NationStates Jolt Archive

Source: http://modernwarstudies.net/viewtopic.php?t=777

Disaffection with Spain's socialist government is spreading among the military, with the publication yesterday of a letter to the prime minister that accused politicians of "sacrificing the ideas of nation and fatherland to fatten their longing for power".

The letter, signed by Capt Roberto González Calderón of the Spanish Legion, follows the sacking last Friday of Lieut Gen José Mena for urging the army to intervene if parliament granted more home rule to Catalonia.

Prime minister José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said his advisers had assured him there was no unease within the armed forces over the demands of several regions for more autonomy.

"Well, Mr Prime Minister, your advisers have not told you the truth," he said in the letter published by Melilla Hoy. "There is a lot of unease within and outside the armed forces, which see how Spain is being dismembered, how the national flag is burned in public, how terrorists are allowed to hold demonstrations and social events, and how a generation of Spaniards no longer recognise Spain as their fatherland." - (Financial Times service)

The Irish Times

Well, obviously the military's opinion is more important than that of the Catalans themselves. :rolleyes:

I'm not surprised.

I smell a second civil war coming on...

hmm, this sounds vaguely familiar...

fucking spanish army - more trouble than they're worth

Is Jolt that bad?

Have we timewarped back to 1936?

I'm about to go there for two weeks so if they could hold the coup until Mid-March that would be great.

Seriously, what are they going to do? I would think Western Europe is beyond the military coup stage, no?

I smell a second civil war coming on...

Unlikely. I think the 1981 coup proved that any coup would be unsuccessful if it did not have the backing of the king of Spain. I doubt the king of Spain, either Juan Carlos or his son, would back any coup. In any case, a region cannot constitutionally gain independence so I think any anxiety in the military is uneccessary - I'm a military man (not a Spanish soldier, mind you), so I am obvious set against the PSOE party and especially Zapatero, but I don't think that giving Cataluña and El País Vasco autonomy is necessarilly bad (they already have near full autonomy). At least in El País Vasco the independence movement is getting smaller as your average civilian really no longer cares (although the percentage of those who would like independence is still in the 40% area) and ETA itself is losing power. In Cataluña I really can't say for sure - apart from what the Generalitat says, I'm not sure there's a huge independence movement there in any case.

That said, as I said before, army agitation is clearly unecessary, although I would support a coup if full independence was allowed (the constitution, in other words, changed). Autonomy, on the other hand, I think is progressive and will, in the future, bring Spain together moreso than it is today.

Seriously, what are they going to do? I would think Western Europe is beyond the military coup stage, no?

"But Rome is a Republic!"

Seriously, what are they going to do? I would think Western Europe is beyond the military coup stage, no?

You're right, nothing - at least, any time soon. The PSOE party is likely not to be elected in 2008, although Mariano Rahoy (PP) has his fair share of radicalism. But, you'd be surprised of what's capable in Spain. I think that people like Mena and Agüado are old guard soldiers, and I'd like to think Spain's younger soldiers are more progressive, although most vote PP. Should be noted that a greater portion of Spain's army is really made up of South Americans (although not even close to half a majority).

Alright, I was a little too general there-I suppose a coup can happen anywhere. But I can't think of any European country with that much dissatisfaction in the military.

Alright, I was a little too general there-I suppose a coup can happen anywhere. But I can't think of any European country with that much dissatisfaction in the military.
To be honest, the military still being in such a strong position is one of the reasons why Turkey isn't an EU member. That this is happening in Spain is shameful, to say the least.

[QUOTE=The Macabees;12352221]-snip-QUOTE]

That's really interesting. I don't suppose immigrants from South America would be as nationalistic about Catalonia, but that's just a guess.

Coup or no, I'm really looking forward to going there (and joining the republican resistance, if the paella hits the fan:p .)

South Americans are more interested in making babies, TBH. I think they are ambivilent torwards politics - at least, as far as Catalán independence goes. They would probably do what their leadership told them to do out of sheer neutrality. If there was a coup I would join the Spanish Army immediately - currently, I'm waiting until after I receive my bachelors in Mech. Engineering. Hoping to man my own personal Leopard 2E.

What part of Spain are you going to visit?

I smell a second civil war coming on...*Begins to spread propangada to establish himself as the next ruler of Spain*

Alright, I was a little too general there-I suppose a coup can happen anywhere. But I can't think of any European country with that much dissatisfaction in the military.


