A stunning scene, the last part especially. He looks like he is expecting them to understand his words after finishing his speech yet they don't and disappointment in his eyes is really visible. An amazing scene, and an amazing movie.
@The Truth Why, he was against the war and supported neither side. He wanted peace and was one of the few people to realise that both sides of the civil war were evil.
@@enesaydogan5590 Prime and Netflix doesnt have it (atleast in my country) I searched online already multiple times but only found some without subtitles.
“I wanted you to see what real courage is. It's when you know you're licked before you begin, but you begin anyway and see it through no matter what." - Atticus Finch
@telespino If you consider Franco as a Hero, you're a fascist. Unamuno wasn't against the Republic, he was Republican. He was against the extreme left wing that had a really close relationship with the URSS. In 1936, he thought that the coup would be used as a tool to come back to the center. But when he saw that they didn't wanted to came back again to the republic and they were fascist, he started to be critical, and finally murdered. It is difficult to be between the two sides in a war.
It’s amazing that they made this into a film. I’ve read an almost word-for-word description of this powerful scene and it was exactly like this. Would love to see what the rest of this movie is like.
@@agege04 Siempre pienso que, por muy fanático sea el ambiente que se respira en la lar, las escuelas deberían de propiciar aire fresco... pero ya veo que no siempre es así.
Miguel de Unamuno was also an admirer of my country's national hero, Dr. Jose Rizal, who was also a student at the Universidad Central de Madrid in de Unamuno's time there, though Rizal was three years older and the two were not personally acquainted. Of Rizal he wrote, "Certainly Rizal was a tireless dreamer and a poet. All his life he permitted his poet’s soul to reveal itself not only in the rhythmic quality of his compositions, but in his entire work; and above all in the poetry that was his life...." According to recent scholarship by historian Severiano Delgado, de Unamuno praised the example of Jose Rizal in this speech at the University of Salamanca. This infuriated Millan Astray, who was decorated for his actions in the Philippines fighting the revolutionaries inspired by the writings of Rizal, which resulted in the heated exchange portrayed in this scene. Hence his line "Death to the traitorous intellectuals", as Rizal was executed on charges of rebellion, sedition and conspiracy in 1896.
In Spain José Rizal is not only a Filipino hero but also a Spanish. In Spain everbody admires him and everybody critize his execution since long ago. Actually Rizal has a monument in the center of Madrid.
Ngl but all that José Rizal wanted was that Spain would treat the philippines like how Spain treated Mexico and Peru but the fault of José Rizals death was no other than the KKK.
@@dudemevill1699 Partially true. Initially he was among the reformists who advocated integration with Spain (equal rights and representation in the Cortes, reduced power of the religious orders), but by the early 1890s he had drifted from the other reformists and became increasingly convinced that the only way forward was independence, he just disagreed with the KKK on when and how. It was this change in stance that in part, pushed him to return to the Philippines. This viewpoint that Rizal was a bourgeois reformist against independence was one propagated and popularized by left-wing nationalist historians in the 1950s and 1960s. See the paper "Towards a Radical Rizal" for a counterargument on that point of view.
@@mezzodoppio58 It is true tho that Rizal wanted independence but Rizal didn't feel like the philippines was ready for independence cuz it had a small army.
He wrote an extensive essay on Rizal called Rizal: The Tagalog Hamlet and after reading a biography of him remarked: "I have just finished reading, for the second time, Vida y Escritos del Dr. Rizal, by W.E. Retana, and I close this reading with such a tempest of bitter reflections within the very core of my being; a tempest out of which emerges a truly brilliant figure that of Jose Rizal. He was a man of unlimited possibilities, a heroic soul, and today he is the idol of a people that will one day-I do not doubt-play a profound role in human civilization. Who was this man?"
In Honor of the Truth, what happened that day at the University of Salamanca is still not very clear even to this day. This is more than anything because we have received contradictory versions that do not modify what happened but if the tone: Some take it as the Rupture of Unamuno with the Nationals, already fed up with the abuses and extrajudicial executions that he tried to stop, others as a mere tough argument between the Thinker and Millan Astray, trying only to get attention and get the Nationals to rectify the Course they were taking. What is certain is that when Unamuno finished, they had to take out the Carmen Polo and the Archbishop because the Falange and the Army drew their weapons and lost their positions at the University and the Salamanca City Council, having to live locked up in a kind of Home Arrest Until the day of his death.
Voice of reason is rarely welcome at a time of war...
3 ปีที่แล้ว +20
No suelo ver películas españolas, pero esta estuvo muy bien producida de inicio a fin, mereció la pena verla. Me gustaría que hicierán una peli a los años anteriores durante la duración la 2º república, ya que esta étapa no suele tocarse nunca. Y por cierto si NO la habeis visto, NO veais este video ya que es un spoiler como una catedrál de grande xD.
The Second Republic and the Spanish Civil War involved the three great political forces that would immediately afterwards fight on a world level: reactionaries, revolutionaries and liberal-democrats. In the case of Spain, the most radical ones ended up imposing themselves (as always). Thus, on the "republican side" coexisted (badly) republicans, socialists, anarchists and communists, as well as Basque and Catalan nationalists. Also on the national side were republicans and liberals, next to monarchists and phalangists (Spanish fascism). But all republican and democratic elements were swept away by the radicals, even before the military coup on July 18, 1936. Unamuno was one of those men who belonged to the so-called "third Spain", as opposed to the other two bent on imposing themselves on each other. This speech in the auditorium of the University of Salamanca, one of the oldest in the world, is perfectly valid for any of these "two Spains".
Liar. There were no democrats or liberals on the Nationalist side. The Fascists never stopped saying slurs about democracy and individual freedom. The liberals and the working class they were on the same side.
@@Joan1Marti There were liberals and republicans on the national side at the beginning of the war. Read "The Spanish Revolution Seen by a Republican," by Clara Campoamor, a true liberal and republican. You will see how well the supporters of liberal-democracy got along with the leaders of the working classes, supporters of another type of republic, not so "bourgeois" or democratic.
I myself am Spanish and it's true there were more than just two sides. For example, on the leftist side anarchists and communists had their own war, inside the civil war itself and even though they both shared a common enemy!! The left in Spain has always been divided.
@@garcalej hahahaha Stanley G. Payne would differ from that statement. But what would he know, he just dedicated his whole life to studying the subject. I'm sure you are in possesion of the absolute truth about the matter.
@@DonPelayo90 The truth is possessed by no one. It is simply the truth. Separate from us, unconscious of our biases, our cares, our beliefs, our politics. A stone fossil buried in the desert, waiting to be discovered. What difference does it make how we the living choose to interpret history? Unless you have some way to destroy every record of what occurred, to silence the dead, the truth will remain out of our control, to be taken up by future generations who in turn will be able to judge with a clear, unvarnished eye what actually transpired. What transpired was a civil war conducted by two ideologically opposed factions in which more than half million people died, a war instigated by the Fascists against a democratically elected government, followed by a 36 year dictatorship. All under a sky that many witnesses confirmed was blue.
@@garcalej "a war instigated by the Fascists against a democratically elected government" thanks for proving you know nothing about the war and how it started. all biased leftard propaganda.
Pedazo de escena. Puede reflejar perfectamente a una gran parte de los españoles (no digo que sea la mayoría o minoría, solo digo que los hay) que ante un discurso argumentado que no es de su ideología; sólo saben responder de la manera más vacía: "Viva España". Deberíamos aprender de los errores, en cambio parece que avanzamos demasiado lento.
La reacción de Astray es el estereotipo que se le otorga al votante de derecha. Gente reaccionaria y sin discurso. Sin embargo, de eso pecan ambas trincheras, que a uno lo llaman facha si se sale del pensamiento único que marca la Complu.
@@Aletek Creo que ambos estáis ignorando su segunda reacción. Es tal y como decís pero si habéis visto la película sabréis que parte de esta escena es la respuesta al reto que le lanza Millan Astray sobre la valentía. En esta escena por lo menos Amenabar le da una salida digna. Si os fijáis Unamuno esta preparado para morir, ignora la mano que le tiende Carmen Polo y que le puede salvar. Pero entonces suena Millan Astray, igual que antes pero diferente. Le habla con respeto y le pide que coja esa mano y que salve su vida. Ha demostrado que es tan valiente, que esos intelectuales, a los que Millan Astray desprecia, pueden ser tan valientes como los que están en primera línea en el frente como él. Y eso lo hace una persona como describís y con una formación y respeto por los que piensan diferente prácticamente inexistente (aquí prefiero ser diplomático). Seguirá gritando España y pidiendo la muerte de los intelectuales (traidores) pero ha visto que hay más de un tipo de valor. Y es por eso que Unamuno acepta esa mano salvadora.
@@AlanRichmon Totalmente de acuerdo con lo que has escrito. En cambio sabemos que ese tipo de personas los podemos contar con los dedos de las manos. Una pena que a los intelectuales se les tache de traidores.
@@rogerroger730 Comunistas y fascistas, las dos caras de la misma moneda, ningún respeto por lo que piensan los demás, autoritarios que sólo quieren imponer su forma de pensar.
It is astounding how most of the commentators here do not seem to grasp what is actually happening (or rather, did happen) on that occasion: One of the formerly foremost intellectual architects of Spanish Unity publicly unmasks the infamy, brutality and absurdity of the "nationalist" overthrow of the republic - in front of the leadership of the main perpetrators of said coup. One of the commentators remarked: "Intellectuals are smart enough to hate but not smart enough to understand fascism." That statement could not be further from the truth: In fact he is the only one to fully understand and admit the truth and is also brave enough to challenge the lies, the hatred, the paradoxa and the hollow phrases of fascism.
@Elvia Darkgrape You are part of the reason why we have had 60 millions deaths and we will kill them all again if we have to. Because liberty, freedom, democracy and multiculturalism is the right side of history, and genocide and authoritarianism are the cancer. Venceremos Siempre
@@kilougi "Extremism is so easy. You've got your position, and that's it. It doesn't take much thought. And when you go far enough to the right you meet the same idiots coming around from the left." Clint Eastwood People like him unfortunately have always been there. But thankfully, such fanatics are usually a minority. We will stand against them as we always have, undisturbed by their shrieking screams of rage and ignorance. I am not a man of faith or uncertainty. But the bible said it best. Luke 23:34 Extremists are being distinguished by their alligence, I think such a distinction is unessessary. They are all dangerous, all fanatical and all of them are deserving of our utmost caution and concern, for their never-ending will to rule must be challenged at every level there is.
While I get his point, in a situation like this you HAVE to pick a side. Being at the center will only earn you the hatred of both sides. Unless you keep quiet and shut up about whoever wins.
He tried that and in doing so betrayed his principles. The Nationalists then murdered his friends and fellow intellectuals which caused a change in heart.
If the alternative is bolshevism or the "greens2 then nothing is off limits. No matter how extreme, if you have communism, socialism or greens as the alternative. deatjh to bolsheviks. I am looking forward to round 2 of this conflict in europe around 2030 onwards
Holy hell, the people in these comments are really into another world war with facism and communism. Calling numbers of deaths, their glorious past, the bible and how good things were in 1980. Everyone wants some war while there is food in their belly, their family is safe and the electrical grid is fine.
Your last sentence really nails it. As a former military man I always shake my head at those who cheer on wars they don't have to fight or make any meaningful sacrifices to support.
They have no reason to be fascists or communists yet they still think they have a say. Once they realize their mistakes they have already been starved.
Damn, our Spanish brothers suffer as much as we Portuguese, but we got out of Dictatorship much faster, in 1974 😁 Eventhough Viva Espana y Viva Portugal! 🇵🇹❤️🇪🇦 We are together and stronger hermanos
The best period of spain was under francisco franco. He brought stability back to Spain. He industrialized Spain and made Spain an important ally against communism in the west. Spains military became a really good military. Some designs that to this day are used by the europeans today.
Julio Hernandez no cabe duda que la ignorancia abunda en youtube y sobre todo con cualquier adiestrado. Investiga quien fue Miguel de Unamuno antes de volver a parlotear, inculto!
Por favor, ese gran intelectual estuvo en contra de un golpe de estado del que se desprende el facismo del franquismo. Y si prestas atención lo llamaron comunista, cosa que no era. Estamos a principios del siglo XXI, y vemos como las tesis de Francis Fukuyama como El Fin de la Historia no han soportado el paso del tiempo con hechos como la destrucción de las torres gemelas, y el retorno del fanatismo y radicalismo religioso que se ciega ante una serie de reformas sociales que son necesarias.
@@gwynfa100 Jajajjajajajajajajajajajaja Unamuno estuvo en contra de los excesos que se cometieron por los nacionalistas pero a los de enfrente tampoco los soportaba, es más llegó a apoyar el golpe porque pensaba que resolvía la casa de putas en que se había convertido la República gracias a los rojos. Otra cosa es que los golpistas fueran unos animalitos que no daban cuartel. Por eso Unamuno hablaba de los Hunos y de los Hotros porque para el eran igual de malos.
@@sergimateo3216 Si, agradece ser el hazmerreír de Europa y que llevemos 40 años en caída libre. En este país la gente siempre vota al peor candidato, sistemáticamente, si la democracia es esto que tenemos, es una puta mierda.
It is good for a people to remember that it's not "Propaganda" or "Leftist/rightist sympathies" in display all of the time. A movie needs to be a movie first even while based in history. Sometimes things need to be changed for drama or consistency. I used to have a problem with many movies and the liberties they took with history but it's much easier to enjoy the movies as a movies and history as history with that mindset.
And that Millan Astray was an stupid garrulo who doesnt know to argue , and the answer is that Millan Astray never interrumped Unamuno saying Arriba España and they say in the film that Unamuno was insulted by the soldiers
I love this comment. I have been a history buff all my life and have similarly had problems with the accuracy of historical movies. But I realized a few years ago that it was necessary in cinema to dramatize or truncate aspects of an event for the sake of story. If it means people take more of an interest in the subject or are able to grasp the message better, then I'm all for it. Frankly arguing over little details in an entertainment venue makes us historians look petty and unreasonable lol.
@@tau434 If your movie mutilates the story for the sake of dramatization then it shouldn't be a "historical" movie anymore. Problem with you movie buff types is that you're willing to misinform viewers about the events of actual history, for the sake of distracting entertainment. And most people won't even bother to do this research add to the fact nobody will be there to disprove these bogus scenes. What a garbage shitty leftist movie.
@@Tac_3D I admit this is not one of my favorite movies - I liked parts of it but overall I think the movie could have been better. But the point of my comment is to demonstrate that arguing over historical accuracy - especially when it comes to details - just makes you come off argumentative and leads to you enjoying the movie less. I have a lot of friends who do not put as much of a premium on history as I do and I've discovered the movie watching experience is much more enjoyable for them and myself when I don't seize on every historical inaccuracy. Movies are about telling a story - and sometimes you need to edit historical events to fit them into that story. As long as the story gains from it and makes more sense to the audience, I believe there should be room for wiggling. Consider the end of Darkest Hour - which imo is a great reinterpretation of history - where Gary Oldman gives Churchill's speech in front of a crowd of cheering Parliamentarians. Scene didn't happen the way they portrayed it, but it makes for great cinema. Also consider that we're not sure what exactly was said between Astray and Unamuno as there are conflicting accounts of the event. This version seems to follow one account pretty closely though (albeit the more dramatic one) so I don't think it's accurate to heap excessively on this clip.
"You choose dialectics only when you have no other means. You know that using it provokes mistrust, and that it is not very convincing. Nothing is easier to dismiss than the effect a dialectician produces: the experience of any assembly where speeches are made is proof of that. It can only be an emergency defence in the hands of those who have no other weapons left. You must need to force your being in the right out of people: otherwise you do not use it."
@@joshuatumambo5674 yeah, and I admire that, but it was nonsense. These people had been killing eachother like 3 days before this speech, you can't ask the two parts to understand eachother when both had tried to exterminate the other.
