Talk:Francoist Spain

Totalitarian?

Francisco Franco established a totalitarian military dictatorship.

According to the generally accepted definition of totalitarism, Franco's dictatorship was not totalitarian at all. This issue was settled by Yale University professor, sociologist and political scientist Juan José Linz in his well known work Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes, Rienner, 2000.

See also Authoritarianism

May I therefore reword that sentence in this way?: Francisco Franco established an authoritarian military dictatorship. --46.27.119.30 (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Fully agree--Havsjö (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Havsjö: Well I agree, but don't fully agree. The lead needs to go to the point about the changing nature of the dictatorship (which it does not, it assumes a settled and unambiguous nature), and which it is not settled with Linz, regardlessly of Linz indeed being an authoritative source and a good starting point. There are several quality sources putting emphasis in the level of "totalitarian-ness"/a, totalitarian momentum in the 1937-1942 period, etc. That may be useful for the lead instead of delving into if Franco was not considered "a core fascist" by scholars (he is not, but this is not the lead to emphasize that).--Asqueladd (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Asqueladd:But the introduction now says that it went from "openly totalitarian" to easing up in the 50's? I would say the current introduction is quite good.
Military dictatorship created by Franco after nationalist victory in civil war. Tendencies of being "fascist'y", but not fully. Does not join its "friends" Germany/Italy in WW2 and stays neutral, but are more aligned towards them still. After WW2 is isolated and goes from totalitarianism to easing up. Joining NATO, reforming economy after chronic depression, "Spanish miracle", Franco dies and Juan Carlos reforms it into a democracy.
A brief summary of the regime from its origins to its end, including its up's and downs and changing nature.
PS. I only added to "Franco is not considered a fascist" part since the intro previously simply stated "Francoist Spain is considered fascist, or by some semi-fascist". Which I felt was quite "unjust" and so I added the "by some" and further words about Franco himself--Havsjö (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Havsjö: The article is lacking in nuance. You've up-to-date have contemporary sources (Ismael Saz for example cames up to my mind) deeply dealing with the ideological nature of the regime (the nuances). The article needs to deal with the role of the Organización Sindical (OSE). The regime is certainly not labeled as unambiguosly "totalitarian" (particularly in an holistic frame) but just solving it with a settled "authoritarian" is dubious (particularly if the emphasis in the wording is at the time it was "established", as it is the case), as the during its first years the regime rode very much the totalitarian/fascist wave (it is even referenced apparently as "openly totalitarian" at first by Payne later into the introduction). And frankly not even the "military" adjective is neccessarily justified. In 1936? Hell yeah, it came right after a military coup they even have a "sort of" military junta (Junta Técnica del Estado) before the formation of a more conventional cabinet later in wartime. Was it a military dictatorship in 1970? What does "military" mean in the later? That Franco was a general? And whatever Franco was considered to be or is not particularly important here (at least in the first line of the lead) as long as you characterize the regime (and the former should not be a substitutive of the later). In that sense the military bit is far from being an automatic reflection when dealing with quality sources either.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Asqueladd: I hope I dont come off as rude, but why dont you rewrite it then? Sounds like you have a good grasp of its evolution and sources to back it up? Update the introduction with stuff like what you have said here?--Havsjö (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Havsjö: I'll think about it. It's some work. In any case my first modest proposal would be to change the regime type in infobox to "single-party dictatorship" (which is valid for nearly the entire period, 1937 to 1975) in place of the current taxonomy (quite over the top either including authoritarian or totalitarian. not to say the "Francoist" bit is ridiculous as "type" as there has been no other Francoist regime to speak of).--Asqueladd (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Asqueladd: I changed some things around to try to get the point across of the changing nature from more totalitarian/fascist to "easing up" later on. I kept the "he was not considered full fascist" quote though, since I feel its good to have in the introduction since many people consider Francoist Spain simply "a fascist state" such as Italy/Germany. To note this point but still explaining its harsh nature, I feel gives a more "serious tone". Im not an expert of Franco or Spain under his rule, so if feel free to change/add/adjust anything.--Havsjö (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Havsjö: Setting aside reworking the ideological nature (which it's still needed, now it features a take of Stanley G. Payne balancing an earlier take of the very same Stanley G. Payne), I've tentatively rewrote part of the lead in terms of claryfing initial dates. Maybe it's delving too much into dates, but it can be helpful.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Havsjö: I've reworked the troubling part, essentially bringing es:wiki material (I would bring the bibliography later some parts only bring the "author (year), page" format and not the full citation). It also may need some copyediting.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC) PD If we can keep this tight in size, the lead could use mentions to nationalcatholicism and delving more into the repression, as well as the so-called Fundamental Laws and nuancing Transition. Also a source dealing better with the "liberal ministers" bit (they liberalized the economy, but as they were not being "liberal" in the American sense nor "classical liberal" stricto sensu, the name after they were historiographically called —(Opus Dei) "technocrats"— would be more fitting).--Asqueladd (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Hitler and Franco at Hendaye.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

definition

“Francoist Spain ... is the period of Spanish history” – this is how this article begins and it sounds rather absurd to me. A period is an interval of time, not a state. Examples of WP entries which can be defined as intervals of time are e.g. “Triassic”, “Roaring Twenties” or “Age of Sail”. “Francoist Spain” does not seem to be in the same category to me.

