The 30,000 lost children of the Franco years are set to be saved from oblivion

[Judi Lynn]

The 30,000 lost children of the Franco years are set to be saved from oblivion
Pressure is growing to illuminate the fate decreed by the Spanish dictator to the families of his Republican enemies
By Alasdair Fotheringham
Sunday, 2 January 2011

"Did my child die or was he kidnapped?" is something no parent should ever have to ask, and still less so when the kidnappers are the government. But that is exactly the question hundreds of Spanish families are currently demanding that their courts resolve for once and for all about the so-called "lost children of General Franco". They were already estimated to total around 30,000, and now, it appears, there may be many more.

In Franco's early years, "child-stealing" by the Spanish state was politically motivated, with its key instigator, Antonio Vallejo-Nagera, the army's crackpot chief psychiatrist who championed Nazi theories that Communism was a mental illness caused by the wrong kind of environment. Inspired by Vallejo-Nagera, Franco's government passed laws in 1940 that, as one judicial report in 2008 put it, "ensured that families that did not have ideas considered ideal did not have contact with their offspring".

Putting this policy into practice was brutally straightforward and efficient. In 1943, records show 9,000 children of political prisoners had been removed to state-run orphanages, and in 1944 that total had risen to more than 12,000.

More:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-30000-lost-children-of-the-franco-years-are-set-to-be-saved-from-oblivion-2173996.html

[SquireJons]

1. Warning: Franco Apologist Here

As slimy as I feel about posting this, I have grudging respect for Franco.

I don't want to even try to argue in favor of the crimes that Franco committed; they were real, many and caused great suffering. However, one must consider the fates of children almost anywhere else in Europe at the time. Children in Germany, France, England, and the Soviet Union were cannon fodder, but the children in Spain were spared the privations of WWII. That was a very conscious decision by Franco, and it undoubtedly spared tens of thousands of children from a violent death. How is this different or worse than the US government forcefully stealing the children of Native Americans in the later part of the 19th century? Where's the international condemnation of that?

The harshness of the internal policies aside, who can name a European country that followed a saner course from 1940 on? Asked another way, if you had to live in Europe in the early 1940's where would you have rather lived? The only place I can think of is Switzerland.

Also, keep in mind that his enemies were the communists, and history has passed judgment on communism as an economic or political system. It would seem that Franco was right about communism, if nothing else. And unlike most other despots, he did not seek to create a dynastic line of leaders for Spain. One thing that many people don't realize is Franco's cooperation with the US after WWII. We even had naval bases in Spain under Franco.

To me, Franco was a bit like Cromwell, a harsh and at times violent man, but one who knew how to restrain himself and whose primary goal was stability for his country.

[aquart]

2. Stunned.

But I should be used to hearing insane drivel on DU.

As for the charms of Cromwell.........Lordy, you do know how to pick 'em.

[LeftishBrit]

3. Wow.

Who are you going to defend next?

So anyone who is against the communists is a good thing?

Being an ally of the fascists should be enough to condemn him, even without all the other things against him.

And he continued in office as a dictator until his death in 1975. Democracy came to Spain a generation later than to most Western Europaean countries. Something to admire?

[Judi Lynn]

4. Well, we did have a poster here from the Republican site for several weeks

who fought tooth and nail to maintain Pinochet was excellent for Chile, too. He got downright crabby before he left.

It really does take all kinds.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. No, Franco did not launch his coup against "the communists", but against an elected government

The Popular Front, of which just one (junior) part was the Communists. Franco was not "right about communism"; so perhaps he was right about nothing, then?

An overview of the situation leading up to the war, and the war:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WARspain.htm

Yes, I'd have rather lived in Britain in the early 1940s than Spain. If you want to talk about "history passing judgement", then I'd point out history has passed judgement that fighting Nazism was a vital thing to do, and that the British people did not regard themselves as 'cannon fodder' when they did so. And if you are a pacifist, and thus give absolute supremacy to any neutral country over any one fighting in the war, then Ireland and Sweden were also far more preferable places to be in Europe than the dictatorship of Spain. It's not as if Franco made his decision based on the suffering of Spanish youth in war, is it? If that was the way he thought, he'd have never launched a coup causing a bloody civil war in the first place. If there was any decision at all from him, it was "we've got so many dead already, there's no way we'd survive an active role in a continent-wide war" (they lost several hundred thousand. Plus he may have executed another hundred thousand in the following decades.