A lot of Marxists, Socialists, and Communists didn't get the point of the movie. Although the film only shows the acts of repression of the rebellious side, it is clear that in the republican zone people are also killed, lied to, tortured and people disappear. Massacres such as those of the Checas de Madrid and the Paracuellos del Jarama show it. In fact, and without counting those killed in combat, about 80,000 people died in the Republican zone due to repression, censorship and leftist purges. All the characters in this movie know it. Even Unamuno admits to Franco that he knows that the things they did to his leftist friends in Nationalist territory were also being done to his right-wing friends in Republican territory. This film seeks to condemn all forms of totalitarianism, social polarization and violence, whether from the Right or the Left. One of the most beautiful scenes in the film is when Unamuno begins to argue with his friend Atilano over ideological issues, and it shows that they understand each other and that there is a dialogue. The film is not a typical criticism of the Nationalist Band, as there are many films like this, but a universal criticism of fanaticism, whether it is Chauvinist or Communist. I am not surprised that this film is not understood by either the Right or the Left. Unamuno transcends political specters.
Well said, that scene was very beautiful, even more so today considering both right-wing and left-wing politics are increasingly moving towards the extreme.
You know, collectivize the means of production so the workers own the means of production...No? Well, pay them well so they buy toys, since it is what they keep them busy after work. Don't put factories outside the country. No? Ok, then the businessmen should brace themselves. What excatly do they expect?
There was a debate between the two, however, it was much more civilized than portrayed here. There is even a Photo of the two shaking hands after the debate.
En España los políticos solo se ponen de acuerdo para subirse el sueldo y enchufar a los cuñados. Y solo son honrados los que no suben al poder. Para entrar,mucho prometer y predicar,luego,a chupar como garrapatas. Ejemplos,desde el pp hasta el marqués de galapagar. Creo que somos un pueblo de borregos.
@@antonio96dt Una anarquía nunca funciona con una población tan masiva como la que hay en cualquier sociedad de la actualidad. La anarquía en mi opinión es lo peor a lo que podemos llegar, el estado para mi es un mal necesario porque el libre albedrío es peligroso para el ser humano. Aunque el estado tenga sus carencias, es lo que al final del día nos ha protegido de muchos peligros a los que quedaríamos expuestos en caso de no tenerlo.
@@alejandrosaignermartorell4142 Esa escusa es vieja y hace demasiado tiempo que quedó en ridículo. Creo incluso que tu concepto de anarquía es la simplista idea de que no hay normas y etc
@Sickotato Yo opino lo contrario, el estado es lo que protege tu independencia para que nadie te la robe por la fuerza o por el engaño. Sin estado dudo mucho que haya propiedad privada, ya que la gente estaría invadiendo tu espacio y tus posesiones sin ningún tipo de reprimenda, estarías a merced de cualquiera, y eso es de todo menos tener independencia.
@@antonio96dt ¿Si quedó tan en ridículo como es que hoy hay tan pocos anarquistas? ¿Cómo es que no hay ninguna nación que imparta ese modelo idílico que tú defiendes? Sencillo, porque no funciona.
@@shadowrex1968 Viva España próspera y en paz bajo el tipo de régimen que sea (régimen democrático, se entiende). Con república o con monarquía parlamentaria, TANTO DA.
@Elvia Darkgrape This must be the "Trump effect." It is no longer so ashamed to say atrocities and praise totalitarian government systems that caused so much cultural and human death that they caused throughout the 20th century.
@@hectoralmendrosmartinez9272 there's a different between a nationalist and a fascist Francisco franco wasn't really a fascist he was a nationalist and spain during his regime was quite successful till now. My country is falling apart because of the free democracy the people selected a socialist government who's making Spain worse over time.
Incorrect dialogues For example: Unamuno said: "This is the temple of intelligence. And me, its high priest" Millan Astray said: Die intellectuals! Long live death! (History cannot confirm it yet)
@@alvaro6587 la fuente de esta versión la da Núñez Florencio es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vencer%C3%A9is,_pero_no_convencer%C3%A9is Aunque la fuente de Delgado dice que Millán Astray dijo "Mueran los intelectuales traidores" Por eso he dicho que no está confirmado todavía
While his most famous lines weren't actually given in his speech, but in a letter to another intellectual, he understood what so few even today do; that communism/socialism and fascism were expressions of the same horror; the complete domination by a state over the dignity, worth, and liberty of the individual human.
@@SneedEnjoyer they are locked up because they invaded a state building injured policemen and broke things on the capitol so if that is what you call trump rally yes they deserved to be locked up as so as him
Wow, this is not how this went. This is fictional account based on Hugh Thomas’s fantastical take. This scene is highly exaggerated the two men did not disagree like this, firstly, secondly what angered José Millán-Astray was the professor invoking a Filipino intellectual who revolted against the Spanish, José Millán-Astray being a war hero and one of Spains best sons was insulted by the Professor bringing up the name of a criminal prompting Jose Millán to react. Also Jose Millán was not some incompetent dofus who only knew how to fight well, the man was a brilliant strategist and tactician, he easily could have handled himself in an intellectual discussion, also the two men are shown in a picture together after the speech departing and they are on good terms in the picture. I recommend everyone reads The Severiano Delgado’s version of these events and not this Pro-Republic fiction.
Hes basically right about bolshevism and fascism but it should be added that fascism seems to rise because of the threat of communism first. The best way to keep your nation free of communism and fascism is to not let either of them fester because at the end of the day most of the fascist rank and file were in those boots because they thought it was the only way to stop communsm and vice versa
@AJ K. Lawson You know that in the 50's and 60's in Soviet Union there was no famine or whatever...Right? That they elevated the standards of living of the people. Yes, they didn't have the power and nevertheless they hadn't the political control. But be accurate, please, don't make this a cold war propaganda orgy.
They took some liberties with his speech. In this case they protrait Unamuno as he was Karl Popper, we can be lucky that he didn't praise the free market in the movie. There is no way of keeping out communism. This system is consuming itself. The "good things" of the "free world" were there out of pure fear of the Soviet Union, once it was gone, things started to get worse in the free world. And here we are now. Each day that goes by we are more similar to the XIXth century. There is no more cheap excuses and short cuts for the defenders of capitalism...They go asking everyone to be responsable and they can't get their shit together and answer for the last crisis.
Cuando dice "todos somos españoles", uno elige ser de la nacionalidad que sienta querer ser, incluso si los otros se lo niegan o se lo exigen. Nacer en un lugar es azaroso. Pensar, sentir, decir y actuar acorde al lugar de nacimiento corre por cuenta de uno, más allá del origen de un apellido, la lengua que se quiera hablar y la tierra que se quiera habitar.
@Asier Linazasoro la objetividad es un consenso entre subjetivos. Y no todos están invitados a consensuar sobre querer ser o no alguien con una nacionalidad determinada e impuesta por otros o por el solo hecho de haber nacido en un lugar sin haberlo elegido para tal. ¿Es ley el precepto dictado por autoridades cuestionadas en su valores democráticos? Sentir es oír al otro para que puede experimentar democráticamente el reconsiderar y el reconocerse la nacionalidad que desee. Hay países que se lo permitieron porque confiaron y respetaron los deseos de sus ciudadanos en definir sus identidades. Y hay países que no se lo permitieron, tal vez porque escasea la confianza y el respeto a los valores democráticos.
@Asier Linazasoro no pongas en mi boca palabras que no he dicho. En ningún momento utilicé la proposición copulativa "la nacionalidad es religión". Coincido que hay adultos que quieren imponer una nacionalidad o un sentir nacional específico a niños, pero a la larga esos niños en sus derroteros existenciales hacia la adultez terminarán eligiendo en su fuero interior la nacionalidad por la que sienten afinidad, más allá si las imposiciones jurídicas o los fundamentos legales no coincidan con sus afinidades nacionales. Que una persona se le defina una nacionalidad por ius solis o por ius sanguinis es tan razonable y aceptable como una persona que se niegue a seguir esas prerrogativas (y más si hay una larga historia de imponer por la fuerza lenguas y símbolos que sus antepasados no utilizaban, y si lo hacían era para sobrevivir y subsistir).
@Asier Linazasoro ¿has oído hablar de las naciones sin estado? pues eso, pero claro está que tú no las reconoces, porque te nombraron comisario político del mundo mundial mientras el resto dormíamos y no nos enteramos.
@Asier Linazasoro una nación sin estado, además de un grupo humano, es un contexto cultural, y ambas cosas son muy respetables, aunque tú las desprecies alegremente. En España hay varias naciones sin estado, te guste o te haga llorar, es innegable, como ocurre en casi todos los grandes estados nación consolidados en Europa durante el siglo XIX, y salvo en España y personajes como tú, nadie les niega la existencia. Otra cosa es que la legalidad vigente permita en la actualidad ejercer ese derecho de autoderminación, en el caso de España, con una constitución creada a lomos del franquismo y con los militares en el cuarto de al lado, ese derecho no existe, obviamente (para alguien que sepa de derecho solo tengo que acudir a mi pareja, abogada de oficio con más de 25 años de profesión a cuestas, y sin embargo no niega la existencia de esas naciones). Que esas naciones existan no significa que algunos de sus ciudadanos "se niegen" a ser ciudadanos de pleno derecho, desde el mismo momento que pagan impuestos a la hacienda española SON ciudadanos de pleno derecho, da lo mismo lo que sientan ser (solo faltaría). La misma constitución española, que al menos en la teoría contiene grandes logros (aunque algunas incongruencias notables, como eso de la "igualdad de todos los españoles" y a la vez la "inviolavilidad del rey"), ya habla de NACIONALIDADES, referido a territorios, lo que es un absurdo porque todo el mundo sabe que ese término se aplica a personas (por lo visto se cambió la palabra después de un berrinche de Manuel Fraga, que no toleraba más nación que la española, claro está), pero es obvio a qué se refiere. Y es que a pesar de algunas lógicas carencias, tenemos una muy buena constitución, lo lamentable es que se interprete siempre en sentido restrictivo y como una cárcel, más que como un marco legal abierto y de convivencia. A algunos solo os interesa dos cosas de la misma: la monarquía y la unidad de España, el resto os la bufa, y sin embargo el pilar fundamental de la constitución a lo largo de TODO su texto es otro: la democracia. Asimílese el concepto, hagan el favor. Si quieres hablar de los más "mimados de España" puedes hablar de Madrid, un territorio con escasos 40 años que nunca antes habia existido, separada de la otra Castilla (¿les podemos llamar ya separatistas?) y que es la comunidad más rica gracias entre otros privilegios al insolidario dumping que la convierte en un paraíso fiscal dentro del país, y culpable de crear a su alrededor la España vaciada. No hay "igualdad entre españoles" cuando una CCAA permite que empresas y propietarios puedan pagar sus impuestos en Madrid (y más barato) en vez de en su lugar de origen, lo que los descapitaliza. Si quieres quejarte ya tienes por donde empezar. No son ni Catalunya ni Euskadi, el problema, es Madrid, como hemos comprovado durante esta pandemia, que han ido a su puta bola, como siempre, pero claro... Madrid es España y España es Madrid... si es que hay que reirse, joder!
Asier Linazasoro una nación sin estado, además de un grupo humano, es un contexto cultural, y ambas cosas son muy respetables, aunque tú las desprecies alegremente. En España hay varias naciones sin estado, te guste o te haga llorar, es innegable, como ocurre en casi todos los grandes estados nación consolidados en Europa durante el siglo XIX, y salvo en España y personajes como tú, nadie les niega la existencia. Otra cosa es que la legalidad vigente permita en la actualidad ejercer ese derecho de autoderminación, en el caso de España, con una constitución creada a lomos del franquismo y con los militares en el cuarto de al lado, ese derecho no existe, obviamente (para alguien que sepa de derecho solo tengo que acudir a mi pareja, abogada de oficio con más de 25 años de profesión a cuestas, y sin embargo no niega la existencia de esas naciones). Que esas naciones existan no significa que algunos de sus ciudadanos "se niegen" a ser ciudadanos de pleno derecho, desde el mismo momento que pagan impuestos a la hacienda española SON ciudadanos de pleno derecho, da lo mismo lo que sientan ser (solo faltaría). La misma constitución española, que al menos en la teoría contiene grandes logros (aunque algunas incongruencias notables, como eso de la "igualdad de todos los españoles" y a la vez la "inviolavilidad del rey"), ya habla de NACIONALIDADES, referido a territorios, lo que es un absurdo porque todo el mundo sabe que ese término se aplica a personas (por lo visto se cambió la palabra después de un berrinche de Manuel Fraga, que no toleraba más nación que la española, claro está), pero es obvio a qué se refiere. Y es que a pesar de algunas lógicas carencias, tenemos una muy buena constitución, lo lamentable es que se interprete siempre en sentido restrictivo y como una cárcel, más que como un marco legal abierto y de convivencia. A algunos solo os interesa dos cosas de la misma: la monarquía y la unidad de España, el resto os la bufa, y sin embargo el pilar fundamental de la constitución a lo largo de TODO su texto es otro: la democracia. Asimílese el concepto, hagan el favor. Si quieres hablar de los más "mimados de España" puedes hablar de Madrid, un territorio con escasos 40 años que nunca antes habia existido, separada de la otra Castilla (¿les podemos llamar ya separatistas?) y que es la comunidad más rica gracias entre otros privilegios al insolidario dumping que la convierte en un paraíso fiscal dentro del país, y culpable de crear a su alrededor la España vaciada. No hay "igualdad entre españoles" cuando una CCAA permite que empresas y propietarios puedan pagar sus impuestos en Madrid (y más barato) en vez de en su lugar de origen, lo que los descapitaliza. Si quieres quejarte ya tienes por donde empezar. No son ni Catalunya ni Euskadi, el problema, es Madrid, como hemos comprovado durante esta pandemia, que han ido a su puta bola, como siempre, pero claro... Madrid es España y España es Madrid... si es que hay que reirse, joder!
Mmm idk if the Nationalists ever explained their phrase of "Long Live Death" but I think it makes sense but because of this: When death is around the corner, it is right there when real character reveals itself, death it what makes us realise what we love because we dont know how important someone is until you lose it, it is what has made mankind move through its hardest and darkest moments and taking a look at the life of Jose Millan-Astray, it makes sense why would he say something like that. But it is a contradiction too because if I say "Long live Death because Life is valuable" then whose life is valuable? What about the mass executions carried out by the Nacionalists during the war?
It's the motto of the Spanish Legion, which was founded by Millán Astray himself (the eye patched guy). I believe its origin comes from the Spanish military tradition based in honor and never surrending, there's a famous quote from a general in the 17th century who offered him to capitulate and answered: "Only after dead we will surrender" eventually they won that battle. Therefore its better to die fighting than to surrender, hence the "long live death" phrase
@@aqpatt4675 That battle, against the French, was the last one where the Tercios fought, and was certainly not won. Everybody died. The French respected the fact that the Tercios wanted to fight till the very end, and those famous words transcended in time.
@@Aletek It was not a victory, but the Spaniards were allowed to retreat with all their weapons and with the Empire flag in column formation, without giving up their equipment, as an army officially abandoning a territory, not a mob running from the enemy. It wasnt by any means a regrettable defeat.
Lo que deja en claro esta escena es que el pueblo analfabeto se deja llevar por ideas que les venden cosas que les suenan bien , da igual la ideología porque bien podría haber sido un discurso dirigido al bando republicano... en fin... un rebaño
Si bueno, eso o que los "republicanos" ya antes de la guerra se estaban cepillando a la gente, metiéndolos en campos de concentración y asesinando indiscriminadamente. En el punto al que se llegó, venir con un discurso de unidad y persuasión y tal fue una gilipollez tremenda, la gente se odiaba, se habían estado asesinando los unos a los otros hasta hacía 3 días, no me jodas.