I live in Spain at the moment. And I can tell you yes there is serious dissatisfaction among the police and armed forces for the prime minister Zapatero. The Spaniards did not forget the Madrid bombings, what did Zapatero do, instead of fighting back in the face of an enemy attack he used the bombings as an excuse to further his agenda to pull the Spanish troops out of Iraq. Some in the military saw this as treason, to show such weakness and unresolved cowardice in the face of violence (the general military and police view of the matter) { of course Iraq was not the enemy, however that did not change how they viewed his actions }. Then Zapatero, repeatedly stated how pro-feminist he is, and tried sacking many officers and military members if they did not put more women in power positions. This was seen as meddling in military affairs, also rather blunt and insulting in their opinion.

I would say at this point the kettle is slowly burning. Now to bend in again to grant autonomy is seen as a last straw by many tolerant Spanish military men. Now as we even see, it came to the point of open insult and confrontation in a newspaper and letter. Many of the higher and old gentlemen military officers who remember the days of Franco, and old Spain are exasperated with their patience. They see Zapatero reforming the nation as one thing, however bending over to the enemy after the Madrid bombings, forcing his views on the military, now giving away spanish land for no real reason.

I personally think some of them would gladly have him dragged out of his seat, put against a wall and shot for high treason. There is a such thing as being of a different political denomination. However Zapatero is abouts the Spanish version of Jimmy Carter except worse. I just hope everyone can keep their patience and not let things boil over until Zapatero gets voted out of power {pretty much assured that he won't get revoted, even most Spaniards are seeing him as emberrassing, weak and a craven, I believe the PP even though their candidate is not exactly a dream either will win the next vote}.

Cybach, do you have voting rights in Spain?

[QUOTE=The Macabees;12352221]-snip-QUOTE]

That's really interesting. I don't suppose immigrants from South America would be as nationalistic about Catalonia, but that's just a guess.

Coup or no, I'm really looking forward to going there (and joining the republican resistance, if the paella hits the fan:p .)

Rather interesting that. But simply remember many of those South Americans are descendants of Spaniards as well. Unlike in North America, in South America the Spaniards interbred and mixed with the indegenous populations (for example. Argentina, 97% of the Argentinians are descendants of either Spaniards [the sheer majority], germans, italians and poles). Many of them see their culture as being based from Spain, and Spain despite not being their homeland, still being part of their identity and so it's integrity must be protected.

Cybach, do you have voting rights in Spain?

If I would bother to fill out the proper forms yes. At the present no.

The Spaniards did not forget the Madrid bombings, what did Zapatero do, instead of fighting back in the face of an enemy attack he used the bombings as an excuse to further his agenda

Unlike Aznar. Who didnt abuse his position at all to try and blame ETA?

Zapatero had promised a pullout of Iraq long before the bombings. It was the cornerstone of his successful election campaign.

Rather interesting that. But simply remember many of those South Americans are descendants of Spaniards as well. Unlike in North America, in South America the Spaniards interbred and mixed with the indegenous populations (for example. Argentina, 97% of the Argentinians are descendants of either Spaniards [the sheer majority], germans, italians and poles). Many of them see their culture as being based from Spain, and Spain despite not being their homeland, still being part of their identity and so it's integrity must be protected.

Don't flatter them. :p I may be biased, but from what I've witnessed at the El Goloso base in Madrid, they are the Spanish version of chavs, only international.

Don't flatter them. :p I may be biased, but from what I've witnessed at the El Goloso base in Madrid, they are the Spanish version of chavs, only international.

Yes. But they are sort of the trash of this place. If you want drugs usually run to them for it. Also South American gangs are becoming a bit of a problem, same in your area? However the military members are also ironically highly nationalistic, they will probably put up more of a fight then ethnic homeborn Spaniards in the case of a fight. I suppose you heard of the hoax with the Palma Cathedral?

Unlike Aznar. Who didnt abuse his position at all to try and blame ETA?

Zapatero had promised a pullout of Iraq long before the bombings. It was the cornerstone of his successful election campaign.

Again all the facts and none of the actual feel for it. It is true the vast majority of all Spaniards were against the Iraq war, and wished a pull-out. However Zapatero, did it at the wrong time and with the wrong approach. He did it directly after Madrid had been bombed by jihadist for Spain's role in the Iraq war, (The Reconquista was also mentioned, apparently Spain should give all the reconquerred land back to the Muslims,......). So what does Zapatero do, of all the times he could have pulled the troops out, he does it in the one time it would have been wise to offer the chin. But he kept his promise to pull them out, proceeded to. Jihadist all over the world screamed victory, this is what we have to do to force the infidels to surrender, see how the craven and weak Spanish fall before the mighty armies of Allah. And many spanish felt humiliated by this spectacle, especially those in the military, that this was completely unnecessary. Had Zapatero only waited either a bit longer or done it a bit sooner. But he did the right thing at exactly the wrong time, the worst possible time,...

