Which regime was worse: Hitler (Germany) or Franco (Spain)

Which regime was comparatively worse: Hitler or Franco?

  • Hitler

    Votes: 48 92.3%
  • Franco

    Votes: 4 7.7%

  • Total voters
    52
May 2017
1,194
France
That is true.A brother in law of my granfather,wounded in the battle of Teruel (1938) was in the military hospital of Madrid at the moment of the entrance of Franco in Madrid.As the "guardia civil" discovered that he engaged at 16 years in the military school of the republicans milicias of Barajas ((the airport now) in 1936,he was obliged to enter in the nationalist army or to go to prison.In 1941,he engaged in the famous "division Azul" and went to Russia,for a very difficult expedition.Wounded,he was rapatried in Spain,and in conformity with the agreements Franco-Hitler,his two sons have beneficied of a good scolarity in Germany and were engaged with a good salary in the german society Opel.
 
Oct 2013
1,329
Monza, Italy
The elite need to be protected, so that they can support the arts. I don't really care about free enterprise; I am not an entrepreneur and those types often seem like philister, any way. Freedom of the press to lie isn't that great, either. Which control do workers have over society and how is this a good thing? As for pragmatism, it is just a code-word for not having a sufficient economic plan. There is no point, either, in just throwing money at the workers. Better to put it in to something more important.
I think that generally talking, a system which isn't based on free-enterpise and free-press and worker's rights (example, Norwey under Olof Palme) will end up bad, while those who are based on it end up generally well (see Western democracy).
 
Dec 2018
113
North Dublin
I think that generally talking, a system which isn't based on free-enterpise and free-press and worker's rights (example, Norwey under Olof Palme) will end up bad, while those who are based on it end up generally well (see Western democracy).
We live in a system which does not respect genuine art and culture in any respect. How is that a good system?
 
Mar 2019
2
Nowhere
We live in a system which does not respect genuine art and culture in any respect. How is that a good system?
Do you know which system held art in the utmost contempt, so much as to classify much of it as 'degenerate'? Nazism. Art, artists, intellectuals and intellectual culture are destroyed by totalitarian regimes. Democracy is the only way for them to survive; if this means forms of art that you don't like get to survive then tough. I guarantee that your idea of 'genuine art and culture' is something that wouldn't square with that of any totalitarian regime either.

Take the great modernists, for example. They thrived in democracies: France, Weimar Germany, Britain, America, a newly independent Ireland. The rise of Mussolini and Hitler (and Lenin and Stalin for that matter) was the beginning of the end for that artistic world. Hatred, prejudice, oppression and the systematic slaughter of millions of innocent people are all incompatible with art, it's as simple as that.
 

Linschoten

Ad Honoris
Aug 2010
16,214
Welsh Marches
The music and literature of Soviet Russia is not negligible (one only needs to think of Shostakovich, Prokoviev, Isaac Babel and Anna Akhmatova), it is patently false that art thrives only under democracies; European art was much richer in the 19th Centuries, when there were few proper democracies, than it has been since the war. That the Nazis classed certain kinds of art as degenerate shows actually that they took art seriously, not that thye held it in the utmost contempt, even if one may have one's doubts about their standards of judgement!
 
  • Like
Reactions: de gieter
Mar 2019
1,996
Kansas
The music and literature of Soviet Russia is not negligible (one only needs to think of Shostakovich, Prokoviev, Isaac Babel and Anna Akhmatova), it is patently false that art thrives only under democracies; European art was much richer in the 19th Centuries, when there were few proper democracies, than it has been since the war. That the Nazis classed certain kinds of art as degenerate shows actually that they took art seriously, not that thye held it in the utmost contempt, even if one may have one's doubts about their standards of judgement!
Yes every political ideology will leverage art when it suits them.
 

Nemowork

Ad Honorem
Jan 2011
8,480
South of the barcodes
The music and literature of Soviet Russia is not negligible (one only needs to think of Shostakovich, Prokoviev, Isaac Babel and Anna Akhmatova), it is patently false that art thrives only under democracies; European art was much richer in the 19th Centuries, when there were few proper democracies, than it has been since the war. That the Nazis classed certain kinds of art as degenerate shows actually that they took art seriously, not that thye held it in the utmost contempt, even if one may have one's doubts about their standards of judgement!
Briefly.

There was an absolute flowering of artisitic talent with people who had been held by by Czarist tastes and the struggle of the civil war got space to experiment. It didnt last long till the soviets decided their was only an approved style and everyone got shut down again.

Theres some magnificent buildings, murals and subways created in the heroic style but you didnt last long if you wanted to buck accepted soviet style.

Kind of like Hitler really, you got a list of approved heroic, athletic and historically Germanic styles, try to be radical or original and you got a swift reeducation in a concentration camp or fled.

some of the best German film directors and actors like Murnau, Lang, Peter Lorre and others ended up in Hollywood for a reason. Sinatra is singing Mack the Knife in english for a reason.
 
May 2019
11
Portugal
Hi i am a new member to this forum i like you guys am a fan of history and Think that Francos Spain wasnt as bad as Hitlers Deutchland.
Franco, showed up in a time when the communists wanted to do the same to spain as they had done to Russia, but Franco stopped them so even if he wasnt perfect he protected his people from comunist terrorism so he wasnt that bad.
 
Dec 2018
113
North Dublin
Do you know which system held art in the utmost contempt, so much as to classify much of it as 'degenerate'? Nazism. Art, artists, intellectuals and intellectual culture are destroyed by totalitarian regimes. Democracy is the only way for them to survive; if this means forms of art that you don't like get to survive then tough. I guarantee that your idea of 'genuine art and culture' is something that wouldn't square with that of any totalitarian regime either.

Take the great modernists, for example. They thrived in democracies: France, Weimar Germany, Britain, America, a newly independent Ireland. The rise of Mussolini and Hitler (and Lenin and Stalin for that matter) was the beginning of the end for that artistic world. Hatred, prejudice, oppression and the systematic slaughter of millions of innocent people are all incompatible with art, it's as simple as that.
Pound lived in Italy up until its demise, old chap. Eliot supported Franco. Yeats supported O'Duffy. Pearse and d'Annunzio were literal proto-Fascists.
 
Mar 2019
2
Nowhere
Pound lived in Italy up until its demise, old chap. Eliot supported Franco. Yeats supported O'Duffy. Pearse and d'Annunzio were literal proto-Fascists.
I know. What's your point? Democracy allows anti-democratic viewpoints to be held; it's the only political system that actually tolerates internal opposition. For these people to express these beliefs necessitated democracy, whether they liked it or not. These writers all needed the tension of supporting authoritarianism within a democracy to exist. For all of his fascist ramblings, Pound for example found the reality of Mussolini pretty dismal. Supporting something against one's own interests isn't the same as the beliefs of an actual system.

P.S. How do you know I'm old or a chap?