@@uversustony9513 si pero podemos demuestra lo que dice en su programa. Si vierais la proposiciones que se hacen en el Congreso y lo que votan los partidos veríamos quien de verdad se interesa por el bien de España. Igual no es el mejor partido del mundo pero si los auténticos democratas. El problema de España es que estos fascistas que se alzaron en el 36 siguen en nuestras instituciones no se murieron con Franco de golpe.
En España sigue habiendo un alto porcentaje de personas que piensa como estos. De ahí que España siga dividida en dos. Los que perdieron gente en la postguerra y los que creen que no mataron suficientes. A partir de ahí que cada cual saque sus conclusiones
En España hay un altísimo porcentaje de gente de izquierdas que sigue pensando que sus antepasados ideológicos no hicieron nada malo. Que aquella fue realmente una guerra de fascistas contra demócratas. Que sus crímenes durante la guerra poco menos que no cuentan porque... "era una guerra, y en una guerra todos matan". Que durante el quinquenio "en paz" las izquierdas se comportaron con pulcritud democrática, y que siempre respetaron a la República. Con un pensamiento así, tan alejado de la realidad, es IMPOSIBLE que no siga habiendo dos Españas. Va siendo hora, creo, de que también la izquierda asuma algún mea culpa. Motivos tienen de sobra.
@Miriam Castillejo Felosa se te olvida algo. España antes de ser una grande libre y todo eso, debe de ser católica. Con la cruz vencimos al infiel, con la cruz combatimos al hereje, con la cruz echamos a Napoleón, y con la cruz salvamos el país de la revolución bolchevique
Y también están guapa, los que creen que ellos no mataron e iban repartiendo rosas y que la 2 republica era un paraíso en la tierra, pregúntale a los descendientes de Calvo Sotelo si era un paraíso. Y suficientes no se, pero lo que está claro es que dejó mucho rojo con delitos de sangre vivitos, como por ejemplo el abuelo del cabronazo de iglesias, si Franco hubiera sido duro igual hoy no tendríamos que soportar a semejante radical peligroso en todo un gobierno de España que supura odio y revanchismo
@@euskara2068 This is what movie said. But one thing, Millan Astray saved Unamuno's life, with Carmen Polo's help, because Unamuno want it. It's Carmen Polo who saved his life but he rejects her savior hand until Millan Astray ask him to did. He was prepared to die. And not and painless death.
I'm not sure that on the other side of the barricade they were trying to convince anybody either. There's a time for philisophy, a time for sophism and that time isn't wartime.
@@Navarretespanol .... *sigh* The USA does not care... if your country is couped by it. If foreigners are brought in by force to replace the nation. Trouble and degeneration will happen no matter what you believe because your own beliefs will not change things. Because you think, you still do not change one bit of it. Don Miguel is looking at the Catalonians and wondering why they are bringing (supporting illegal migration) Moors in to r*pe them...
The free market which censors you for your opinion while you do nothing, and the freedom of mankind to abandon tradition, the freedom of secularists to impose their control over religious while your principles demand you do nothing. There is more to life than GDP, and the freedom to sin should be fought against whenever possible.
@@the4thindustrialrevolution225I fail to see any any offense in that ngl and I bet your a basement dwelling nationalistic Prussian simp who believes in dictators
And this is the eternal logic of fascism; to always turn inwards against the ever-pervasive traitors and inferiors -no one is safe from such a cannibalistic way of governing.
You are a perfect example of a braindead sheep following his pharasee master :) The "intellectual" used nice words to mislead the public and once he won the elections he would corrupt the people and the country, yet you are so naiv and stupid. What can I expect from a born loser...
Pity pitfighter comes :).I'm really sorry about all your pathetic wording skill. You blame hardly about me, still your sentences are empty. Try to focus on keyword. You can do conversation better!
See. That's exactly what I mean. You are so unbelievable stupid and naiv wow. It's not just a scene of a movie. The "expert" you are moaning so much about is saying nice reasonable words to mislead the public, once he wins the elections, he corrupts the country and its people, pushing unmoral programs through like the sexualization of children, open borders, corrupting the media (whilst stealing 3 billion in 1 year alone),... It irritates me that naiv, dumb people like you do not see through the 'expert' "nice words"
nah, you are keep missing the point gen. you are blaming the 'intellectual, but there is no why. and all you saying is you are sheep because you are sheep! how funny. Even this reply, he didn't show 'why'. God be shame his son only knows anger and hatred.
I have family in the Catalan country and the Basque country, this the War is embedded within Spain every where you go, Miguel had a point that Franco just wanted to seize power and justified his actions because he wanted to stop the Reds? Franco wanted to make the country back to its glory days but instead divided the people even more.
I' dont know if Chesterton and Unamuno exchange letters back on these days, but both of them had the same ideas: that bolchevism and fascism are one and the same, but the only difference between them is the fundament of their dictatorship. In bolchevism, is the class strugle; in fascism, the nations and race war.Just like Unamuno, Chesteron has fore seen in 1938 that Bochevism and fascism will go to war during the next decade, and the result will be a new World War, even worse than de World War One ( Named The Great War, wich was nothing but a war between monarchies , with the bank´s help) Chesterton dies in 1938, so Unamuno did 1936. Rigth now, in the early 21th century, their ideas are more important than ever: now the entire planet, and even the U.S.A is walking into a Civil War (or in Unamuno´s words "uncivil war"). Here, in Chile, we have seen how the bolchevism and fascism are rising again, but not like it was back in the seventies, with Allende and Pinochet, Now is even worst, cause there´s not a leadership on any side yet, so the worst kind of persons may rise to lead, and chaos may reign again in the streets, with the same bloody consequences that we saw in Spain back in the thirties.... " Venceréis, pero no convenceréis..." =( .
Italian & spanish Fascism was ( unlike Nazism) never based on race but on a nationalist & traditional spiritualism ,it also have a promethean point of view, denied materialistic history (history based on economy cet...),italian Fascism in italy introduce the first form of social security ( as well as multiple other social reforms) that managed to improve the life of the italians.May i also remembered you that during the spanish civil-war they were also Muslims soldier "Los Regulares" who fougth with great ferocity for Franco' s nationalists.
A very nice movie, Unamuno was a great figure of intellectual, but nonetheless, from the many books i have read , i'm sincere, if i lived at the time, i'd take the side of the Nationalists. The Reds day by day eliminated the moderate components of the Republic, killing the opponents too.. Obviously , there was a sort of Fascismo ( i notice that the most part of commentators use the word Fascism and Nazism as synonim, but at the time the 2 doctrines were mostly different, because Fascism was not racist as Nazism - search for the jews and their great support to the Italian Fascism) in the Junta of Franco , but probably the victory , an eventual victory of the Republic meant hardship, killings and poverty for Spain, probably something more acute that the triumph of Francoism. Without counting the problem of a post WWII settlement in Cold War, with embargoes like it was in Cuba. Unamuno is the voice of moderation, seems a person outside of his difficult times, a man of today thrown back in 1936, but i presume that at the time you had to take sides. And many did just that.
There was no good guys so it just depends on which sides has the most overlap to your values. If I was transported there with while having the same background (middle class, religious tho not good at it lmao) I probably side with the Nationalists too.
@@229masterchief "There was no good guys" Finally some common sense! If you say how horrible the commies and the Republic were, you're branded a fascist.
@@Spanish_Patriot Yeah, looking back I don't think there's any movie about the civil war from the Nationalists PoV other than this one, while you can find quite a few from the PoV of the Republicans.
millan astray no era el bestia que pintan en la pelicula, tenia una gran faceta cultural, hablaba varios idiomas, traducia libros... no influyo para nada en el devenir de la guerra, no ostento mando alguno en combate y la legion con millan astray o sin el hubiera combatido igual
Millán-Astray nunca dirigió ninguna unidad militar ni participó en combates. Fue un intelectual que incorporó en los reglamentos del Tercio lo mejor de la literatura técnica castrense europea de los años veinte, se desenvolvía con soltura en ambientes intelectuales franceses, y admiraba la cultura oriental. También tradujo del inglés textos clave del Bushido, el código moral de la cultura samurai por entonces desconocida en Europa, e impartió cursos de historia militar, geografía y táctica en la Academia de Infantería. La única bestia aquí eres tú, analfabestia.
No soy español... Pero tengo una consulta... Por qué Astray prefirió que Unamuno salga con la señora de Franco? Vi la película, pero la duda me quedo... Se que ambos tenían severas tensiones, y que Unamuno estaba advertido que si hablaba, lo matarían.... Pero por qué Astray lo "ayudo"? Gracias
Si ves la película quizás te lo aclara, Astray patinó completamente ante una figura de prestigio, su asesinato por parte de cualquiera de los asistentes habría supuesto un conflicto político, Franco lo tenía en simpatía. Son cuestiones de pequeños instantes lo que cambia el resultado, sé que no es la mejor aclaración, pero matar a todo lo que se moviera no es lo que se buscaba.
En la realidad salieron y se dieron un apretón de manos, hay una foto y todo. Matar a Unamuno hubiera sido una locura, era un pensador respetado por los derechistas y el mundo en general.
Se entiende... Si me imagino la caída de reputación si se llegaba a matar a Unamuno en ese mismo instante... Pero igual, Unamuno tenía alguna tendencia fija? O más bien "saltaba" de ideologías y pensamientos? Me quedo muchos intereses sobre la historia de él..
@@leonardiommi2322 Inicialmente era prorepublicano en 1931, cuando la republica se inició. Pero en 1936, tras esperanzas incumplidas, e incluso una revolución comunista en octubre del 1934...evolucionó a una equidistancia de centro-derecha. Pero siempre quiso ser independiente en su juicio, y eso en tiempos de polarización extrema, no cabe. Eran tiempos de "o conmigo o contra mi", y Unamuno, a pesar de denunciar los increíbles defectos de la republica, no apoyaba el alzamiento del ejército.
Para los que le interese esto. Millán Astray lanzó el grito de muerte a la intelectualidad traidora después de que Unamuno mencionara el fusilamiento de Rizal que luchó contra España en Filipinas. Nunca hubo un grito de viva la muerte como en la película. De hecho Millán Astray escoltó a Unamuno fuera junto a la mujer de Franco después de que sonarán algunas armas recargarse.
Se hicieron anotaciones de sala, sí, se gritó "viva la muerte", es cierto que en ninguna anotación coincide el 100% de las frases, de hecho Astray no quedó "tartamudo", antes dijo una frase en torno a lo que buscaban conseguir los nacionales, pero sí, existió esa frase desde el público, aunque la respuesta que da en la película no coincide, sí que formuló: "Esto me suena lo mismo que ¡Muera la vida!"
Supongo que tantos años de educación franquista ha calado tanto en la sociedad española que ahora parece de izquierdas la República. Pregunta seria: ¿Porque hay gente en contra de una república española?
@@hectoralmendrosmartinez9272 porque cambiar de monarquía parlamentaria a república no asegura nada para España. No habría cambio real de ningún tipo, los partidos políticos seguirían ahí, la corrupción seguiría estando a la orden del día, simplemente sería quitar a uno para poner a otro que haga exactamente lo mismo, costando el mismo dinero, o incluso más. Además de que el rey en funciones, Don Felipe VI ha sido un buen monarca, con diferencia, de los mejores que ha tenido España. Te fiarías de poner al mando del ejército a Pedro Sánchez y a Pablo Iglesias?. Hay decisiones que le pese a quien le pese, no las puede tomar el pueblo, ya que, desconociendo los peligros que hay más allá de sus fronteras, son decisiones que nos llevarían a todos al declive una vez más.
Según la película, Unamuno financió al otro bando, así que no fueron los dos bandos, fueron unos y eol cómplice. Ve la película. Unamuno se había convertido en un conservador de tomó y lomo cuando años antes fue socialista. En esta película su hija lo critica por eso.
@@youtuytumaddrre Pero deja claro que esta en contra de ambos bandos. Defiende que sus acciones fueron para salvar a la republica que habían caído en manos de unos salvajes (el bando republicano) pero que al apoyar al otro bando cometió un error. Su hija lo critica por apoyar al bando sublevado y hacer propaganda para ellos pero se encuentra conque le responde que la republica le había condenado a él antes. Como muchos otros creía que era una vuelta al orden y a que todo continuaría (la misma posición que tiene Cabanellas, el personaje de Tito Valverde). Sin embargo va viendo que se están cometiendo muchos errores y salvajadas. Pero en ningún momento cree que el otro bando sea mejor. Se resume su discurso en que nadie va a ganar porque aunque ellos ganen por la fuerza se va a perder. Y lo mísmo si se consiguiera lo otro. Y como dice su amigo: "usted ha sido vasquita, españolista, marxista, socialista... ateo, cristiano, agnóstico" "usted cambia"
@@AlanRichmon No cree que el otro bando sea mejor, pero la posición del lado contrario se radicaliza con el mismo estallido de la guerra. Al comienzo de la guerra el mismo Mola dice aquello de "Hay que exterminar al enemigo... " o lo de "Yo si veo a mi padre en las filas contrarias lo fusilo". Por no decir la masacre de Badajoz. Es la propia posición del bando sublevado la que radicaliza el conflicto. No hay ningún ministro del gobierno del PCE, ni siquiera del PSOE. Todo lo que se cuente de radicalizacion de la República es una patraña. Fueron los sublevados quienes trajeron la muerte a España, entre ellos Unamuno.
@@youtuytumaddrre falso, recuerda a Largo Caballero: "Si no ganamos las elecciones, tendremos que ir a la Guerra Civil". Te puedo citar a más políticos de la Izquierda, si lo prefieres. Y de lo que muchos hicieron en nombre de la República y de "su democracia" antes de la Guerra civil. Nadie se une a una sublevación militar por mero capricho, sobre todo si no hay una razón poderosa detrás que lo respalde. Y el programa electoral del Frente Popular no es una de ellas. Porque si eso fuera cierto, pregunto: ¿por qué no se sublevaron en 1931, después de la promulgación republicana, la cual fue aprobada por un Parlamento de mayoría de izquierdas, sin ser sometida a referéndum nacional como sí se hizo con la CE de 1978?
@@es8346 En 1931 no, pero en 1932 sí ¿La Sanjurjada que es? No dieron un golpe de inmediato porque la Restauración y las dictaduras que vinieron después intentando mantenerlo todo estaban agotadísimos, la Restauración (curioso su nombre con el actual Transición) hacia aguas y hasta los mismos militares estaban hasta los mismos. Alfonso XIII se fue por que veía que ya no le quedaban apoyos. A los militares le interesaba un reino con el rey fuera como luego consiguió Franco.
Seeing this and learning about the Spanish civil war I wonder if this might happen in the U.S. The country is split between Republicans and Democrats and there doesn't seem to be a middle ground. As for me, I'm a Republican or moderate conservative.
Quite frankly from the Canadian perspective, neither side seems to have a good way to rally for a civil war, so If it happens it will likely be labeled as "rebellion" or "incident" and even if so, my money is not on Republican or Democrat, mine is on the feds.
The Spanish civil war started from the political and social situation of the country, following the slowly decline of Spain since the XIX century, and the political situation of Europe at those times (fascism, communism....) Something like this is not gonna happen in the US.
Mi inglés es malo amigo pero básicamente lo que pasa en Estados Unidos y aquí en España es que los políticos se han quedado sin respuestas y cuando te quedas sin respuestas tiras de identidad y de identitarismo y de decir como soy así así así debo votar esto porque creo en esto esto y lo de más allá por lo tanto anulo todo lo que no tenga que ver con eso y lo anatemizo. Así fue como nacieron medios como Fox News o Blommberg medios creados para atraer a gente a esas posiciones y separar a las personas ¿Por qué? Porque no tienen ideas, se llame Biden o se llame Trump. My apologize, sorry my English is bad but basically this is my idea about you reflection. From an Spaniard.