Ecuadorian and Colombian gangs are becoming a problem in Madrid. In the town where I reside during the summer the problem deals more with the Lithunians, but that's another topic entirely. My good friend got the sh!t beat out of him in a park outside of the area of Los Angeles. My uncle's flat has been robbed at least twice by Colombians, and once by drugies, although the druggies didn't end up stealing anything - just eating his food. Through a miracle my flat in Carabanchel hasn't been touched ... at least, as far as I know. I don't live there.

Unlike Aznar. Who didnt abuse his position at all to try and blame ETA?

In Aznar's defense, this is a sweeping generalization. At first the majority of the evidence did suggest that ETA was behind the train bombings. It was unfortunate for Aznar that there were only three days left before the elections, really. Well, not for Aznar - he promised not to run again - but for the PP.

Zapatero had promised a pullout of Iraq long before the bombings. It was the cornerstone of his successful election campaign.

TBH, it was the train bombings that gave him the elections.

[QUOTE=N Y C;12352233]

Rather interesting that. But simply remember many of those South Americans are descendants of Spaniards as well. Unlike in North America, in South America the Spaniards interbred and mixed with the indegenous populations (for example. Argentina, 97% of the Argentinians are descendants of either Spaniards [the sheer majority], germans, italians and poles). Many of them see their culture as being based from Spain, and Spain despite not being their homeland, still being part of their identity and so it's integrity must be protected.I have spent some 10 years in South America.. (total)
and there is no love for Spain.. (even less than for US)..
it ranges from indifference.. to "bad blood"...

3 years ago I was at this huge sport bar was this Spain-vs-Holland(i am not 100% sure about the teams) football game.. rigth after a Chile-vs-England one.. most Chileans fans stayed for the Game (they love international foot).. and most of them were kinda cheering for Holland..

at one point a frustrated drunken Spanish fan stood up and screamed something about "why are you South-americans against your Madre-Patria.."
That "speech" totally got the Chileans out of their seats.. a big brawl started.. and the Police had to come with the buses.

and these were average-looking folks.. all ages.. some of them with their families..

I'm about to go there for two weeks so if they could hold the coup until Mid-March that would be great.

Seriously, what are they going to do? I would think Western Europe is beyond the military coup stage, no?

No no. Not mid-march. Preferably AFTER my gf gets back from studyin' for a month there

And I can tell you yes there is serious dissatisfaction among the police and armed forces for the prime minister Zapatero.

that's cause, like in italy, significant factions of such organizations are run by unreconstructed fascists

The Spaniards did not forget the Madrid bombings, what did Zapatero do, instead of fighting back in the face of an enemy attack he used the bombings as an excuse to further his agenda to pull the Spanish troops out of Iraq.

that's just nonsensical

Yes. But they are sort of the trash of this place.

Hi, bias.

Trash, as most things, is entirely international. Here, most drug gangs are run by americans or columbians, and I wouldn't say that the US and Colombia are trash.

I have lived in Spain, I am a spanish citizen, and I get to vote there, although I'm a quarter venezuelan, and I was raised here in Caracas, Venezuela, where I still live to this day. I also vote in the Euskadi, Basque Country, elections.

There is a lot of bad blood in South America towards the spanish?

Depends on the place. In Argentina or Chile, for example, there is a lot of admiration for Spain's culture, or in the circles of most South America's capital cities. However, in more rural areas, there is some resentment towards the spanish that goes back to the Conquista. That resentment is used by certain populist leaders of both right wing and left wing parties to amass power and win votes, trying to resurrect certain cultures that cannot be seen individually anymore.

Zapatero's goverment?

I don't approve his goverment, and I plan to vote against the PSOE in the next elections. Even although my own political views are similar to the PNV (Basque Nationalist Party), and I recognize that he has done a lot about civil rights, there are some things that I cannot stand about him. As an example, his conversations with ETA. ETA is a terrorist organization and their members belong to jail, and that's it. I am identified with the PNV because they are looking for the independence of the Basque Country using lawful, rightful and proper means, without any bloodshed or violent revolutions.

Even more, I am planning to move to Spain if things continue this way, (Yes, I am an opposer to the Chávez's goverment, and things are not looking good for us right now), and I hope the autonomy movements continue in the same fashion as they go now. And I also hope the military stay out of it. No country should be in the hands of a military decision.

