Guernica [split from This must be said!]

[Vitor]

Portugal helped the germans in the 2nd world war, lots of food (even if our own people got hunger), and other materials...

Many Portuguese died in those days because of that, something I am sure you didn't knew...

We had a similar regime (but protected by US after 1945), yes similar with fascist germany, so the help from the portuguese to that regime, our regime was protected by US until 1974 because of communism scare...USA was afraid, very afraid from comunism.


I am not advocating Hitler's germany here!

See guernica!

Hitler's germany killed many innocent civilians before even the war started!

In 1937 the world was stunned and sickened when Hitler's Condor Legion bombed the defenceless Basque village of Guernica, yet the world, by and large, did nothing to punish the aggressors. On the contrary, the barbarians were 'rewarded' with Austria and the Sudetenland. That infamous day in the Pais Vasco region legitimised the murder of non combatants of all sexes and all ages. As someone remarked,

"Evil thrives when good men stay silent"

What did the basques against the germans?
Absolutely nothing!

It was only a test for The Luftwaffe
http://www.liverpooltales.com/guernica.htm

Did you knew that Bayerisches Mädchen?

[Timo]

Originally Posted by Vitor

I am not advocating Hitler's germany here!

See guernica!

Hitler's germany killed many innocent civilians before even the war started!

What did the basques against the germans?
Absolutely nothing!

It was only a test for The Luftwaffe
http://www.liverpooltales.com/guernica.htm

That is unfortunate that that happened. I look down on any killing of innocents of our race. Though, I think the article you posted is entirely one sided and anti-german. It calls us, germans, "Barbarians". That is not very objective. One must go back to the one who gave the orders, was it Franco's Spain which wanted the Basques to be passive to the government? Or was it a Luftwaffe commander in the Theatre? I find it unlikely that Hitler would order the attack on innocent Basques simply to test his aircraft. Someone must've suggested it along the chain of command, I tend to think it came from the Spainish, what did Germans care or know of Basques? I seems more politically motivated. Guernica had somewhere over 1000 killed, however for Dresden it is counted between 25,000 and 40,000 people incenerated, depending on which source one uses.

(sorry about the OT thing B. Mädchen, feel free to split thread or move my post)

[Nerthus]

Timo is right about this, it was politically motivated and not a simple test. Hitler had made an agreement with Franco - Germany would receive necessary war material such as iron or copper but would support him in change in his war actions. First the Germans helped him take hold of Bilbao, a quite strategic point. The air force power of Franco's nationalists was a joke. He couldn't handle the Basque resistance by himself although he had put a vast region of Spain under his control before, so he asked for Hitler's help to loan him his bombers and fighters. Wolfram Von Richthofen was put in charge of the Condor Legion but Guernica was bombed on behalf of Franco, as a wanted to show clear sign that the military power of the nationalists was stronger than that of the republicans (btw I am talking about the Spanish civil war).
Later Hitler regretted his alliance with Franco, as his demands proved to be too many and crossed the line after him joining the Anticomintern Pact in 1938 and in the end no more agreement was reached. Hitler said he would have rather had "two or three teeth pulled out" before trying to negotiate with Franco again.

[Nerthus]

however for Dresden it is counted between 25,000 and 40,000 people incenerated, depending on which source one uses.

The official numbers for Dresden victims are around 35.000 - e.g. in this article or other doubtful sources such as ns-archiv.de. The real numbers start only from 135.000-150.000 and can be much more.

[Arjuna Durden]

REGARDING GERNIKA, THIS MUST BE SAID TOO:

The myth of Gernika is communist propaganda! This myth states:

• A: Gernika was a sauvage act of retaliation, what we today would call psy-terror
• B: Furthermore the village of Gernika was chosen as target because of the Basque smybolism of the Oak of Gernika
• C: 3.000 to over 10.000 people died in the bombardment
• D: Most of the village was completely destroyed by incendiary bombs

The TRUTH is that statements A, B and -most importanly- C are completely FALSE, while only D is partially correct but must be accordingly commented.

1. The motives: Contrary to the myth, Gernika was a very important military target in the campaign to conquer bilbao, as simply suggested by the map enlclosed, where one can see the quartiers of four batallions of the red-basque army and two weapons factories. Furthermore, Gernika was a crucial node of communications between the north-eastern nationalist lines and their ultimate target Bilbao: thank to its bridge upon the River Oca, Gernika was the road to Bilbao. Lehendakari Aguirres PNV had long before made a pact with the communists of the Popular Front republic and forgotten the real meaning of the Oak of Gernika: the basque Fueros! Another motive was the retaliation for the heavy red-republican bombardments of the supply lines in Durango some days before. It is today known, that not only had the inhabitants many shelters nearby, but also that the incoming attack was reported with time for most people to abandon the centre of the village (see next point).