And finally, and on topic for the thread, he kidnapped these children because of the political views of their parents. Yes, we condemn other governments for stealing children. The difference is that Franco did so many other bad things too, that this one looks smaller in comparison.

[ck4829]

6. Remember the famines ("hungry years") under Franco where at least several hundred thousand died?

I noticed that wasn't mentioned, so I'll just put that in here for you.

[TomClash]

7. I'm flabbergasted

Have you studied the Spanish Civil War and its aftermath?

Almost every European country followed a "saner course" after the War. In 1940, anywhere in Britain was better.

His enemies were communists, democratic socialists, anarchists, liberals, jews, freemasons, trade unionists, even some businessmen who supported the Republic.

Franco was a Falangist who believed in the military above all and created a corporatist, militarist, Church-dominated society. He achieved his victory in large part because of Nazi support As but one example, witness the J52s airlift of troops and materiel to Spain after the Fascist victories at Cuerta and other towns in Morocco in the summer of 1936. Without the support of the Nazis, the Rising probably never gets off the ground.

[bemildred]

8. Franco was a lucky opportunist.

It is true that he was wise to stay neutral, and it is true that he was no fool when it came to realpolitik, but he was a social reactionary, a monarchist no-less, and he gets no applause from me for religiously pursuing his own self-interest and self-aggrandizement.

[SquireJons]

11. Agreement

I know my comments are difficult for most progressives to swallow. I'm glad that at least someone recognizes the benefits of staying neutral and dealing with events from a realist rather than idealist view point. And I agree with your assessment of Franco completely. However, it seems to me that any successful leader is a lucky opportunist. Franco gets no applause from me as a person, but as a leader who successfully avoided Europe's most catastrophic war and then voluntarily passed power to a democratically elected government deserves at least acknowledgment that those were good qualities.

I guess my most basic feeling on the stealing of Spanish children to be given to Fascist families is this: what's worse, resettling 30,000 children , or fire bombing a quarter of a million children? If Franco is a bastard for taking these children, then Jimmy Stewart is the devil incarnate for flying those bombing missions over German cities. Let try to keep things in perspective is all I'm saying.

I did warn people in the title of my original post.

[bemildred]

13. Oh my.

Next we will be discussing why Pinochet was not really such a bad guy. "He was not as bad as he could have been", is an easy standard to exceed. He was far from good, whatever disasters he avoided. I give more credit for the transition to democracy to Juan Carlos than to Franco. When you sum Franco up, what you get is not becoming. It may not be quite as unbecoming as Stalin or Churchill, but it's still plenty unbecoming, up to the standard of Mussolini perhaps.

[ret5hd]

9. Hey,SquireJons...

"Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right."

Is this thread strange enough for you to see the light?

:rofl:

[SquireJons]

10. Or perhapes...

I am finding the light in a very strange place. I'm not a fan of fascism, but I do value peace and stability, especially when the rest of the continent was busy blowing itself to bits.

Some folks look for answers
Others look for fights

[ret5hd]

12. maybe you'd feel different if freedom was more than just a hobby.

just sayin'.

[LeftishBrit]

14. 'Peace and stability' -well, for SOME!

I suppose it would have been absolutely fine for Hitler and his pals to have been just allowed to take over Europe, and murder even more Jews and gays and Gypsies and political opponents (but I suppose it was OK to murder the latter if they were 'Communists'?)

Franco was no pacifist and blew plenty of his own countrymen to bits, or starved them, or executed them; and he certainly enabled the fascists to blow lots of people to bits, even if he was not officially a combatant.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. "not a fan of fascism", yet you have "a grudging respect" for a fascist?

It seems to me you define "peace and stability" as "as long as it's only left wingers getting killed or having their children abducted, it's not my problem".