And now the government better send a letter back saying: "Shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down. You're military - we give you orders, you follow them. If we needed you to have an opinion, you'd sit in parliament."

[QUOTE=The Macabees;12352161Disaffection with Spain's socialist government is spreading among the military[/QUOTE]

because they're a bunch of Franco nostalgics, and fascists to boot.
I think that Zapatero should dispatch some of these jerks to some off-land territory, like the Canaria, with no more than a platoon at their orders.

Well, this is certainly giving me deja vu.

that's cause, like in italy, significant factions of such organizations are run by unreconstructed fascists

As italian, I can confirm that.

example: Junio Valerio Borghese, a former fascist militia commander hailing from a "black aristocracy" noble family, tried a fascist military coup in the early '70s (similar to the Greece coup); he was able to gather support in the military, in the Polizia di Stato and in the Guardia di Finanza. They occupied briefly the ministry of Foreing Affairs and tried to attack the state radio/television.
Luckily, the Carabinieri didn't move, so the coupists had to go back to their barracks and were removed from their places in the following days.

In Aznar's defense, this is a sweeping generalization. At first the majority of the evidence did suggest that ETA was behind the train bombings. It was unfortunate for Aznar that there were only three days left before the elections, really. Well, not for Aznar - he promised not to run again - but for the PP.
.

there was absolutly zero evidence pointing to ETA. that was the point. not their style or their type of explosive.

ultimatly it was the military who leaked his lies as he was ordering them away from the supects up to bilbao to rough up ETA sympathisers. bear in mind this wasnt a suicide bombing and they terrorists were still out there. it was a dangerous act of sabotage to try and pretend spain hadnt provoked a new enemy to protect his political skin.

zapatero was 100% correct to carry on with his programme and not let these terrorists in any way influence government policy.

because they're a bunch of Franco nostalgics, and fascists to boot.
I think that Zapatero should dispatch some of these jerks to some off-land territory, like the Canaria, with no more than a platoon at their orders.

Hardly. If they were that Zapatero would long be dead rotting in the cold hard ground. They are somewhat ardent patriots and so view some of Zapatero's actions with a view of contempt. However I doubt it will come to a putsch. However Zapatero really seems to want to test his luck lately.
In all honesty Zapatero no longer has real control over the military, he lost it roughly when he lost his respect from them. I think it is highly dangerous for any leader to lose full control over the military, but instead of trying to win them back on his side, etc.. He seems intent on deepening the rift.

Zapatero won the election because of the bombings, however he still used terrible timing. There was no real revenge or public speech for retribution, Zapatero more or less pulled the whole affair under the carpet, pulled back the Spanish troops under the pretext bring our troops back home from the danger, etc..(even though the commanding spanish officer in Iraq asked to be allowed to stay and help further with the reconstruction). This whole thing left quite a few Spaniards with a bitter taste in the mouth, however he promised to pull back the troops and he did so. Because he caved into terrorist demands to pull back troops is more of a side point.
However the main problem is his dealing with seperatist terrorist now. Zapatero seems lean and mean to do everything with terrorist you shouldn't do. Caving in to them, dealing with them, and potentially granting them spanish territory.

Hardly. If they were that Zapatero would long be dead rotting in the cold hard ground. They are somewhat ardent patriots and so view some of Zapatero's actions with a view of contempt. However I doubt it will come to a putsch. However Zapatero really seems to want to test his luck lately.
In all honesty Zapatero no longer has real control over the military, he lost it roughly when he lost his respect from them. I think it is highly dangerous for any leader to lose full control over the military, but instead of trying to win them back on his side, etc.. He seems intent on deepening the rift.

Zapatero won the election because of the bombings, however he still used terrible timing. There was no real revenge or public speech for retribution, Zapatero more or less pulled the whole affair under the carpet, pulled back the Spanish troops under the pretext bring our troops back home from the danger, etc..(even though the commanding spanish officer in Iraq asked to be allowed to stay and help further with the reconstruction). This whole thing left quite a few Spaniards with a bitter taste in the mouth, however he promised to pull back the troops and he did so. Because he caved into terrorist demands to pull back troops is more of a side point.
However the main problem is his dealing with seperatist terrorist now. Zapatero seems lean and mean to do everything with terrorist you shouldn't do. Caving in to them, dealing with them, and potentially granting them spanish territory.

Basicly, he's a coward.

Basicly, he's a coward.

That is how he appears. Whether or not he is, is another question.

Zapatero seems lean and mean to do everything with terrorist you shouldn't do. Caving in to them, dealing with them, and potentially granting them spanish territory.