@@maddoxbellrose7679 Well of course, if most folks haven't noticed, let me put it in another way. "Commander-in-chief" at this point is redundant in a civil war, the United states military is large and technologically sophisticated enough to enforce a nation wide Junta if it wanted to. As long as the US army leadership is made up of people who are constitutionalists over any political leaning, the US will never fall.
@@rokmun680 The United States Military is predominantly conservative. Even with Pro-Constitutionalists in the leadership. To me i feel that conservative have mucked up their views on what is conservatism with some of the more extreme being part of a cult of personality no different than Hitler, Stalin, Mao or the Kim Family.
@@diegofernandosanchezricard4625 Y que tiene que ver aqui Argentina. Igual si no se estuviera en la Union Europea España ,seguiríamos siendo Europeos . Si Rumania sobrevivió al comunismo sin pertenecer a la UE hasta recientemente y eso un eran Europeos de sepa . Porqué España no podría, sin o con la Union Europea España a sobrevivido a tantas cosas Guerras de esta era y de la antigüedad. Argentina un país joven que no sabe para donde moverse .
Muchísima gente aqui que prefieren aprender historia a través de cine drmático y subvencionado que leyendo o documentándose. Os animo a hacerlo y luego buscar los 23 errores históricos que se aprecian a simple vista en estos 5 minutos de video.
"The basic elements of the Liberal State The Liberal State believes in nothing, not even in its own destiny, not even in itself. The liberal State allows everything to be questioned, even the value of its own existence. For the liberal statesman, the doctrine that the State should survive is just as valid as that the State should be destroyed. That is to say that in his position at the head of an 'established' State, he does not even believe in the intrinsic merits, the justice, the usefulness of that particular State. Rather like a ship's captain who is not sure whether it is better to make port or to be shipwrecked. The liberal outlook amounts to taking a frivolous view of one's own destiny; it permits one to climb up to positions of authority without even believing that there ought to be any positions of authority at all, without feeling that they entail any obligations, not even defending them. There is only one limiting factor: the law. Oh, yes; one can attempt the destruction of everything that exists, but without overstepping the boundaries of the law. But what exactly is the law? Here again, there is no unity; no reference to immutable principles either. The law is the expression of the sovereign will of the people; in practice, that of the majority of voters. Two points are relevant to this: Firstly. For the liberal, the law is not justified by its 'result' but by its 'source'. Those schools of thought whose constant aim is the public good consider laws that serve such an end to be good, and bad laws those which stray from this course, regardless of who has promulgated them. The democratic school of thought-democracy being the system which most fully expresses liberal thinking-considers that a law is good and legitimate if it has obtained the consent of the majority of voters, even though its content may be atrocious. Secondly. Liberals do not consider what is right to be a category of reason but a product of will. Nothing is right in itself. There is never any reference to some scale of values by which to gauge the rightness of any law that is passed. It is enough to find sufficient votes endorsing it. All this can be summed up in one sentence: "The people are sovereign." Sovereign in the sense that they are entitled to justify their own decisions. The people's decisions are right because they are the people's. The theories of regal absolutism stated, Quod principi placuit legem habet vigorem.1 The time was bound to come when the theoreticians of democracy would say, 'There has to be a certain authority in society whose actions do not need to be right in order to be valid; this authority resides only in the people.' These words are by Jurieu, one of the forerunners of Rousseau. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity The Liberal State-that faithless and indifferent state-wrote these three splendid words on the frontispiece of its temple: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. But under its auspices, none of these three things flourishes. Liberty cannot live without the protection of strong and immutable principles. When principles change with the ups and downs of public opinion, there is only freedom only for those who agree with the majority. The minorities have no choice but to suffer in silence. Under the tyrants of the Middle Ages, the victims at least had the comfort of knowing that they were being tyrannised. The tyrant might be oppressing them, but those who were actually suffering oppression nonetheless were in the right. Above the heads of tyrants and subjects alike, the eternal words were written, in the light of which each was given his due. In the democratic State, this does not apply; the law-not the state, but the law, the supposed will of the majority-'is always right'. Thus the victim of oppression, besides being oppressed, can moreover be charged with dangerous disobedience if he calls the law unjust. Not even that freedom remains to him. That is why Duguit2 has branded the belief that a people has gained its freedom the very day it proclaims the dogma of national sovereignty and accepts universal suffrage as 'fatally misguided'. Beware, he says, of substituting despotism with democratic absolutism! The despotism of popular assemblies has to be opposed more energetically than the despotism of kings. 'Something would be equally unjust if it were ordained by the people and its representatives as if a prince had ordained it. Because of the dogma of popular sovereignty, this tends to be all too easily forgotten.' This is what happens to freedom under the rule of the majority, and to Equality too. First of all, there is no equality between the dominant party, which legislates as it pleases and the rest of the citizens who put up with it. Besides, the Liberal State produces an even more profound inequality: economic inequality. Since, in theory, the worker and the capitalist enjoy the same freedom to enter into a labour contract, the worker ends up by being enslaved by the capitalist. Not that the latter obliges the former by force to accept any given working conditions; he merely lets hunger take its course; he makes an offer which in theory the worker is free to reject; but if he does reject it, he will have nothing to eat, and eventually he is bound to take it. This is how liberalism brought us the accumulation of capital and the proletarianisation of the great mass of the people. In order to defend the oppressed against the economic tyranny of the powerful, something as anti-liberal as socialism had to emerge. Lastly, it is Fraternity's turn to be shattered. Since the democratic system is based on the rule of the majority, the only way to attain victory within it is to get the support of the majority at any cost. To this end, all weapons are permissible; it is all right to defame, insult and misquote an opponent if this helps to deprive him of a few votes. If there is to be a majority and a minority, there needs to be 'division'. If the other party is to be split, there needs to be 'hatred'. Division and hatred are incompatible with fraternity. And thus the members of one and the same people cease to feel part of a whole superior to themselves, part of a lofty historical unity that encompasses all of them. The fatherland is reduced to the state of a battlefield, where two-or many-contending factions try to destroy each other, each heeding a different sectarian voice, while the dear voice of the common land, which ought to call to them all, seems to have fallen silent." -Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera
1:50 y 3:05 Típicos momentos en los q un facha se queda sin argumentos( hablo de facha de vd nos los q dicen de ahora). Pdta:Los rojos tres cuartas partes de lo mismo.....
Pero esta escena está manipulada, Millán Astray era una persona culta e inteligente, y esta escena es inventada, pues no se sabe de verdad qué ocurrida en este coloquio
@@carlosgarciaherrero1971 Más bien se llama manipulación histórica por parte del sector de la izquierda con las subvenciones del gobierno para el cine, no es nada nuevo. Si fuese licencia literaria, alguna vez inventaría a favor de los nacionales y en contra de la república, pero eso nunca pasa.
@@adriumbra627 Ah no??? Acaso no comienza Unamuno la película criticando a la república???Acaso no tiene una discusión con su amigo en la q critica cosas de la república???
The question is what would have happened if the extreme left would have taken the full power in Spain?! The most probable result was a system similar to the one in the USSR with the extreme killings in the gulag. Franco instituted a viable capitalist economic system, good enough to sustain a democratic state after his death. The result is the Spain of today, a vibrant democracy where every one can freely express himself!
They already had started killing and torturing people. Thousands of churches had been burned and the Leader of the Opposition had been murdered by the PSOE and the republican police.
La clase media en España,que ahora esta desapareciendo(ahora solo ricos y pobres,políticos ladrones y trabajadores expoliados,),fué obra de Franco. Aunque les duela a los rojelios España,el país con mas políticos chupando del bote ,mas coches oficiales y mas paro de Europa. España,la futura Venezuela.
@@milorol4885 of course, Franco prepared Spain so you can reform freely the education, economy, politics and the social systems as much as the electoral votes give you the power to to reform! Long live DEMOCRACY!
![ไลฟ์สุ่ม iPhone 295 บาท... โกงมั้ย?[ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.97 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gdstHEE4UUE/mqdefault.jpg)
A stunning scene, the last part especially. He looks like he is expecting them to understand his words after finishing his speech yet they don't and disappointment in his eyes is really visible. An amazing scene, and an amazing movie.
This was unreal.
@The Truth Why, he was against the war and supported neither side. He wanted peace and was one of the few people to realise that both sides of the civil war were evil.
where can i watchthis movie?
@@JustAPintOfMilk There should be websites online I think, or Amazon Prime, not sure. I think the movie was called "While at war", but not sure again.
@@enesaydogan5590 Prime and Netflix doesnt have it (atleast in my country)
I searched online already multiple times but only found some without subtitles.
“I wanted you to see what real courage is. It's when you know you're licked before you begin, but you begin anyway and see it through no matter what."
- Atticus Finch
That's just called being petty. To Kill a Mockingbird was an awful book, idc what anyone says
@@notapuma all edge no point
Miguel de Unamuno: "My disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined"
This movie is a masterpiece
oh my goodness, read about this scene many times but to see it is heart breaking
Amazing scene. I need to watch the full movie!
You can find it on Movistar+ I don't know if it's on Netflix yet
@@Zebcast Grasyas, amigo (I don't know is it written in the right way.
@@АнтониоМарлевски Gracias*
@telespino If you consider Franco as a Hero, you're a fascist. Unamuno wasn't against the Republic, he was Republican. He was against the extreme left wing that had a really close relationship with the URSS. In 1936, he thought that the coup would be used as a tool to come back to the center. But when he saw that they didn't wanted to came back again to the republic and they were fascist, he started to be critical, and finally murdered. It is difficult to be between the two sides in a war.
I didn't insult you. Imean, if you say that Franco was a Herero, you're a fascist. Why should I be communist? I haven't considered Stalin as a Hereo
It’s amazing that they made this into a film. I’ve read an almost word-for-word description of this powerful scene and it was exactly like this. Would love to see what the rest of this movie is like.
No se donde has leido esa mierda pero la realidad dista mucho de ser así. Hay fotos de Millan Astray y Unamuno dándose la mano sonrientes a la salida.
1:25 quiero ir al bañooooo ya ostia
1:44 the kid that wants to go to the bathroom
Edit : When tf did this become the most liked comment
😂🤣
I'm still laughing about that.
@
Lourmpakis Konstantinos
Teacher: "Paco, 5 more minutes please, this is important for the test tomorrow"
Paco: "¡España!, Una, Grande y Libre!"
*1:55
@@lil__boi3027 why that one
3:13 I think it was at this moment he realized that his country was long pass the point of no return.
I think the Spanish/Europeans will realize that once everyone in their neighborhood is an African or Asian migrant.
@@myrealnamewontfi7289 are you a fascist?
@@agege04 He's just stupid.
@@yf.f4919 not necesarily, maybe they put those fascist ideas in his mind
@@agege04 Siempre pienso que, por muy fanático sea el ambiente que se respira en la lar, las escuelas deberían de propiciar aire fresco... pero ya veo que no siempre es así.
Viva Unamuno! De parte de un hispano de uno de sus paises favoritos inmortalizado por Ercilla, Chile 🇨🇱❤🇪🇦
Viva Franco, ARRIBA ESPAÑA
Miguel de Unamuno was also an admirer of my country's national hero, Dr. Jose Rizal, who was also a student at the Universidad Central de Madrid in de Unamuno's time there, though Rizal was three years older and the two were not personally acquainted. Of Rizal he wrote, "Certainly Rizal was a tireless dreamer and a poet. All his life he permitted his poet’s soul to reveal itself not only in the rhythmic quality of his compositions, but in his entire work; and above all in the poetry that was his life...."
According to recent scholarship by historian Severiano Delgado, de Unamuno praised the example of Jose Rizal in this speech at the University of Salamanca. This infuriated Millan Astray, who was decorated for his actions in the Philippines fighting the revolutionaries inspired by the writings of Rizal, which resulted in the heated exchange portrayed in this scene. Hence his line "Death to the traitorous intellectuals", as Rizal was executed on charges of rebellion, sedition and conspiracy in 1896.
In Spain José Rizal is not only a Filipino hero but also a Spanish. In Spain everbody admires him and everybody critize his execution since long ago. Actually Rizal has a monument in the center of Madrid.
Ngl but all that José Rizal wanted was that Spain would treat the philippines like how Spain treated Mexico and Peru but the fault of José Rizals death was no other than the KKK.
@@dudemevill1699 Partially true. Initially he was among the reformists who advocated integration with Spain (equal rights and representation in the Cortes, reduced power of the religious orders), but by the early 1890s he had drifted from the other reformists and became increasingly convinced that the only way forward was independence, he just disagreed with the KKK on when and how. It was this change in stance that in part, pushed him to return to the Philippines. This viewpoint that Rizal was a bourgeois reformist against independence was one propagated and popularized by left-wing nationalist historians in the 1950s and 1960s. See the paper "Towards a Radical Rizal" for a counterargument on that point of view.
@@mezzodoppio58 It is true tho that Rizal wanted independence but Rizal didn't feel like the philippines was ready for independence cuz it had a small army.
He wrote an extensive essay on Rizal called Rizal: The Tagalog Hamlet and after reading a biography of him remarked:
"I have just finished reading, for the second time, Vida y Escritos del Dr. Rizal, by W.E. Retana, and I close this reading with such a tempest of bitter reflections within the very core of my being; a tempest out of which emerges a truly brilliant figure that of Jose Rizal. He was a man of unlimited possibilities, a heroic soul, and today he is the idol of a people that will one day-I do not doubt-play a profound role in human civilization.
Who was this man?"
In Honor of the Truth, what happened that day at the University of Salamanca is still not very clear even to this day. This is more than anything because we have received contradictory versions that do not modify what happened but if the tone: Some take it as the Rupture of Unamuno with the Nationals, already fed up with the abuses and extrajudicial executions that he tried to stop, others as a mere tough argument between the Thinker and Millan Astray, trying only to get attention and get the Nationals to rectify the Course they were taking. What is certain is that when Unamuno finished, they had to take out the Carmen Polo and the Archbishop because the Falange and the Army drew their weapons and lost their positions at the University and the Salamanca City Council, having to live locked up in a kind of Home Arrest Until the day of his death.
you mean of "his" death ? (I believe Unamuno died short after)
@@towaritch Unamuno was trans
@@nadie2919 ¿Es una broma?
@@JustRememberWhoYoureWorkingFor Unamuno was killed because he was gay, trans, lesbian non-binarie, vegetarian, empowered woman feminist and otaku.
Frankly, I have yet to find any credible sources regarding the transsexuality of Senor de Unamuno. Do you mind helping me out in that regard?
1:56 yo cuando me dicen que hay por encima de la atmosfera
Manda huevos ponerse en el pellejo del mierdas de Astray
VIVA ESPAÑA
Viva España jajaja
Por encima de la atmosfera no hay otra cosa que el vastísimo universo.
XDDDDD
No trates de gastar palabras con ignorantes pues su arrogancia siempre les cegarán de la verdad.
Tristes y ciertas palabras y además en la España de esa época que había ignorantes a patadas
Llora, teníamos razón en ese entonces y el día de hoy aun la tenemos.
yo digo que es una pelicula que disfrasa a los republicanos como Buenos a conveniencia hecho por un descendiente de ellos
“Los confines más oscuros del infierno están reservados para aquellos que eligen mantenerse neutrales en tiempos de crisis moral”.
~Dante Alighieri
Voice of reason is rarely welcome at a time of war...
No suelo ver películas españolas, pero esta estuvo muy bien producida de inicio a fin, mereció la pena verla.
Me gustaría que hicierán una peli a los años anteriores durante la duración la 2º república, ya que esta étapa no suele tocarse nunca.
Y por cierto si NO la habeis visto, NO veais este video ya que es un spoiler como una catedrál de grande xD.