2. The victims: Lehendakari Aguirre spoke of 3.000 shortly after the bombings, while the red popaganda spoke of some 10.000 for decades. Well, present-day historians who are not suspicious of revisionism in the German way give the following numbers for the victims: 250 (Hugh Thomas, Uriarte, Cesar Vidal, Eslob), 126 (Vicente Talón), 120 (Salas Larrazabal). This shows the extent to which pussy war propaganda has acted as a factor of mythification, mass-psychological pressure over populations and justification of much more evil policies in the present and the pass. [after editon]: as I had guessed: the town of Gernika had little more than 3.000 inhabitants as a whole by that time, this further shows the magnitiude of the propaganda numbers. As the centre of town was empty by the time the bombs fell upon it, the scouts of Lehendakari Aguirre simply took the whole population of Gernika as dead as they saw the smoke and the ruins!!! Later on, the communists multiplied that figure by three or four ... and the academia took those figures as sacred until the studies of the late 1990s!


3. What partly gave place to the myth is the fact, that the bombings missed many of their targets, as shown in the enclosed map, but they did not miss the bridge: they missed, however, the weapon factories and two out of four batallion headquarters (seriously damaging only one of them). The Casa de Juntas where the Oak lies was and the town hall (ayuntamiento) were only damaged in 1% to 25% of their structure. Unfortunately, the market /mercado) and the main school (escuela) were almost completely destroyed.

but, THERE WAS NO GERNIKA LITTLE HOLOCAUST!!!
(although many former and present-day propagandists would have liked it)
___________________________
source of the picture (modified): La aventura de la historia, 4, April 2002, article of historian Juan M. Riesgo "Las verdaderas causas de Guernica" ("The true motives of Guernica").

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Arjuna Durden

The victims: Lehendakari Aguirre spoke of 3.000 shortly after the bombings, while the red popaganda talking of some 10.000 for decades. Well, present-day historians who are not suspicious of revisionism in the German way state: 250 (Hugh Thomas, Uriarte, Cesar Vidal, Eslob)

Not only they are not suspects of being 'revisionist' historians, but also Hugh Thomas is known for having written a history of the Spanish Civil War in his 'leftist' years, and César Vidal is a pro-Jewish Protestant.

THERE WAS NO GERNIKA LITTLE HOLOCAUST!!!
(although many former and present-day propagandists would have liked it)

Basque independentism is all about myths and lies from its inception. Gernika is yet another one.


Great post Arjuna.

[Timo]

Indeed, thanks for the clarification.

[Gladstone]

The myth of Gernika is communist propaganda!

If so it's entirely apropriate that a tapestry of Picasso's 'Guernica' would be hanging at the entrance to the UN Security Council room in New York City...New York having been both a primary center of world capitalism and world communism.*

It's a very multi-cultural place.

Photo:
"U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte, left, talks with Deputy U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. James Cunningham as they walk out of the Security Council at the U.N. in New York on Thursday, Nov. 7, 2002.... In background is a reproduction of Pablo Picasso's 'Guernica.' (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan)"

* It was from New York that Trotsky with a hundred plus others would leave for Russia in 1917 to bring communism to that land.
Source

[Milesian]

New York is a weeping sore upon the earth's surface

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Gladstone

If so it's entirely apropriate that a tapestry of Picasso's 'Guernica' would be hanging at the entrance to the UN Security Council room in New York City...New York having been both a primary center of world capitalism and world communism.*

It's a very multi-cultural place.

Photo:
"U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte, left, talks with Deputy U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. James Cunningham as they walk out of the Security Council at the U.N. in New York on Thursday, Nov. 7, 2002.... In background is a reproduction of Pablo Picasso's 'Guernica.' (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan)"

* It was from New York that Trotsky with a hundred plus others would leave for Russia in 1917 to bring communism to that land.
Source

What cowardace they showed by picking this painting for the UN building. After all the evil done in the first half of the 20th Century they choose to remember a minor event not carried out by a Security Council member. "The absent are always wrong" seems to be the rule.

Originally Posted by Milesian

New York is a weeping sore upon the earth's surface

That's the truth. Someone called Euro Disneyland a "cultural Chernobyl"; a title which applies just as well to New York City. Horrible cultural mutations quickly develop in any ethnic group living there.

[Crvena zvezda]

Didn't spain also contribute to Hitler. The Blue Legion, they were sent to fight in Stalingrad. Spain also allowed Germany to use Spanish ports at times at certain times. I also read Spain was considering formally allying its self with Hitler but what Franco wanted Hitler would not give to them -- he wanted Portugal and Gibraltar and French North Africa, Hitler saw no point in giving Spain Portugal and Italy had aims regarding French North Africa.