He cut the peace talks with ETA since they began a new terrorist campaing.
Unless you think that all basques are terrorists...

add: plus, remember Tejero.

Yay, two hardliners trying to tell everyone what "the people" think.

The military is not to have political opinions. The military is to shut its mouth and follow whatever the parliament tells it to. If that is to get out of Iraq, that is what the military is to do. If it is to do nothing while the Basque issue is finally settled, that is what the military is to do.

Anything else would be a step in the wrong direction and seriously compromising democracy in Spain.

But at least it wouldn't be "cowardly". :rolleyes:

and potentially granting them spanish territory.


If you think that every Vasco or Catalán is a terrorist, you really need to work out your stereotypes, ok?

I am a basque, and a pro autonomy of Euskadi, and I am not a terrorist.

The military is not to have political opinions.

BULLSHIT! They can have political opinions themselves. Out of uniform, they can even voice them if they want to. I should know. In uniform, I agree with The military is to shut its mouth and follow whatever the parliament tells it to.


To this quote: If that is to get out of Iraq, that is what the military is to do.

That's fine however, that does not mean they can't voice their displeasure over the decision.

BULLSHIT! They can have political opinions themselves. Out of uniform, they can even voice them if they want to. I should know.
This guy didn't voice his personal opinion, he threatened to take up arms against the government. He should consider himself lucky he isn't being tried for treason.

That's fine however, that does not mean they can't voice their displeasure over the decision.
But they should at no point believe that their opinions are of any importance in the matter or that anyone should listen to them because they wear a uniform. Compared to parliament, the military is to be mindless grunt on political issues. Whether it's a private of a general. And they should know it. If they wanted to play politics, they should have become politicians. They wanted to play soldiers, so that's precisely what they are to do.

Now, I understand you're more sympathetic to what you pretend is the cause of the military than to the government elected by the people of Spain, elected partly on a basis of getting out of Iraq (which had been public knowledge long before the train bombings). But you should not pretend that what these nutcases in uniform have to say is of any importance whatsoever compared to the elected government and public opinion in Spain. It might as well be the Federation of Wetnurses complaining.

The military already has all the decision power it needs: every soldier has the right to vote.

But they should at no point believe that their opinions are of any importance in the matter or that anyone should listen to them because they wear a uniform.

That should make their opinions even more important when it comes to matters of policy of war.

*snip*

Sorry but as much as I believe in following orders from the Chain of Command, to say that they should be mindless grunts when it comes to politics is really stupid.

Of course, Politics should stay out of the military but the military should know what is going on everywhere and to have an opinion on it.

Is Jolt that bad?

Have we timewarped back to 1936?

Oh my god! We have to warn everyone about Hitler!

Oh my god! We have to warn everyone about Hitler!

Hitler? That scrawny crackpot from Germany? What could he possibly do? The Germans are still wiped out from WWI. They couldn't possibly do anything for a long time.

Hitler? That scrawny crackpot from Germany? What could he possibly do? The Germans are still wiped out from WWI. They couldn't possibly do anything for a long time.

You also need to find a man called Einstein and set him up with a lab and lots and lots of moneys.

That should make their opinions even more important when it comes to matters of policy of war.
No. You see, the military is a disturbance. The whole idea of a democracy is to eliminate violence and physical force from politics.

The military is an organisation that is based on violence and physical force. It is to be kept out of the process of government. If you do not keep this strict divide, you're clearly going the wrong way. I don't think I have to start mentioning examples out of Germany's history again for you to understand what I mean.

Sorry but as much as I believe in following orders from the Chain of Command, to say that they should be mindless grunts when it comes to politics is really stupid.
They don't actually have to be. They just have to act like they are.

It's a matter of principle. The military has to be outside the decision process at all times. It's not a matter of degrees either. Everyone who wears a uniform, or even makes a mention of them being in the military, represents the military. And therefore he or she absolutely, 100% must stay outside the political discourse.

Of course, Politics should stay out of the military but the military should know what is going on everywhere and to have an opinion on it.
And then keep that opinion to itself.

And then keep that opinion to itself.

i don't know if i want them keeping their fascism quiet...

I guess with the talk of a fellow NATO democracy being taken over by the military. I have a question about NATO's role in it. Is there a written or unwritten rule to restore democracy in fellow NATO states? I see the alliance as a guardian of the member states. If one falls to a military coup would that require the other members to step in?