Na ni te preocupes, creo que todos sabíamos cómo acababa la guerra civil xdxd
The Second Republic and the Spanish Civil War involved the three great political forces that would immediately afterwards fight on a world level: reactionaries, revolutionaries and liberal-democrats.
In the case of Spain, the most radical ones ended up imposing themselves (as always). Thus, on the "republican side" coexisted (badly) republicans, socialists, anarchists and communists, as well as Basque and Catalan nationalists. Also on the national side were republicans and liberals, next to monarchists and phalangists (Spanish fascism). But all republican and democratic elements were swept away by the radicals, even before the military coup on July 18, 1936.
Unamuno was one of those men who belonged to the so-called "third Spain", as opposed to the other two bent on imposing themselves on each other. This speech in the auditorium of the University of Salamanca, one of the oldest in the world, is perfectly valid for any of these "two Spains".
Falangism*
Liar. There were no democrats or liberals on the Nationalist side. The Fascists never stopped saying slurs about democracy and individual freedom. The liberals and the working class they were on the same side.
@@Joan1Marti There were liberals and republicans on the national side at the beginning of the war. Read "The Spanish Revolution Seen by a Republican," by Clara Campoamor, a true liberal and republican. You will see how well the supporters of liberal-democracy got along with the leaders of the working classes, supporters of another type of republic, not so "bourgeois" or democratic.
The communists were taking control of the country that’s why the left was in fighting so much
I myself am Spanish and it's true there were more than just two sides. For example, on the leftist side anarchists and communists had their own war, inside the civil war itself and even though they both shared a common enemy!! The left in Spain has always been divided.
"History is written by the victor. Whether anyone else believes them is another story." -Anonymous
And that is not apllicable in Spain cause history was written and rewritten by the losing side.
@@DonPelayo90 Exactly my point. The winning side wrote their version. Nobody believed it cause it was bullshit.
@@garcalej hahahaha Stanley G. Payne would differ from that statement. But what would he know, he just dedicated his whole life to studying the subject. I'm sure you are in possesion of the absolute truth about the matter.
@@DonPelayo90 The truth is possessed by no one. It is simply the truth. Separate from us, unconscious of our biases, our cares, our beliefs, our politics. A stone fossil buried in the desert, waiting to be discovered. What difference does it make how we the living choose to interpret history? Unless you have some way to destroy every record of what occurred, to silence the dead, the truth will remain out of our control, to be taken up by future generations who in turn will be able to judge with a clear, unvarnished eye what actually transpired.
What transpired was a civil war conducted by two ideologically opposed factions in which more than half million people died, a war instigated by the Fascists against a democratically elected government, followed by a 36 year dictatorship. All under a sky that many witnesses confirmed was blue.
@@garcalej "a war instigated by the Fascists against a democratically elected government" thanks for proving you know nothing about the war and how it started. all biased leftard propaganda.
You don't need to persuade a dead person.
so clever
But you cant kill everyone.
Viva la Muerte
good fucking luck triying to build something working with a corpse instead of another human .
@@cseijifja Francoist Spain killed less than 1% of what the Communists in the Soviet Union managed to kill in a fraction of the time.
¡Viva Unamuno! ¡Viva la vida! Gora Unamuno!
@Luis Adolfo Gimenez jimenez GORA EUSKADI
Gora
¡Viva Franco!
Gora
@@myrealnamewontfi7289 ?
Buenaventura Durruti. Betrayed by the secret pact between the " two enemies ".
VIVA DURRUTI!
Que viva lejos
Can't betray a piece of shit like durruti.
Spit on his grave.
Killed by his own men, in the siege of Madrid. Talk about anarchism, eh?
@@antoniogracamoura4880
Trash disposing of trash xDDD
Pedazo de escena. Puede reflejar perfectamente a una gran parte de los españoles (no digo que sea la mayoría o minoría, solo digo que los hay) que ante un discurso argumentado que no es de su ideología; sólo saben responder de la manera más vacía: "Viva España". Deberíamos aprender de los errores, en cambio parece que avanzamos demasiado lento.
La reacción de Astray es el estereotipo que se le otorga al votante de derecha. Gente reaccionaria y sin discurso. Sin embargo, de eso pecan ambas trincheras, que a uno lo llaman facha si se sale del pensamiento único que marca la Complu.
@@Aletek Creo que ambos estáis ignorando su segunda reacción.
Es tal y como decís pero si habéis visto la película sabréis que parte de esta escena es la respuesta al reto que le lanza Millan Astray sobre la valentía.
En esta escena por lo menos Amenabar le da una salida digna.
Si os fijáis Unamuno esta preparado para morir, ignora la mano que le tiende Carmen Polo y que le puede salvar. Pero entonces suena Millan Astray, igual que antes pero diferente.
Le habla con respeto y le pide que coja esa mano y que salve su vida. Ha demostrado que es tan valiente, que esos intelectuales, a los que Millan Astray desprecia, pueden ser tan valientes como los que están en primera línea en el frente como él.
Y eso lo hace una persona como describís y con una formación y respeto por los que piensan diferente prácticamente inexistente (aquí prefiero ser diplomático). Seguirá gritando España y pidiendo la muerte de los intelectuales (traidores) pero ha visto que hay más de un tipo de valor.
Y es por eso que Unamuno acepta esa mano salvadora.
Sigue pasando hoy en día, tanto de un lado como de otro.
@@AlanRichmon Totalmente de acuerdo con lo que has escrito. En cambio sabemos que ese tipo de personas los podemos contar con los dedos de las manos. Una pena que a los intelectuales se les tache de traidores.
@@rogerroger730 Comunistas y fascistas, las dos caras de la misma moneda, ningún respeto por lo que piensan los demás, autoritarios que sólo quieren imponer su forma de pensar.
It is astounding how most of the commentators here do not seem to grasp what is actually happening (or rather, did happen) on that occasion: One of the formerly foremost intellectual architects of Spanish Unity publicly unmasks the infamy, brutality and absurdity of the "nationalist" overthrow of the republic - in front of the leadership of the main perpetrators of said coup.
One of the commentators remarked: "Intellectuals are smart enough to hate but not smart enough to understand fascism." That statement could not be further from the truth: In fact he is the only one to fully understand and admit the truth and is also brave enough to challenge the lies, the hatred, the paradoxa and the hollow phrases of fascism.
@Elvia Darkgrape You are part of the reason why we have had 60 millions deaths and we will kill them all again if we have to. Because liberty, freedom, democracy and multiculturalism is the right side of history, and genocide and authoritarianism are the cancer. Venceremos Siempre
@@kilougi
"Extremism is so easy. You've got your position, and that's it. It doesn't take much thought. And when you go far enough to the right you meet the same idiots coming around from the left."
Clint Eastwood
People like him unfortunately have always been there. But thankfully, such fanatics are usually a minority.
We will stand against them as we always have, undisturbed by their shrieking screams of rage and ignorance.
I am not a man of faith or uncertainty. But the bible said it best. Luke 23:34
Extremists are being distinguished by their alligence, I think such a distinction is unessessary. They are all dangerous, all fanatical and all of them are deserving of our utmost caution and concern, for their never-ending will to rule must be challenged at every level there is.
@@Arcaryon i agree though clint eastwood itself is no paradigm of non extremity
@Elvia Darkgrape :) You will never get to power and we will take you down and you will all end up like mussolini :) have fun
@@kilougi We salut the quote, not the man.
While I get his point, in a situation like this you HAVE to pick a side. Being at the center will only earn you the hatred of both sides. Unless you keep quiet and shut up about whoever wins.
I mean, he was very old and many of his friends were dead, I Think he didn´t care about surviving but about telling what he thought
He tried that and in doing so betrayed his principles. The Nationalists then murdered his friends and fellow intellectuals which caused a change in heart.
@@Ausl0vich qué nacionalistas? Porque había y hay nacionalistas españoles y vascos y catalanes y...
@@sociologiaanimal en historia internacional el lado fascista de la guerra civil se llama el bando nacional.
If the alternative is bolshevism or the "greens2 then nothing is off limits. No matter how extreme, if you have communism, socialism or greens as the alternative. deatjh to bolsheviks. I am looking forward to round 2 of this conflict in europe around 2030 onwards
Fascismo y bolchevismo, dos caras, cóncava y convexa, de la misma enfermedad. Uno de los mejores discursos de la historia de España.
Holy hell, the people in these comments are really into another world war with facism and communism.
Calling numbers of deaths, their glorious past, the bible and how good things were in 1980.
Everyone wants some war while there is food in their belly, their family is safe and the electrical grid is fine.
Your last sentence really nails it. As a former military man I always shake my head at those who cheer on wars they don't have to fight or make any meaningful sacrifices to support.
Amen I drink to that.
They have no reason to be fascists or communists yet they still think they have a say. Once they realize their mistakes they have already been starved.
Damn, our Spanish brothers suffer as much as we Portuguese, but we got out of Dictatorship much faster, in 1974 😁 Eventhough Viva Espana y Viva Portugal! 🇵🇹❤️🇪🇦 We are together and stronger hermanos
VIVA ANTONIO DE SALAZAR!! GLORIA À SANTA MONARQUIA PORTUGUESA E DOM SEBASTIÃO!!! VIVA NOSSA SENHORA DE FÁTIMA E DOM MARCEL LEFEBVRE!!!
MALDITA AS DEMOCRACIAS LIBERAIS E GLÓRIA À SANTÍSSIMA IGREJA CATÓLICA E DOM DINIS!!
The best period of spain was under francisco franco. He brought stability back to Spain. He industrialized Spain and made Spain an important ally against communism in the west. Spains military became a really good military. Some designs that to this day are used by the europeans today.
VIVA FRANCO!!!!!!!!
VIVA SALAZAR!!!!!!!
VIVA CRISTO REIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!!
✝️🇧🇷🤝🇵🇹🇪🇸✝️
saudações do Brasil.👍
Hacen falta Unamunos en Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua y ahora en Mexico!
Si tan solo supieras quien fue Unamunos, sabrías que el estaría orgulloso de los países ya mencionados.
Julio Hernandez no cabe duda que la ignorancia abunda en youtube y sobre todo con cualquier adiestrado. Investiga quien fue Miguel de Unamuno antes de volver a parlotear, inculto!
Por favor, ese gran intelectual estuvo en contra de un golpe de estado del que se desprende el facismo del franquismo. Y si prestas atención lo llamaron comunista, cosa que no era.
Estamos a principios del siglo XXI, y vemos como las tesis de Francis Fukuyama como El Fin de la Historia no han soportado el paso del tiempo con hechos como la destrucción de las torres gemelas, y el retorno del fanatismo y radicalismo religioso que se ciega ante una serie de
reformas sociales que son necesarias.
@@gwynfa100 Jajajjajajajajajajajajajaja Unamuno estuvo en contra de los excesos que se cometieron por los nacionalistas pero a los de enfrente tampoco los soportaba, es más llegó a apoyar el golpe porque pensaba que resolvía la casa de putas en que se había convertido la República gracias a los rojos. Otra cosa es que los golpistas fueran unos animalitos que no daban cuartel. Por eso Unamuno hablaba de los Hunos y de los Hotros porque para el eran igual de malos.
@@bueno_excelente claro que se de que lado era. Deja tus viceras a un lado. Es por el valor para denunciar a los despotas.
Cosas de España.
Un episodio más de tantos a lo largo de su historia.
el más negro, sin duda
@@jjrj8568 más negro que el actual gobierno comunista ? Lo dudo xD
@@armandoschneider3328 Y tu que eres? Como esos fascistas que ni siquiera tienen argumentos? Al menos ahora tenemos democracia, agradece eso.
@@sergimateo3216 Si, agradece ser el hazmerreír de Europa y que llevemos 40 años en caída libre. En este país la gente siempre vota al peor candidato, sistemáticamente, si la democracia es esto que tenemos, es una puta mierda.
Correcto.
It is good for a people to remember that it's not "Propaganda" or "Leftist/rightist sympathies" in display all of the time. A movie needs to be a movie first even while based in history. Sometimes things need to be changed for drama or consistency. I used to have a problem with many movies and the liberties they took with history but it's much easier to enjoy the movies as a movies and history as history with that mindset.
Yeah , but someone who does not know about Unamuno and the civil war will think Unamuno was a republican leftist
And that Millan Astray was an stupid garrulo who doesnt know to argue , and the answer is that Millan Astray never interrumped Unamuno saying Arriba España and they say in the film that Unamuno was insulted by the soldiers
I love this comment. I have been a history buff all my life and have similarly had problems with the accuracy of historical movies. But I realized a few years ago that it was necessary in cinema to dramatize or truncate aspects of an event for the sake of story. If it means people take more of an interest in the subject or are able to grasp the message better, then I'm all for it. Frankly arguing over little details in an entertainment venue makes us historians look petty and unreasonable lol.
@@tau434 If your movie mutilates the story for the sake of dramatization then it shouldn't be a "historical" movie anymore. Problem with you movie buff types is that you're willing to misinform viewers about the events of actual history, for the sake of distracting entertainment.
And most people won't even bother to do this research add to the fact nobody will be there to disprove these bogus scenes.
What a garbage shitty leftist movie.
@@Tac_3D I admit this is not one of my favorite movies - I liked parts of it but overall I think the movie could have been better. But the point of my comment is to demonstrate that arguing over historical accuracy - especially when it comes to details - just makes you come off argumentative and leads to you enjoying the movie less. I have a lot of friends who do not put as much of a premium on history as I do and I've discovered the movie watching experience is much more enjoyable for them and myself when I don't seize on every historical inaccuracy. Movies are about telling a story - and sometimes you need to edit historical events to fit them into that story. As long as the story gains from it and makes more sense to the audience, I believe there should be room for wiggling. Consider the end of Darkest Hour - which imo is a great reinterpretation of history - where Gary Oldman gives Churchill's speech in front of a crowd of cheering Parliamentarians. Scene didn't happen the way they portrayed it, but it makes for great cinema.
Also consider that we're not sure what exactly was said between Astray and Unamuno as there are conflicting accounts of the event. This version seems to follow one account pretty closely though (albeit the more dramatic one) so I don't think it's accurate to heap excessively on this clip.
"You choose dialectics only when you have no other means. You know that using it provokes mistrust, and that it is not very convincing. Nothing is easier to dismiss than the effect a dialectician produces: the experience of any assembly where speeches are made is proof of that. It can only be an emergency defence in the hands of those who have no other weapons left. You must need to force your being in the right out of people: otherwise you do not use it."
Woah where’s that from?
You had to pick a side Unamuno, you can't be at the center in a war.
switzerland: let me introduce myself
To be truly neutral, you would have to be against everyone. Unamuno had balls to give this speech to fascists threatening to kill him
@@joshuatumambo5674 And also to the communists
@@joshuatumambo5674 yeah, and I admire that, but it was nonsense. These people had been killing eachother like 3 days before this speech, you can't ask the two parts to understand eachother when both had tried to exterminate the other.
Communism caused it all
A lot of Marxists, Socialists, and Communists didn't get the point of the movie. Although the film only shows the acts of repression of the rebellious side, it is clear that in the republican zone people are also killed, lied to, tortured and people disappear. Massacres such as those of the Checas de Madrid and the Paracuellos del Jarama show it. In fact, and without counting those killed in combat, about 80,000 people died in the Republican zone due to repression, censorship and leftist purges. All the characters in this movie know it. Even Unamuno admits to Franco that he knows that the things they did to his leftist friends in Nationalist territory were also being done to his right-wing friends in Republican territory.
This film seeks to condemn all forms of totalitarianism, social polarization and violence, whether from the Right or the Left. One of the most beautiful scenes in the film is when Unamuno begins to argue with his friend Atilano over ideological issues, and it shows that they understand each other and that there is a dialogue. The film is not a typical criticism of the Nationalist Band, as there are many films like this, but a universal criticism of fanaticism, whether it is Chauvinist or Communist.
