascist monument was dedicated to "those who died fighting for God and Fatherland" that means, those who died fighting for Franco and it was built in large measure by slave labour of those who had fought on the Republican side.

(*)




The last executed, in 1974
A Spanish Anarchist, 26, Is Executed by Garroting - The New York Times