I guess with the talk of a fellow NATO democracy being taken over by the military. I have a question about NATO's role in it. Is there a written or unwritten rule to restore democracy in fellow NATO states? I see the alliance as a guardian of the member states. If one falls to a military coup would that require the other members to step in?

Nope. We didn't do so when Greece and Turkey had coups.

Nope. We didn't do so when Greece and Turkey had coups.

Maybe so with those two cases. However they were during the cold war and now with that over NATO has a different role. NATO has two major campaigns under its belt and seem to me to have a wider role. I just wonder if it would even be considered at this point in time.

Nope. We didn't do so when Greece and Turkey had coups.

Beat me to it.

No. You see, the military is a disturbance. The whole idea of a democracy is to eliminate violence and physical force from politics.
It's a matter of principle. The military has to be outside the decision process at all times. It's not a matter of degrees either. Everyone who wears a uniform, or even makes a mention of them being in the military, represents the military. And therefore he or she absolutely, 100% must stay outside the political discourse.


Totally, utterly, universally, absolutely agreed.
I'm very happy that, here in Italy, the militaries, the member of police forces and the magistrates are BANNED from politics (they cannot be elected in any branch of parliament or local council and they cannot join or form political parties; they can only vote). If you're a soldier, a policeman or a magistrate you have to quit before you can join a party or become candidate.

They are somewhat ardent patriots

I'm always worried by ardent patriots: I give here some example of "ardent patriots".

Mussolini - the only pro-intervention socialist in Italy in 1914.
Hitler - he wanted Germany great and militarily powerful.
Franco - he thought that armed forces had the right to decide policies.
Pinochet - he said that Chile was losing its strenght.

because they're a bunch of Franco nostalgics, and fascists to boot.
I think that Zapatero should dispatch some of these jerks to some off-land territory, like the Canaria, with no more than a platoon at their orders.

Who would be nostalgic for a prick like Francisco Franco?

I guess with the talk of a fellow NATO democracy being taken over by the military. I have a question about NATO's role in it. Is there a written or unwritten rule to restore democracy in fellow NATO states? I see the alliance as a guardian of the member states. If one falls to a military coup would that require the other members to step in?

NATO countries, no. Article V states that each country has the right to decide whether to intervene militarily or else.
Maybe WEU could - since its members are bound to military help. But I doubt that such a case would trigger WEU intervention, alas.

Who would be nostalgic for a prick like Francisco Franco?

Sadly a lot of Spaniards. Might I remember you that a big part of the PP (Partido Popular, right-wing) is composed by former supporters of Franco.

Really, it is clear that you don't live in Europe; here fascists, nazis, and dictatorship nostalgis have become a common sight in the last 15 years. :(

Really, it is clear that you don't live in Europe; here fascists, nazis, and dictatorship nostalgis have become a common sight in the last 15 years. :(

Nope, I don't.

But you'd think that after World War II people would have learned a lesson.

NATO countries, no. Article V states that each country has the right to decide whether to intervene militarily or else.

Article V declares that an attack on one nation is an attack on the entire alliance.

because they're a bunch of Franco nostalgics, and fascists to boot.

Franco nostalgics, maybe. Their opinion, however, is not important in the case of the coup; it is the opinion of the king. Fortunately for Spain, they have had the best king since Charles V come into power (Juan Carlos I is a staunch supporter of democracy in Spain).

I think that Zapatero should dispatch some of these jerks to some off-land territory, like the Canaria, with no more than a platoon at their orders.

That's what the Second Republic did, and look where it go them - the man they dispatched to the Balearic Islands with a small military force became the dictator of Spain.

But you'd think that after World War II people would have learned a lesson.

Hasty generalization. Spain is not like other fascist nations. Prior to 1936 Spain was near the same situation Iraq is in today. There was ethnic and factional violence throughout Spain, including what today are considered quiet regions - like Extremadura (one of the largest massacres of the asaltos took place in Extremadura, and the asaltos were a socialist formed paramilitary force!). Industrialization was being turned over to wealthy foreign powers (English, American, French businessmen). IMO, the Second Republic was doomed to failure. Even presidents such as Azana (sorry, at the Uni. I don't have the ability to type with Spanish letters), who looked at themselves as the future of Spain, were unable to turn the tide for the worse. At the progression rate under the Socialist it would have taken, IIRC, 150 years to make Spain come out of this HUGE economic slumber.

Under Franco, between 1950 and 1970 there was an economic 'miracle', it's considered. I don't think it was the fact Franco was in power - it was the fact that somebody had finally restored order in Spain. Furthermore, Franco had built the infrastructure Spain uses today to increase in economic power (just surpassed Canada). Franco, for all the bad things he did, did many more good things for Spain that some people don't consider, or choose to ignore. I'm not saying dictators are good; I'm just saying that Franco should not be compared with other fascist dictators - not even Portugal's Salazar.