I am not surprised that this film is not understood by either the Right or the Left. Unamuno transcends political specters.
Well said, that scene was very beautiful, even more so today considering both right-wing and left-wing politics are increasingly moving towards the extreme.
You know, collectivize the means of production so the workers own the means of production...No? Well, pay them well so they buy toys, since it is what they keep them busy after work. Don't put factories outside the country. No? Ok, then the businessmen should brace themselves. What excatly do they expect?
@@locuraromantica Ok communist
There was a debate between the two, however, it was much more civilized than portrayed here.
There is even a Photo of the two shaking hands after the debate.
En España los políticos solo se ponen de acuerdo para subirse el sueldo y enchufar a los cuñados.
Y solo son honrados los que no suben al poder.
Para entrar,mucho prometer y predicar,luego,a chupar como garrapatas.
Ejemplos,desde el pp hasta el marqués de galapagar.
Creo que somos un pueblo de borregos.
Pues muera el Estado y viva la anarquía.
@@antonio96dt Una anarquía nunca funciona con una población tan masiva como la que hay en cualquier sociedad de la actualidad. La anarquía en mi opinión es lo peor a lo que podemos llegar, el estado para mi es un mal necesario porque el libre albedrío es peligroso para el ser humano. Aunque el estado tenga sus carencias, es lo que al final del día nos ha protegido de muchos peligros a los que quedaríamos expuestos en caso de no tenerlo.
@@alejandrosaignermartorell4142
Esa escusa es vieja y hace demasiado tiempo que quedó en ridículo.
Creo incluso que tu concepto de anarquía es la simplista idea de que no hay normas y etc
@Sickotato Yo opino lo contrario, el estado es lo que protege tu independencia para que nadie te la robe por la fuerza o por el engaño. Sin estado dudo mucho que haya propiedad privada, ya que la gente estaría invadiendo tu espacio y tus posesiones sin ningún tipo de reprimenda, estarías a merced de cualquiera, y eso es de todo menos tener independencia.
@@antonio96dt ¿Si quedó tan en ridículo como es que hoy hay tan pocos anarquistas? ¿Cómo es que no hay ninguna nación que imparta ese modelo idílico que tú defiendes?
Sencillo, porque no funciona.
2:21 No hombre no no no no no :(
Unamuno, el presidente que España necesitó y nunca tuvo.
Jose Antonio*
@@kaliyuga1476 El pelele de Franco 😂😂
Claro, tan pelele era que dejó que lo fusilaran. Hombres como él harían falta hoy. Y tú, si te consideras español y del pueblo llano, le votarías.
@@es8346 Pero si no lo fusilaron
@@talongr7127 me refería a José Antonio Primo de Rivera.
¡Viva España!
🇪🇸🇪🇸🇪🇸🇪🇸
❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️🇪🇸❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
Y siempre dividida...
VIVA LA REPÚBLICA
@@shadowrex1968 Viva España próspera y en paz bajo el tipo de régimen que sea (régimen democrático, se entiende). Con república o con monarquía parlamentaria, TANTO DA.
@@shadowrex1968 no jeje
I'm from Spain myself and my great grandfather served the Nationalist army.
@Elvia Darkgrape how is fascism a good thing now?
@@gavinstewart656 You're a brainwashed swine. A sheep for your masters
Espero que acabase en Paracuellos
@Elvia Darkgrape This must be the "Trump effect."
It is no longer so ashamed to say atrocities and praise totalitarian government systems that caused so much cultural and human death that they caused throughout the 20th century.
@@hectoralmendrosmartinez9272 there's a different between a nationalist and a fascist Francisco franco wasn't really a fascist he was a nationalist and spain during his regime was quite successful till now. My country is falling apart because of the free democracy the people selected a socialist government who's making Spain worse over time.
A Millán Astray le iba como anillo al dedo la expresión "Muérete, tonto".
Incorrect dialogues
For example: Unamuno said: "This is the temple of intelligence. And me, its high priest"
Millan Astray said:
Die intellectuals! Long live death! (History cannot confirm it yet)
Fuentes?
@@alvaro6587 la fuente de esta versión la da Núñez Florencio
es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vencer%C3%A9is,_pero_no_convencer%C3%A9is
Aunque la fuente de Delgado dice que Millán Astray dijo "Mueran los intelectuales traidores"
Por eso he dicho que no está confirmado todavía
Esa es la putada, que en aquel momento no había móviles para que la gente grabase lo que pasaba.
Based astray, fuck the nerds
@@victorkramer2596 fck you
españa......
asi sigue y asi seguira
Sube más por favor
While his most famous lines weren't actually given in his speech, but in a letter to another intellectual, he understood what so few even today do; that communism/socialism and fascism were expressions of the same horror; the complete domination by a state over the dignity, worth, and liberty of the individual human.
shut the fuck up, liberalism is much worse
@@SneedEnjoyer Boo who go cry about it somewhere else
@Terry Cupboards *locks you up for going to Trump rally* pshhh nutting personel conservatard
@Terry Cupboards They are. You have been living under a rock or something?
@@SneedEnjoyer they are locked up because they invaded a state building injured policemen and broke things on the capitol so if that is what you call trump rally yes they deserved to be locked up as so as him
Wow, this is not how this went. This is fictional account based on Hugh Thomas’s fantastical take. This scene is highly exaggerated the two men did not disagree like this, firstly, secondly what angered José Millán-Astray was the professor invoking a Filipino intellectual who revolted against the Spanish, José Millán-Astray being a war hero and one of Spains best sons was insulted by the Professor bringing up the name of a criminal prompting Jose Millán to react. Also Jose Millán was not some incompetent dofus who only knew how to fight well, the man was a brilliant strategist and tactician, he easily could have handled himself in an intellectual discussion, also the two men are shown in a picture together after the speech departing and they are on good terms in the picture. I recommend everyone reads The Severiano Delgado’s version of these events and not this Pro-Republic fiction.
una, grande y libre
Viva España desde Brasil!!
Longa vida ao Brasil desde a Espanha
viva la republica
Hes basically right about bolshevism and fascism but it should be added that fascism seems to rise because of the threat of communism first. The best way to keep your nation free of communism and fascism is to not let either of them fester because at the end of the day most of the fascist rank and file were in those boots because they thought it was the only way to stop communsm and vice versa
"Threat", they just want to kill the ceo of poverty
You're wrong. But what can I expect of a moron like you who never studied history a day in his life
@AJ K. Lawson I did say "wanted" to as in, did not manage to.
@AJ K. Lawson You know that in the 50's and 60's in Soviet Union there was no famine or whatever...Right? That they elevated the standards of living of the people. Yes, they didn't have the power and nevertheless they hadn't the political control. But be accurate, please, don't make this a cold war propaganda orgy.
They took some liberties with his speech. In this case they protrait Unamuno as he was Karl Popper, we can be lucky that he didn't praise the free market in the movie. There is no way of keeping out communism. This system is consuming itself. The "good things" of the "free world" were there out of pure fear of the Soviet Union, once it was gone, things started to get worse in the free world. And here we are now. Each day that goes by we are more similar to the XIXth century. There is no more cheap excuses and short cuts for the defenders of capitalism...They go asking everyone to be responsable and they can't get their shit together and answer for the last crisis.
Cuando dice "todos somos españoles", uno elige ser de la nacionalidad que sienta querer ser, incluso si los otros se lo niegan o se lo exigen. Nacer en un lugar es azaroso. Pensar, sentir, decir y actuar acorde al lugar de nacimiento corre por cuenta de uno, más allá del origen de un apellido, la lengua que se quiera hablar y la tierra que se quiera habitar.
@Asier Linazasoro la objetividad es un consenso entre subjetivos. Y no todos están invitados a consensuar sobre querer ser o no alguien con una nacionalidad determinada e impuesta por otros o por el solo hecho de haber nacido en un lugar sin haberlo elegido para tal. ¿Es ley el precepto dictado por autoridades cuestionadas en su valores democráticos? Sentir es oír al otro para que puede experimentar democráticamente el reconsiderar y el reconocerse la nacionalidad que desee. Hay países que se lo permitieron porque confiaron y respetaron los deseos de sus ciudadanos en definir sus identidades. Y hay países que no se lo permitieron, tal vez porque escasea la confianza y el respeto a los valores democráticos.
@Asier Linazasoro no pongas en mi boca palabras que no he dicho. En ningún momento utilicé la proposición copulativa "la nacionalidad es religión". Coincido que hay adultos que quieren imponer una nacionalidad o un sentir nacional específico a niños, pero a la larga esos niños en sus derroteros existenciales hacia la adultez terminarán eligiendo en su fuero interior la nacionalidad por la que sienten afinidad, más allá si las imposiciones jurídicas o los fundamentos legales no coincidan con sus afinidades nacionales. Que una persona se le defina una nacionalidad por ius solis o por ius sanguinis es tan razonable y aceptable como una persona que se niegue a seguir esas prerrogativas (y más si hay una larga historia de imponer por la fuerza lenguas y símbolos que sus antepasados no utilizaban, y si lo hacían era para sobrevivir y subsistir).
@Asier Linazasoro ¿has oído hablar de las naciones sin estado? pues eso, pero claro está que tú no las reconoces, porque te nombraron comisario político del mundo mundial mientras el resto dormíamos y no nos enteramos.
@Asier Linazasoro una nación sin estado, además de un grupo humano, es un contexto cultural, y ambas cosas son muy respetables, aunque tú las desprecies alegremente. En España hay varias naciones sin estado, te guste o te haga llorar, es innegable, como ocurre en casi todos los grandes estados nación consolidados en Europa durante el siglo XIX, y salvo en España y personajes como tú, nadie les niega la existencia. Otra cosa es que la legalidad vigente permita en la actualidad ejercer ese derecho de autoderminación, en el caso de España, con una constitución creada a lomos del franquismo y con los militares en el cuarto de al lado, ese derecho no existe, obviamente (para alguien que sepa de derecho solo tengo que acudir a mi pareja, abogada de oficio con más de 25 años de profesión a cuestas, y sin embargo no niega la existencia de esas naciones). Que esas naciones existan no significa que algunos de sus ciudadanos "se niegen" a ser ciudadanos de pleno derecho, desde el mismo momento que pagan impuestos a la hacienda española SON ciudadanos de pleno derecho, da lo mismo lo que sientan ser (solo faltaría). La misma constitución española, que al menos en la teoría contiene grandes logros (aunque algunas incongruencias notables, como eso de la "igualdad de todos los españoles" y a la vez la "inviolavilidad del rey"), ya habla de NACIONALIDADES, referido a territorios, lo que es un absurdo porque todo el mundo sabe que ese término se aplica a personas (por lo visto se cambió la palabra después de un berrinche de Manuel Fraga, que no toleraba más nación que la española, claro está), pero es obvio a qué se refiere. Y es que a pesar de algunas lógicas carencias, tenemos una muy buena constitución, lo lamentable es que se interprete siempre en sentido restrictivo y como una cárcel, más que como un marco legal abierto y de convivencia. A algunos solo os interesa dos cosas de la misma: la monarquía y la unidad de España, el resto os la bufa, y sin embargo el pilar fundamental de la constitución a lo largo de TODO su texto es otro: la democracia. Asimílese el concepto, hagan el favor. Si quieres hablar de los más "mimados de España" puedes hablar de Madrid, un territorio con escasos 40 años que nunca antes habia existido, separada de la otra Castilla (¿les podemos llamar ya separatistas?) y que es la comunidad más rica gracias entre otros privilegios al insolidario dumping que la convierte en un paraíso fiscal dentro del país, y culpable de crear a su alrededor la España vaciada. No hay "igualdad entre españoles" cuando una CCAA permite que empresas y propietarios puedan pagar sus impuestos en Madrid (y más barato) en vez de en su lugar de origen, lo que los descapitaliza. Si quieres quejarte ya tienes por donde empezar. No son ni Catalunya ni Euskadi, el problema, es Madrid, como hemos comprovado durante esta pandemia, que han ido a su puta bola, como siempre, pero claro... Madrid es España y España es Madrid... si es que hay que reirse, joder!
Asier Linazasoro una nación sin estado, además de un grupo humano, es un contexto cultural, y ambas cosas son muy respetables, aunque tú las desprecies alegremente. En España hay varias naciones sin estado, te guste o te haga llorar, es innegable, como ocurre en casi todos los grandes estados nación consolidados en Europa durante el siglo XIX, y salvo en España y personajes como tú, nadie les niega la existencia. Otra cosa es que la legalidad vigente permita en la actualidad ejercer ese derecho de autoderminación, en el caso de España, con una constitución creada a lomos del franquismo y con los militares en el cuarto de al lado, ese derecho no existe, obviamente (para alguien que sepa de derecho solo tengo que acudir a mi pareja, abogada de oficio con más de 25 años de profesión a cuestas, y sin embargo no niega la existencia de esas naciones). Que esas naciones existan no significa que algunos de sus ciudadanos "se niegen" a ser ciudadanos de pleno derecho, desde el mismo momento que pagan impuestos a la hacienda española SON ciudadanos de pleno derecho, da lo mismo lo que sientan ser (solo faltaría). La misma constitución española, que al menos en la teoría contiene grandes logros (aunque algunas incongruencias notables, como eso de la "igualdad de todos los españoles" y a la vez la "inviolavilidad del rey"), ya habla de NACIONALIDADES, referido a territorios, lo que es un absurdo porque todo el mundo sabe que ese término se aplica a personas (por lo visto se cambió la palabra después de un berrinche de Manuel Fraga, que no toleraba más nación que la española, claro está), pero es obvio a qué se refiere. Y es que a pesar de algunas lógicas carencias, tenemos una muy buena constitución, lo lamentable es que se interprete siempre en sentido restrictivo y como una cárcel, más que como un marco legal abierto y de convivencia. A algunos solo os interesa dos cosas de la misma: la monarquía y la unidad de España, el resto os la bufa, y sin embargo el pilar fundamental de la constitución a lo largo de TODO su texto es otro: la democracia. Asimílese el concepto, hagan el favor. Si quieres hablar de los más "mimados de España" puedes hablar de Madrid, un territorio con escasos 40 años que nunca antes habia existido, separada de la otra Castilla (¿les podemos llamar ya separatistas?) y que es la comunidad más rica gracias entre otros privilegios al insolidario dumping que la convierte en un paraíso fiscal dentro del país, y culpable de crear a su alrededor la España vaciada. No hay "igualdad entre españoles" cuando una CCAA permite que empresas y propietarios puedan pagar sus impuestos en Madrid (y más barato) en vez de en su lugar de origen, lo que los descapitaliza. Si quieres quejarte ya tienes por donde empezar. No son ni Catalunya ni Euskadi, el problema, es Madrid, como hemos comprovado durante esta pandemia, que han ido a su puta bola, como siempre, pero claro... Madrid es España y España es Madrid... si es que hay que reirse, joder!
this speech made me drop my paella
Un hombre de razón en una hora de barbarie.
😢
where can you watch this film?
Movistar+
wherever you want
TH-cam
Mmm idk if the Nationalists ever explained their phrase of "Long Live Death" but I think it makes sense but because of this: When death is around the corner, it is right there when real character reveals itself, death it what makes us realise what we love because we dont know how important someone is until you lose it, it is what has made mankind move through its hardest and darkest moments and taking a look at the life of Jose Millan-Astray, it makes sense why would he say something like that. But it is a contradiction too because if I say "Long live Death because Life is valuable" then whose life is valuable? What about the mass executions carried out by the Nacionalists during the war?
It's the motto of the Spanish Legion, which was founded by Millán Astray himself (the eye patched guy). I believe its origin comes from the Spanish military tradition based in honor and never surrending, there's a famous quote from a general in the 17th century who offered him to capitulate and answered: "Only after dead we will surrender" eventually they won that battle. Therefore its better to die fighting than to surrender, hence the "long live death" phrase
@_Gálatas What about Guernica?