[Theobald]

Actually Franco wanted the French Pays Basque, French Catalonia, French Morocco and Western Algeria with Oran (and Gibraltar I guess). I never heard about Franco asking Hitler Portugal as a war compensation.
And as the Italians were only interested in Tunisia (concerning French North Africa of course) and perhaps Eastern Algeria, I don't think the Italian interests were the very source of Hitler's refusal, and he did not care much about French ones.
The truth is that occupying Gibraltar was not worth defending the whole Spanish atlantic coasts from a possible Allied landing and invasion.

[Menydh]

See.. I missed these comments!

Originally Posted by Aeternitas

Timo is right about this, it was politically motivated and not a simple test. Hitler had made an agreement with Franco - Germany would receive necessary war material such as iron or copper but would support him in change in his war actions.

In other words, a bartering?

First the Germans helped him take hold of Bilbao, a quite strategic point. The air force power of Franco's nationalists was a joke. He couldn't handle the Basque resistance by himself although he had put a vast region of Spain under his control before

A joke is starting two world wars and losing them both. But never mind about that.

Most of the air forces of the Spanish Army had been kept under the control of the Republic. In fact much of the Army was under Republican control.

There were also, by the way, Italian air forces in the Spanish Civil War. In the case of Italy, it was not a trade but a sign of friendship of Mussolini. Not only the Italian aviators and their planes, but also three Italian air fighters donated to Spain and which allowed the creation of the Blue Patrol (Patrulla Azul) of García Morato.

On one account, the chiefs of the Italian Squadron prohibited their pilots to cross the enemy lines to escort the Nationalist bombardiers. The three air fighters of the Blue Patrol of García-Morato, attached to the Italian Squadron, crossed the lines to engage on a fight against more than 30 Republican air fighters. The Italian pilots, when they realized of the mess in which the Spanish were, disobeyed their chiefs and came to help them. The Spanish had already shot down a number of Republican planes and the Italians shot down others. After this combat the air supremacy change to the side of the Nationalists.

A further donation of Fiat fire fighters by Mussolini allowed the formation of the first Nationalist Squadron.

About Gernika and the "Basque resistance", it must be said that: 1) Italian bombardiers also took part in the raid; 2) Italians had also carried out another air raid over Durango; and 3) which "resistance" that couldn't be handled is she talking about?

The Basque government had contacted The Vatican and Rome early to try to reach a deal. Which, by the way, implied a betrayal to the Republic. When the National troops met the "Basque resistance" these were desertors and men looking for a post where to give themselves up. In Santander, they surrendered to the Italians of the CTV.

so he asked for Hitler's help to loan him his bombers and fighters.

He asked? Ask as in what?

Wolfram Von Richthofen was put in charge of the Condor Legion but Guernica was bombed on behalf of Franco, as a wanted to show clear sign that the military power of the nationalists was stronger than that of the republicans (btw I am talking about the Spanish civil war).

This deserves no comments. However.. I would never, ever say that the war actions of the Blue Division or of the Blue Squadron were done on behalf of Hitler. Certainly because there is nothing to be ashamed and, if there was, I wouldn't try to point the blame to another adding shame where there is none.

But say, what in your opinion did the bombardiers of the Luftwaffe come to do in Spain? Transport of humanitarian aid?

There was nothing to be ashamed for the Legión Condor. Therefore no reason either to put their participation to shame with such a comment.

Later Hitler regretted his alliance with Franco, as his demands proved to be too many and crossed the line

Actually, the demands were on Hitler's side who tried to obtain from Franco an agreement to cross Spain to take Gibraltar. Only a chief of a nation who was a complete idiot would allow such a thing. E.g. Fernando VII and the Napoleonic Army.

after him joining the Anticomintern Pact in 1938 and in the end no more agreement was reached.

The Anti-Comintern Pact was a part of the Axis. What did it have to do with it all?

Hitler said he would have rather had "two or three teeth pulled out" before trying to negotiate with Franco again.

General Franco was not a Fascist Nationalist but a Conservative Patriot. His personal sympathies lied more on the side of Britain than on that of Germany. This was so clear that if Hitler didn't see it, he should have dismissed his Foreign Affairs Secretary for not informing him correctly or even resign himself for his own myopia.

And yes, as far as I remember from reading D. Irving's Hitler's War years ago, Hitler did say that he should have supported the Republican side instead. That should tell a lot about him.

Originally Posted by Crvena zvezda

I also read Spain was considering formally allying its self with Hitler but what Franco wanted Hitler would not give to them -- he wanted Portugal and Gibraltar and French North Africa, Hitler saw no point in giving Spain Portugal and Italy had aims regarding French North Africa.

Nothing of the sort. After the Civil War Spain was not for any adventures.

Originally Posted by Theobald

The truth is that occupying Gibraltar was not worth defending the whole Spanish atlantic coasts from a possible Allied landing and invasion.

On the contrary, Gibraltar would have given a key to Northern Africa.. and to the Mediterranean.