No. You see, the military is a disturbance. The whole idea of a democracy is to eliminate violence and physical force from politics.


Unfortunately, this is rather idealistic, and definitely not realistic. The German Army was really not indoctrinated until winter of 1941 and then in 1942, after the stunning defeat in Russia in front of Moscow (see: David M. Glantz & Jonathan M. House, When Titans Clashed and Geoffry Magargee, Inside Hitler's High Command). Especially during the rise of Hitler's power the German Army was politically neutral (see: Trevor N. Dupuy, A Genius for War), and ultimately this is what allowed Hitler to use the German Army to conduct his war of hate. So, although idealistically, I agree with you - this is, unfortunately, not a reality!

and I hope the autonomy movements continue in the same fashion as they go now. And I also hope the military stay out of it. No country should be in the hands of a military decision.

I agree; insofar, it's been proven to be the best way of unifying Spain. As I said before, allowing them autonomy has made independence movements much smaller, and they are continuing to shrink (not that they are small, right now - but smaller, yes). But, Spain's regions almost have full autonomy. The only things they share in common are the national constitution (which prohibits independence), national police and national military.

Who would be nostalgic for a prick like Francisco Franco?

but he was so dreamy on the silver screen...

Another Spanish casualty in Afghanistan. (http://modernwarstudies.net/viewtopic.php?p=8474#8474)

Unfortunately, this is rather idealistic, and definitely not realistic. The German Army was really not indoctrinated until winter of 1941 and then in 1942...
Oh, I was thinking along different lines.

First there was the extraordinary influence the military gained over foreign policy after Wilhelm II. took over, which ultimately ended with WWI.

Then there was the Freikorps and the Kapp Putsch, which greatly destabilised the Weimar government. Indeed, the military pushed the whole 'stab in the back' idea which then allowed more radical groups to come to power. Hell, look at Ludendorff and Hindenburg...those two had no role to play in politics, but they did.

First there was the extraordinary influence the military gained over foreign policy after Wilhelm II. took over, which ultimately ended with WWI.

Influence which ended when it was dismantled in 1918.

Then there was the Freikorps and the Kapp Putsch, which greatly destabilised the Weimar government. Indeed, the military pushed the whole 'stab in the back' idea which then allowed more radical groups to come to power. Hell, look at Ludendorff and Hindenburg...those two had no role to play in politics, but they did.

The Freikorps was hardly related to the German Werhmacht; they were by definition politically controlled militias. This would explain why many joined the SA and SS, not the Werhmacht.

The Werhmach, during the rise of Hitler, was more or less politially neutral (which exceptions being just that). The Whermacht played no part in the rise of Hitler to power, and only sweared their loyalty to Hitler after Hindenburg's death (when it was basically forced upon them). Should be considered that most Wehrmacht officers, although they enjoyed their rearmament, seriously opposed Germany's occupation of Czechoslovakia and then the invasion of Poland. This opposition was less obvious when war was already upon then, and almost non-existant when they invaded Russia (see: Megargee's Hitler's High Command). This lack of opposition to an invasion of the Soviet Union, however, does not translate into the support of the Nazi party - indoctrinization really only happened when the German Army required some sort of justification for the continuation of the war against the Soviet Union. This was required after their defeat in front of Moscow, and that's when the junion officer corps began to really to relate doctrines with NSDAP, and by late 1942 this had trickled into the NCO and enlisted ranks.

The point still stands that army neutrality during the critical days of the Weimar Republic did not help when it came to the rise of Hitler.

Influence which ended when it was dismantled in 1918.
Sorta. As I said, the Imperial Army continued to heavily influence politics through people like Ludendorff and Hindenburg as well as the Freikorps (which afterall was simply soldiers now being unemployed because the Reichswehr was restricted to 100,000 but still acting as representatives of the military class, as it were).

The Freikorps was hardly related to the German Werhmacht; they were by definition politically controlled militias. This would explain why many joined the SA and SS, not the Werhmacht.
But I'm not talking about the Wehrmacht. I'm talking about the Imperial Army and the destabilising influence that it had both on Imperial Germany and then the Weimar Republic.

And besides, many prominent Wehrmacht people were members of the Freikorps at some point, like Keitel, Hoepner, Sperrle and Wenck.