@@euskara2068 that wasn't Franco
@@aqpatt4675 That battle, against the French, was the last one where the Tercios fought, and was certainly not won. Everybody died. The French respected the fact that the Tercios wanted to fight till the very end, and those famous words transcended in time.
@@Aletek It was not a victory, but the Spaniards were allowed to retreat with all their weapons and with the Empire flag in column formation, without giving up their equipment, as an army officially abandoning a territory, not a mob running from the enemy. It wasnt by any means a regrettable defeat.
Long live intellectuals
REAL intellectuals sure, academic eggheads who are weak mentally+physically & unhealthy?
Nah 😁
Lo que deja en claro esta escena es que el pueblo analfabeto se deja llevar por ideas que les venden cosas que les suenan bien , da igual la ideología porque bien podría haber sido un discurso dirigido al bando republicano... en fin... un rebaño
Es lo que ocurre ahora en España con partidos populistas y demagogos como Vox, te calificarán de comunista si los cuestionas.
@@Borrad0r54 lo mismo con podemos y psoe , no politices mi comentario porque lo he dicho en aspecto general
Si bueno, eso o que los "republicanos" ya antes de la guerra se estaban cepillando a la gente, metiéndolos en campos de concentración y asesinando indiscriminadamente. En el punto al que se llegó, venir con un discurso de unidad y persuasión y tal fue una gilipollez tremenda, la gente se odiaba, se habían estado asesinando los unos a los otros hasta hacía 3 días, no me jodas.
@@uversustony9513 no he politizado, por algo mencioné un ejemplo del partido.
@@uversustony9513 si pero podemos demuestra lo que dice en su programa. Si vierais la proposiciones que se hacen en el Congreso y lo que votan los partidos veríamos quien de verdad se interesa por el bien de España. Igual no es el mejor partido del mundo pero si los auténticos democratas. El problema de España es que estos fascistas que se alzaron en el 36 siguen en nuestras instituciones no se murieron con Franco de golpe.
En España sigue habiendo un alto porcentaje de personas que piensa como estos. De ahí que España siga dividida en dos. Los que perdieron gente en la postguerra y los que creen que no mataron suficientes. A partir de ahí que cada cual saque sus conclusiones
El movimiento neofranquista ha pedido perdón hasta el cansancio por sus errores. Ahora está luchando porque se le reconozcan sus virtudes
En España hay un altísimo porcentaje de gente de izquierdas que sigue pensando que sus antepasados ideológicos no hicieron nada malo. Que aquella fue realmente una guerra de fascistas contra demócratas. Que sus crímenes durante la guerra poco menos que no cuentan porque... "era una guerra, y en una guerra todos matan". Que durante el quinquenio "en paz" las izquierdas se comportaron con pulcritud democrática, y que siempre respetaron a la República. Con un pensamiento así, tan alejado de la realidad, es IMPOSIBLE que no siga habiendo dos Españas. Va siendo hora, creo, de que también la izquierda asuma algún mea culpa. Motivos tienen de sobra.
@Miriam Castillejo Felosa se te olvida algo. España antes de ser una grande libre y todo eso, debe de ser católica. Con la cruz vencimos al infiel, con la cruz combatimos al hereje, con la cruz echamos a Napoleón, y con la cruz salvamos el país de la revolución bolchevique
Y también están guapa, los que creen que ellos no mataron e iban repartiendo rosas y que la 2 republica era un paraíso en la tierra, pregúntale a los descendientes de Calvo Sotelo si era un paraíso. Y suficientes no se, pero lo que está claro es que dejó mucho rojo con delitos de sangre vivitos, como por ejemplo el abuelo del cabronazo de iglesias, si Franco hubiera sido duro igual hoy no tendríamos que soportar a semejante radical peligroso en todo un gobierno de España que supura odio y revanchismo
@@Raskolnikovtzs Esa hora llego cuando perdieron la guerra no crees? Ó cual fue el bando que prohibio la oposición por 40 anios?
where can i watch this movie? i cant find it on netflix or the internet
on Movistar+, but I don't know if It's in english
You can see it on youtube
TH-cam sell in many languages. I think in english is one of them (but offer to me only in spanish because is the language i programmed)
@@kurara3372 In movistar+ have the possibility of change the language of sound or subtle
@@AlanRichmon thanks :)
2:20 jajaja
"No hombre no"😂
Quan Unamuno diu "Millán-Astray" en bèth mostrar le generau, qu'ei bèth.
¿Qué idioma es este?
@@mikeboix3315 Lenga gascona
Millan Astray saved Unamuno’s ass that day - if it wasn’t for him he doesn’t get out alive of that place
@@samrevlej9331 True
@@euskara2068 This is what movie said.
But one thing, Millan Astray saved Unamuno's life, with Carmen Polo's help, because Unamuno want it.
It's Carmen Polo who saved his life but he rejects her savior hand until Millan Astray ask him to did. He was prepared to die. And not and painless death.
I'm not sure that on the other side of the barricade they were trying to convince anybody either. There's a time for philisophy, a time for sophism and that time isn't wartime.
0:40 - "...fascism and bolshevism, which are nothing but two sides, concave and convex, of the same mental illness."
Truer words were never spoken.
Yet regarding the ‘West’, it’s always “leftists” who start trouble & degeneration between the two.
@@hectorramos3436 really? What an ignorant comment. You sound like one of those in the crowd.
@@Navarretespanol care to prove otherwise cupcake? the last 7 years are truly against you
@@Navarretespanol .... *sigh* The USA does not care... if your country is couped by it.
If foreigners are brought in by force to replace the nation.
Trouble and degeneration will happen no matter what you believe because your own beliefs will not change things.
Because you think, you still do not change one bit of it.
Don Miguel is looking at the Catalonians and wondering why they are bringing (supporting illegal migration) Moors in to r*pe them...
@@hectorramos3436 Found the communist.
UNA, GRANDE, LIBRE
I am conservative. I hate both fascism and communism. I believe in the free market. And the freedom of all mankind and religion.
The free market which censors you for your opinion while you do nothing, and the freedom of mankind to abandon tradition, the freedom of secularists to impose their control over religious while your principles demand you do nothing. There is more to life than GDP, and the freedom to sin should be fought against whenever possible.
@@tamnickyle i stand my ground
@@tamnickyle spoken like a true fascist
@@ephraimduke Thank you for noticing.
Cuckservative.
why do we live in a world where individual nationalistic shouts carry more weight than a decent fucking logical point
there are many worlds, each world is a person
Death to the intellectuals!
@@the4thindustrialrevolution225 And death to Nationalism! That vile ideology was the sole reason of two world wars and countless other conflicts!
@@lilspaghetti7492 CRINGE. You're 100% American
@@the4thindustrialrevolution225I fail to see any any offense in that ngl and I bet your a basement dwelling nationalistic Prussian simp who believes in dictators
Twitter be like
And this is the eternal logic of fascism; to always turn inwards against the ever-pervasive traitors and inferiors -no one is safe from such a cannibalistic way of governing.
Great intellectual of those days. But he was too small to stop the history of blood.
You are a perfect example of a braindead sheep following his pharasee master :) The "intellectual" used nice words to mislead the public and once he won the elections he would corrupt the people and the country, yet you are so naiv and stupid. What can I expect from a born loser...
Pity pitfighter comes :).I'm really sorry about all your pathetic wording skill. You blame hardly about me, still your sentences are empty. Try to focus on keyword. You can do conversation better!
@@LVCIVSBRVTS You are a sheep and yet you don't know it 😂 😂 😂 EZ
See. That's exactly what I mean. You are so unbelievable stupid and naiv wow. It's not just a scene of a movie. The "expert" you are moaning so much about is saying nice reasonable words to mislead the public, once he wins the elections, he corrupts the country and its people, pushing unmoral programs through like the sexualization of children, open borders, corrupting the media (whilst stealing 3 billion in 1 year alone),... It irritates me that naiv, dumb people like you do not see through the 'expert' "nice words"
nah, you are keep missing the point gen. you are blaming the 'intellectual, but there is no why. and all you saying is you are sheep because you are sheep! how funny.
Even this reply, he didn't show 'why'. God be shame his son only knows anger and hatred.
No apruebo todo el discurso de unamuno pero hay que reconocer que este tío es dios
Viva la república española!
Viva la pobreza
Viva el consolador que tienes atorado
Viva matar al vecino por un trozo de pan. Viva la republica!
Chad Miguel .A true Hispanic and Christian kills Fascists and Communists .
Muerte a los Tiranos y Autoritarios .
I have family in the Catalan country and the Basque country, this the War is embedded within Spain every where you go, Miguel had a point that Franco just wanted to seize power and justified his actions because he wanted to stop the Reds? Franco wanted to make the country back to its glory days but instead divided the people even more.
mar*ca
@@godschampion4375 ??
I' dont know if Chesterton and Unamuno exchange letters back on these days, but both of them had the same ideas: that bolchevism and fascism are one and the same, but the only difference between them is the fundament of their dictatorship. In bolchevism, is the class strugle; in fascism, the nations and race war.Just like Unamuno, Chesteron has fore seen in 1938 that Bochevism and fascism will go to war during the next decade, and the result will be a new World War, even worse than de World War One ( Named The Great War, wich was nothing but a war between monarchies , with the bank´s help) Chesterton dies in 1938, so Unamuno did 1936. Rigth now, in the early 21th century, their ideas are more important than ever: now the entire planet, and even the U.S.A is walking into a Civil War (or in Unamuno´s words "uncivil war"). Here, in Chile, we have seen how the bolchevism and fascism are rising again, but not like it was back in the seventies, with Allende and Pinochet, Now is even worst, cause there´s not a leadership on any side yet, so the worst kind of persons may rise to lead, and chaos may reign again in the streets, with the same bloody consequences that we saw in Spain back in the thirties.... " Venceréis, pero no convenceréis..." =( .
Italian & spanish Fascism was ( unlike Nazism) never based on race but on a nationalist & traditional spiritualism ,it also have a promethean point of view, denied materialistic history (history based on economy cet...),italian Fascism in italy introduce the first form of social security ( as well as multiple other social reforms) that managed to improve the life of the italians.May i also remembered you that during the spanish civil-war they were also Muslims soldier "Los Regulares" who fougth with great ferocity for Franco' s nationalists.
A very nice movie, Unamuno was a great figure of intellectual, but nonetheless, from the many books i have read , i'm sincere, if i lived at the time, i'd take the side of the Nationalists. The Reds day by day eliminated the moderate components of the Republic, killing the opponents too.. Obviously , there was a sort of Fascismo ( i notice that the most part of commentators use the word Fascism and Nazism as synonim, but at the time the 2 doctrines were mostly different, because Fascism was not racist as Nazism - search for the jews and their great support to the Italian Fascism) in the Junta of Franco , but probably the victory , an eventual victory of the Republic meant hardship, killings and poverty for Spain, probably something more acute that the triumph of Francoism. Without counting the problem of a post WWII settlement in Cold War, with embargoes like it was in Cuba. Unamuno is the voice of moderation, seems a person outside of his difficult times, a man of today thrown back in 1936, but i presume that at the time you had to take sides. And many did just that.
There was no good guys so it just depends on which sides has the most overlap to your values. If I was transported there with while having the same background (middle class, religious tho not good at it lmao) I probably side with the Nationalists too.
@@229masterchief "There was no good guys" Finally some common sense! If you say how horrible the commies and the Republic were, you're branded a fascist.
@@Spanish_Patriot Yeah, looking back I don't think there's any movie about the civil war from the Nationalists PoV other than this one, while you can find quite a few from the PoV of the Republicans.
I love to see ya'll foreigners talking about my country history like you have the slightest clue about it.
@@alext4758 k
La Mujer es Doña Carmen, Millán Astray era un bestia que Franco uso para ganar la guerra
millan astray no era el bestia que pintan en la pelicula, tenia una gran faceta cultural, hablaba varios idiomas, traducia libros... no influyo para nada en el devenir de la guerra, no ostento mando alguno en combate y la legion con millan astray o sin el hubiera combatido igual
Eres un ignorante , lee un poco infórmate y no por medio del cine español que está más politizado que mis cojones .
Millán-Astray nunca dirigió ninguna unidad militar ni participó en combates. Fue un intelectual que incorporó en los reglamentos del Tercio lo mejor de la literatura técnica castrense europea de los años veinte, se desenvolvía con soltura en ambientes intelectuales franceses, y admiraba la cultura oriental. También tradujo del inglés textos clave del Bushido, el código moral de la cultura samurai por entonces desconocida en Europa, e impartió cursos de historia militar, geografía y táctica en la Academia de Infantería. La única bestia aquí eres tú, analfabestia.
@@Spanish_Patriot Las heridas se las causó un libro que se puso muy agresivo.
@@bastianrojas9800 Las heridas son de antes de la guerra civil. Millán-Astray no nació en 1936.
This whole scene is funny to me man has valid points but points that are made far far too late
Но показывать то, как красные священиков растреливают, мы не будем.... это другое
Он же блять сказал, что фашисты и красные это стороны одной и той же медали.
Russian?
@@ericgabrielbautistajaimes9187 нет
No soy español... Pero tengo una consulta... Por qué Astray prefirió que Unamuno salga con la señora de Franco? Vi la película, pero la duda me quedo... Se que ambos tenían severas tensiones, y que Unamuno estaba advertido que si hablaba, lo matarían.... Pero por qué Astray lo "ayudo"? Gracias
Si ves la película quizás te lo aclara, Astray patinó completamente ante una figura de prestigio, su asesinato por parte de cualquiera de los asistentes habría supuesto un conflicto político, Franco lo tenía en simpatía. Son cuestiones de pequeños instantes lo que cambia el resultado, sé que no es la mejor aclaración, pero matar a todo lo que se moviera no es lo que se buscaba.
En la realidad salieron y se dieron un apretón de manos, hay una foto y todo. Matar a Unamuno hubiera sido una locura, era un pensador respetado por los derechistas y el mundo en general.
Se entiende... Si me imagino la caída de reputación si se llegaba a matar a Unamuno en ese mismo instante... Pero igual, Unamuno tenía alguna tendencia fija? O más bien "saltaba" de ideologías y pensamientos? Me quedo muchos intereses sobre la historia de él..
@@leonardiommi2322 Inicialmente era prorepublicano en 1931, cuando la republica se inició. Pero en 1936, tras esperanzas incumplidas, e incluso una revolución comunista en octubre del 1934...evolucionó a una equidistancia de centro-derecha. Pero siempre quiso ser independiente en su juicio, y eso en tiempos de polarización extrema, no cabe. Eran tiempos de "o conmigo o contra mi", y Unamuno, a pesar de denunciar los increíbles defectos de la republica, no apoyaba el alzamiento del ejército.
Me podrian decir como se llama la pelicula porfavor
Mientras dure la guerra
@@Alejandro-tm9vt gracias
@@jhobet8164 esta completa en YouTUbe
SE PARECE A MARIANO RAJOY EN SU VERSION ILUSTRADA
Как фильмы называется? Name films?
Mientras dure la guerra
Mientras dure la guerra to amenabar.
"Mientras dure la guerra" ("While at War", in English)
1:55 Great fanatical spirit
Para los que le interese esto. Millán Astray lanzó el grito de muerte a la intelectualidad traidora después de que Unamuno mencionara el fusilamiento de Rizal que luchó contra España en Filipinas. Nunca hubo un grito de viva la muerte como en la película. De hecho Millán Astray escoltó a Unamuno fuera junto a la mujer de Franco después de que sonarán algunas armas recargarse.
Se hicieron anotaciones de sala, sí, se gritó "viva la muerte", es cierto que en ninguna anotación coincide el 100% de las frases, de hecho Astray no quedó "tartamudo", antes dijo una frase en torno a lo que buscaban conseguir los nacionales, pero sí, existió esa frase desde el público, aunque la respuesta que da en la película no coincide, sí que formuló: "Esto me suena lo mismo que ¡Muera la vida!"