The point still stands that army neutrality during the critical days of the Weimar Republic did not help when it came to the rise of Hitler.
No, by then the damage had long been done. And I'm not referring to the rise of Hitler specifically so much as to the fall of the Weimar Republic.

Sorta. As I said, the Imperial Army continued to heavily influence politics through people like Ludendorff and Hindenburg as well as the Freikorps (which afterall was simply soldiers now being unemployed because the Reichswehr was restricted to 100,000 but still acting as representatives of the military class, as it were).

Unemployed soldiers who were not under the influence of military command, which enforced political neutrality.

But I'm not talking about the Wehrmacht. I'm talking about the Imperial Army and the destabilising influence that it had both on Imperial Germany and then the Weimar Republic.

The only thing that matters which is relevant to this thread is the neutrality of the Werhmacht. The Werhmacht was the national army - the Spanish Army is a national army. I was applying the example of the Werhmacht to how the neutrality of the officers of an army does not help in many political situations. Had the generals been less politically neutral perhaps Hitler would have been dead as early as 1936, or at least by 1938!

And besides, many prominent Wehrmacht people were members of the Freikorps at some point, like Keitel, Hoepner, Sperrle and Wenck.

All of which probably joined after the accension of Hitler, and so are besides the point.

No, by then the damage had long been done. And I'm not referring to the rise of Hitler specifically so much as to the fall of the Weimar Republic.

Damage done by what were in effect militias owned by parties; not the national army. After all, we are talking about, in this thread, a national army.

Unfortunately, this is rather idealistic, and definitely not realistic. The German Army was really not indoctrinated until winter of 1941 and then in 1942, after the stunning defeat in Russia in front of Moscow (see: David M. Glantz & Jonathan M. House, When Titans Clashed and Geoffry Magargee, Inside Hitler's High Command). Especially during the rise of Hitler's power the German Army was politically neutral (see: Trevor N. Dupuy, A Genius for War), and ultimately this is what allowed Hitler to use the German Army to conduct his war of hate. So, although idealistically, I agree with you - this is, unfortunately, not a reality!

Unrealistic? We seem to manage it quite well over here. And in dozens of other nations. Unless you want to argue that Spain is somehow unable to meet with that standard.

I agree with Neu Leonstein, the Spanish state does not pay its Army to think. And, seeing as I still have memories from Pan's Labyrinth bouncing around my brain, I personally am very unwilling to hear what they have to say.

Unrealistic? We seem to manage it quite well over here. And in dozens of other nations. Unless you want to argue that Spain is somehow unable to meet with that standard.

The U.S. Army is definitely NOT politically neutral.

I agree with Neu Leonstein, the Spanish state does not pay its Army to think. And, seeing as I still have memories from Pan's Labyrinth bouncing around my brain, I personally am very unwilling to hear what they have to say.

That's precisely the problem. If a private militia props up a dictator, thus becoming the State, how should the army react if they are neutral?

Unemployed soldiers who were not under the influence of military command, which enforced political neutrality.
Look, I think we have a misunderstanding here. I'm talking about the German Imperial Army from 1871 to 1918, which clearly had a lot of influence on the government, thus getting the country on the wrong track.

This idea of the military being a political force besides the government continued into Weimar with the Reichswehr (1918 - 1935). It wasn't neutral, it just didn't support Hitler. It nonetheless had its own champions and views, and they either used their own influence, or the Freikorps, over which the generals from back in WWI obviously still had influence.

The Wehrmacht (1935 - 1945) is a different matter altogether.

What the Reichswehr and the Freikorps did was try to influence the way the country worked on the basis of military opinions. They beat down communists and social democrats, engaged in street battles with various factions and so on.

So rather than the Weimar government and the Reichswehr being the same thing, or rather the latter being an instrument of the former, the two were considered different and occasionally opposing parts of government.

Had the generals been less politically neutral perhaps Hitler would have been dead as early as 1936, or at least by 1938!
The Freikorps actually took part in defeating Hitler's Putsch attempt. My point is that rather than an Ebert, you ended up with a Hindenburg in power.

All of which probably joined after the accension of Hitler, and so are besides the point.
The Freikorps didn't really exist anymore by then.

Damage done by what were in effect militias owned by parties; not the national army. After all, we are talking about, in this thread, a national army.
I'm talking about a national army as well. The Imperial German military broke into two parts after the end of the war. The first was the 100,000 regular Reichswehr, the second was the irregular Freikorps which probably had a million or more members. They were still the same sort of group, the Freikorps wasn't owned by a party, it was owned by the military.

After Zapatero is voted out in '08, someone should invite him to a Theo van Gogh film festival.