Merece bién, Miguel.
VIVA LA REPÚBLICA!!
no gracias te la quedas para ti se te gusta.
FAK LA REPUBLICA : D
Shit república
Supongo que tantos años de educación franquista ha calado tanto en la sociedad española que ahora parece de izquierdas la República. Pregunta seria:
¿Porque hay gente en contra de una república española?
@@hectoralmendrosmartinez9272 porque cambiar de monarquía parlamentaria a república no asegura nada para España. No habría cambio real de ningún tipo, los partidos políticos seguirían ahí, la corrupción seguiría estando a la orden del día, simplemente sería quitar a uno para poner a otro que haga exactamente lo mismo, costando el mismo dinero, o incluso más. Además de que el rey en funciones, Don Felipe VI ha sido un buen monarca, con diferencia, de los mejores que ha tenido España. Te fiarías de poner al mando del ejército a Pedro Sánchez y a Pablo Iglesias?. Hay decisiones que le pese a quien le pese, no las puede tomar el pueblo, ya que, desconociendo los peligros que hay más allá de sus fronteras, son decisiones que nos llevarían a todos al declive una vez más.
De manera educada y sutil, Unamuno les dijo a ambos bandos "los dos bandos son unos pendejos brutos y llevarán a España al desastre".
Según la película, Unamuno financió al otro bando, así que no fueron los dos bandos, fueron unos y eol cómplice.
Ve la película. Unamuno se había convertido en un conservador de tomó y lomo cuando años antes fue socialista. En esta película su hija lo critica por eso.
@@youtuytumaddrre Pero deja claro que esta en contra de ambos bandos.
Defiende que sus acciones fueron para salvar a la republica que habían caído en manos de unos salvajes (el bando republicano) pero que al apoyar al otro bando cometió un error.
Su hija lo critica por apoyar al bando sublevado y hacer propaganda para ellos pero se encuentra conque le responde que la republica le había condenado a él antes.
Como muchos otros creía que era una vuelta al orden y a que todo continuaría (la misma posición que tiene Cabanellas, el personaje de Tito Valverde). Sin embargo va viendo que se están cometiendo muchos errores y salvajadas. Pero en ningún momento cree que el otro bando sea mejor.
Se resume su discurso en que nadie va a ganar porque aunque ellos ganen por la fuerza se va a perder. Y lo mísmo si se consiguiera lo otro.
Y como dice su amigo: "usted ha sido vasquita, españolista, marxista, socialista... ateo, cristiano, agnóstico" "usted cambia"
@@AlanRichmon No cree que el otro bando sea mejor, pero la posición del lado contrario se radicaliza con el mismo estallido de la guerra. Al comienzo de la guerra el mismo Mola dice aquello de "Hay que exterminar al enemigo... " o lo de "Yo si veo a mi padre en las filas contrarias lo fusilo". Por no decir la masacre de Badajoz.
Es la propia posición del bando sublevado la que radicaliza el conflicto. No hay ningún ministro del gobierno del PCE, ni siquiera del PSOE. Todo lo que se cuente de radicalizacion de la República es una patraña. Fueron los sublevados quienes trajeron la muerte a España, entre ellos Unamuno.
@@youtuytumaddrre falso, recuerda a Largo Caballero: "Si no ganamos las elecciones, tendremos que ir a la Guerra Civil". Te puedo citar a más políticos de la Izquierda, si lo prefieres. Y de lo que muchos hicieron en nombre de la República y de "su democracia" antes de la Guerra civil. Nadie se une a una sublevación militar por mero capricho, sobre todo si no hay una razón poderosa detrás que lo respalde. Y el programa electoral del Frente Popular no es una de ellas. Porque si eso fuera cierto, pregunto: ¿por qué no se sublevaron en 1931, después de la promulgación republicana, la cual fue aprobada por un Parlamento de mayoría de izquierdas, sin ser sometida a referéndum nacional como sí se hizo con la CE de 1978?
@@es8346 En 1931 no, pero en 1932 sí ¿La Sanjurjada que es?
No dieron un golpe de inmediato porque la Restauración y las dictaduras que vinieron después intentando mantenerlo todo estaban agotadísimos, la Restauración (curioso su nombre con el actual Transición) hacia aguas y hasta los mismos militares estaban hasta los mismos. Alfonso XIII se fue por que veía que ya no le quedaban apoyos.
A los militares le interesaba un reino con el rey fuera como luego consiguió Franco.
Seeing this and learning about the Spanish civil war I wonder if this might happen in the U.S. The country is split between Republicans and Democrats and there doesn't seem to be a middle ground. As for me, I'm a Republican or moderate conservative.
Quite frankly from the Canadian perspective, neither side seems to have a good way to rally for a civil war, so If it happens it will likely be labeled as "rebellion" or "incident" and even if so, my money is not on Republican or Democrat, mine is on the feds.
The Spanish civil war started from the political and social situation of the country, following the slowly decline of Spain since the XIX century, and the political situation of Europe at those times (fascism, communism....)
Something like this is not gonna happen in the US.
Mi inglés es malo amigo pero básicamente lo que pasa en Estados Unidos y aquí en España es que los políticos se han quedado sin respuestas y cuando te quedas sin respuestas tiras de identidad y de identitarismo y de decir como soy así así así debo votar esto porque creo en esto esto y lo de más allá por lo tanto anulo todo lo que no tenga que ver con eso y lo anatemizo. Así fue como nacieron medios como Fox News o Blommberg medios creados para atraer a gente a esas posiciones y separar a las personas ¿Por qué? Porque no tienen ideas, se llame Biden o se llame Trump.
My apologize, sorry my English is bad but basically this is my idea about you reflection. From an Spaniard.
@@maddoxbellrose7679 Well of course, if most folks haven't noticed, let me put it in another way. "Commander-in-chief" at this point is redundant in a civil war, the United states military is large and technologically sophisticated enough to enforce a nation wide Junta if it wanted to. As long as the US army leadership is made up of people who are constitutionalists over any political leaning, the US will never fall.
@@rokmun680 The United States Military is predominantly conservative. Even with Pro-Constitutionalists in the leadership. To me i feel that conservative have mucked up their views on what is conservatism with some of the more extreme being part of a cult of personality no different than Hitler, Stalin, Mao or the Kim Family.
Ni la legión ni millan astray dijeron viva la muerte, solo tienen tres vivas, viva España, viva el rey, viva la legion.
En esa época era muy comun que la legión dijera viva la muerte
@@Priegogame Nunca lo dijeron.
Todos somos Españoles y punto ,sino España quedará descuartizada.
🇪🇦
Ponte en el contexto sociocultural de hace un siglo, anda. No en el actual...
No entendiste, España está acabada.
@@diegofernandosanchezricard4625 Por eso te lo digo. Si entendí la ironía, por eso mi comentario. Me parece que eres tú quien no ha entendido el mío.
@@napster1987 se lo decia mercy, pero bueno, es lo que ya dije España está acabada, no son argentina porque la UE no lo quiere.
@@diegofernandosanchezricard4625
Y que tiene que ver aqui Argentina.
Igual si no se estuviera en la Union Europea España ,seguiríamos siendo Europeos .
Si Rumania sobrevivió al comunismo sin pertenecer a la UE hasta recientemente y eso un eran Europeos de sepa .
Porqué España no podría, sin o con la Union Europea España a sobrevivido a tantas cosas Guerras de esta era y de la antigüedad.
Argentina un país joven que no sabe para donde moverse .
Muchísima gente aqui que prefieren aprender historia a través de cine drmático y subvencionado que leyendo o documentándose. Os animo a hacerlo y luego buscar los 23 errores históricos que se aprecian a simple vista en estos 5 minutos de video.
Ni Astray dijo 'muera la inteligencia' ni Unamuno "venceréis pero no convenceréis"...
es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vencer%C3%A9is,_pero_no_convencer%C3%A9is
Si lo dijeron
@@Martin-ks8tr www.elindependiente.com/tendencias/2018/05/09/astray-unamuno/
Es una creencia popular de la guerra, pero no.
Como que no si documentado y grabado
@@franciscojavierhidalgoarra2620 ¿Dónde?
where can i watch this movie.
on Movistar+, but I don't know if It's in english
In youtube
"The basic elements of the Liberal State
The Liberal State believes in nothing, not even in its own destiny, not even in itself. The liberal State allows everything to be questioned, even the value of its own existence.
For the liberal statesman, the doctrine that the State should survive is just as valid as that the State should be destroyed. That is to say that in his position at the head of an 'established' State, he does not even believe in the intrinsic merits, the justice, the usefulness of that particular State. Rather like a ship's captain who is not sure whether it is better to make port or to be shipwrecked. The liberal outlook amounts to taking a frivolous view of one's own destiny; it permits one to climb up to positions of authority without even believing that there ought to be any positions of authority at all, without feeling that they entail any obligations, not even defending them.
There is only one limiting factor: the law. Oh, yes; one can attempt the destruction of everything that exists, but without overstepping the boundaries of the law. But what exactly is the law? Here again, there is no unity; no reference to immutable principles either. The law is the expression of the sovereign will of the people; in practice, that of the majority of voters.
Two points are relevant to this:
Firstly. For the liberal, the law is not justified by its 'result' but by its 'source'. Those schools of thought whose constant aim is the public good consider laws that serve such an end to be good, and bad laws those which stray from this course, regardless of who has promulgated them. The democratic school of thought-democracy being the system which most fully expresses liberal thinking-considers that a law is good and legitimate if it has obtained the consent of the majority of voters, even though its content may be atrocious.
Secondly. Liberals do not consider what is right to be a category of reason but a product of will. Nothing is right in itself. There is never any reference to some scale of values by which to gauge the rightness of any law that is passed. It is enough to find sufficient votes endorsing it.
All this can be summed up in one sentence: "The people are sovereign." Sovereign in the sense that they are entitled to justify their own decisions. The people's decisions are right because they are the people's. The theories of regal absolutism stated, Quod principi placuit legem habet vigorem.1 The time was bound to come when the theoreticians of democracy would say, 'There has to be a certain authority in society whose actions do not need to be right in order to be valid; this authority resides only in the people.' These words are by Jurieu, one of the forerunners of Rousseau.
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
The Liberal State-that faithless and indifferent state-wrote these three splendid words on the frontispiece of its temple: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. But under its auspices, none of these three things flourishes.
Liberty cannot live without the protection of strong and immutable principles. When principles change with the ups and downs of public opinion, there is only freedom only for those who agree with the majority. The minorities have no choice but to suffer in silence. Under the tyrants of the Middle Ages, the victims at least had the comfort of knowing that they were being tyrannised. The tyrant might be oppressing them, but those who were actually suffering oppression nonetheless were in the right. Above the heads of tyrants and subjects alike, the eternal words were written, in the light of which each was given his due. In the democratic State, this does not apply; the law-not the state, but the law, the supposed will of the majority-'is always right'. Thus the victim of oppression, besides being oppressed, can moreover be charged with dangerous disobedience if he calls the law unjust. Not even that freedom remains to him.
That is why Duguit2 has branded the belief that a people has gained its freedom the very day it proclaims the dogma of national sovereignty and accepts universal suffrage as 'fatally misguided'. Beware, he says, of substituting despotism with democratic absolutism! The despotism of popular assemblies has to be opposed more energetically than the despotism of kings. 'Something would be equally unjust if it were ordained by the people and its representatives as if a prince had ordained it. Because of the dogma of popular sovereignty, this tends to be all too easily forgotten.'
This is what happens to freedom under the rule of the majority, and to Equality too. First of all, there is no equality between the dominant party, which legislates as it pleases and the rest of the citizens who put up with it. Besides, the Liberal State produces an even more profound inequality: economic inequality. Since, in theory, the worker and the capitalist enjoy the same freedom to enter into a labour contract, the worker ends up by being enslaved by the capitalist. Not that the latter obliges the former by force to accept any given working conditions; he merely lets hunger take its course; he makes an offer which in theory the worker is free to reject; but if he does reject it, he will have nothing to eat, and eventually he is bound to take it. This is how liberalism brought us the accumulation of capital and the proletarianisation of the great mass of the people. In order to defend the oppressed against the economic tyranny of the powerful, something as anti-liberal as socialism had to emerge.
Lastly, it is Fraternity's turn to be shattered. Since the democratic system is based on the rule of the majority, the only way to attain victory within it is to get the support of the majority at any cost. To this end, all weapons are permissible; it is all right to defame, insult and misquote an opponent if this helps to deprive him of a few votes. If there is to be a majority and a minority, there needs to be 'division'. If the other party is to be split, there needs to be 'hatred'. Division and hatred are incompatible with fraternity. And thus the members of one and the same people cease to feel part of a whole superior to themselves, part of a lofty historical unity that encompasses all of them. The fatherland is reduced to the state of a battlefield, where two-or many-contending factions try to destroy each other, each heeding a different sectarian voice, while the dear voice of the common land, which ought to call to them all, seems to have fallen silent."
-Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera
go back to maga country you nazi
@@kurvitaschthedictator I'm an African from Africa, though.
@@Waldemarvonanhalt Africa is not a nation, liar
JOSE ANTONO PRIMO DE RIVERA, ¡PRESENTE!
@@kurvitaschthedictator Ok, African from South Africa. Hamba, inja.
ESPAÑABOLA CRACK
1:50 y 3:05 Típicos momentos en los q un facha se queda sin argumentos( hablo de facha de vd nos los q dicen de ahora).
Pdta:Los rojos tres cuartas partes de lo mismo.....
Siempre es lo mismo de izquierda a derecha. Son más parecidos de lo que quieren ver o admitir.
Pero esta escena está manipulada, Millán Astray era una persona culta e inteligente, y esta escena es inventada, pues no se sabe de verdad qué ocurrida en este coloquio
@@adriumbra627 se llama licencia literaria de los directores. La película no es 100%histórica
@@carlosgarciaherrero1971 Más bien se llama manipulación histórica por parte del sector de la izquierda con las subvenciones del gobierno para el cine, no es nada nuevo. Si fuese licencia literaria, alguna vez inventaría a favor de los nacionales y en contra de la república, pero eso nunca pasa.
@@adriumbra627 Ah no??? Acaso no comienza Unamuno la película criticando a la república???Acaso no tiene una discusión con su amigo en la q critica cosas de la república???
Why don,t have film this división blue ?
Azul Division. Because this film is during the Spanish civil war not WW2
The question is what would have happened if the extreme left would have taken the full power in Spain?! The most probable result was a system similar to the one in the USSR with the extreme killings in the gulag. Franco instituted a viable capitalist economic system, good enough to sustain a democratic state after his death. The result is the Spain of today, a vibrant democracy where every one can freely express himself!
They already had started killing and torturing people. Thousands of churches had been burned and the Leader of the Opposition had been murdered by the PSOE and the republican police.
Really? Éducation is the key... We still need to walk a long long way....
La clase media en España,que ahora esta desapareciendo(ahora solo ricos y pobres,políticos ladrones y trabajadores expoliados,),fué obra de Franco.
Aunque les duela a los rojelios
España,el país con mas políticos chupando del bote ,mas coches oficiales y mas paro de Europa.
España,la futura Venezuela.
@@milorol4885 of course, Franco prepared Spain so you can reform freely the education, economy, politics and the social systems as much as the electoral votes give you the power to to reform! Long live DEMOCRACY!
@@jaimemassipmarti9662 es que los americanos no saben mas que "the only good red is dead". Por eso es imposible razonar con ellos
Valiente reacción de doña Carmen Polo, una mujer de verdad.
Tan de verdad que las joyerías de España tenían que cerrar cuando visitaba una ciudad, menuda arpía
@@corcolesgarciaxavier579 Buena propaganda, prueba otra vez.