Admittedly, WP has a problem with non-official state names serving also as titles of articles. There is little consistency, and various perspectives are followed.

1. name (or similar)

• “Nazi Germany” - “common English name for Germany between 1933 and 1945”
• “Vichy France” “common name of the French State headed by Marshal Philippe Pétain...”
• “West Germany” – “informal name for the Federal Republic of Germany”
• “Weimar Republic” - “unofficial historical designation for the German state from 1918 to 1933”

2. state

• “East Germany” – “state that existed from 1949 to 1990”
• “German Empire” – “German nation state that existed from...”
• “Russian Republic” – “short-lived state which...”

3. government

• “French Second Republic” – “short-lived republican government of France under...”
• “French Fourth Republic” – “republican government of France between 1946 and 1958...”

4. regime

• “Second French Empire” – “regime of Napoleon III from 1852 to 1870...”
• “Spanish Republic” – “short-lived political regime that existed in Spain between...”
• “4th of August Regime” – “totalitarian regime under the leadership of...”

5. time interval

• “Fascist Italy” - “era of National Fascist Party government from 1922 to 1943”
• “Francoist Spain” – “ is the period of Spanish history”

6. no definition or tautological definition

• “Mongol Empire” – “existed during the 13th and 14th centuries, and was the largest contiguous land empire in history”
• “Second Hungarian Republic” – “parliamentary republic briefly established after..”
• “Dutch Republic” – “federal republic formally established from..”

Perhaps some board of WP pundits might fancy settling the issue once and for all and issue an appropriate policy. Until this happens, I would humbly suggest we no longer claim that “a state is a period” and settle for something slightly more sensible. I like the first option of these listed above, especially that it captures the “common/unofficial” ingredient, end hence my edit. regards, --89.76.22.216 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Havsjö. Have you read the above when reverting my edit? Grateful for some some explanation. Do you believe that a state is a period? Regards, --89.76.22.216 (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello. You removed the summary of the country of "when Francisco Franco ruled Spain as dictator with the title Caudillo", which is pretty important to the first sentence summary. This tiny styling detail (that you even show different articles have different versions of) doesn't warrant removal of it. It was also not well-written "..is the name of the Spanish state. Officially it was known as the Spanish State". Exactly the same info is conveyed in both versions, but better written and with additional info which was removed. --Havsjö (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, how is "Francoist Spain was the period of Spanish history between 1936-1975, when Franco ruled as a dictator with the title caudillo" an incorrect statment? Do you think any person is confused as to what any of your listed examples were? That West Germany was not a country, but a "name"? None of the listed examples are wrong, and to have some kind of "policy" to force people to write in a strict way is just bad for editors. Spain today is also just a "continuation" of this "iteration" of Spain (such as Nazi Germany from Weimar Germany, or 5th French Republic from 4th French Republic), not a total break (such as Spanish State from Second Republic, or PRC China from ROC China). So its not a "separate country", just the period of Francos dictatorship. Did the state end after his death? No, its was still the same and then also transitioned into democracy, but no "break off" in lineage. --Havsjö (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Havsjö. Thanks for your kind explanation. You asked me a number of questions, so here come the answers:

* is “Francoist Spain was the period...” an incorrect statement? Yes, I think so. A state is not a period. A minute is a period, a solar year is a period, Age of Sail is a period, but “Francoist Spain” is not a period.

* “do you think that any person is confused as to...”? Guess not, perhaps except 6-year-olds. However, I believe WP should settle for higher standards than simply “not to get people confused”

* “to force people to write in a strict way is just bad for editors” – well, fully agree. Editors love to write as they like. However, introducing some sort of homogeneity is very good for readers. And for encyclopedic standards. And for common sense.

* “did the state end after his death?” – irrelevant, since you define “Francoist Spain” as a period, and not as a state

hope this clarifies. Regards, --89.76.22.216 (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Havsjö. 4 weeks gone and no response from you. May I understand that... hm, fear to say this... you agree? Unless hear otherwise, I will be delighted to revert to my edits. regards, --89.76.22.216 (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

"Francoist spain" was a period, not a state, because it ended with Francos death even though the same "Spanish State" / FET y de las JONS state etc continued on after this (and was eventually transformed into democratic Spain). But "Francoist Spain" was, as it says now, the period of Franco's rule. Not a specific state. That state did not end in 1975, only the period of Francoist rule did. --Havsjö (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

Labelling Francoism a "constitutional monarchy", is frankly, bluntly speaking, oxymoronic. The notion of 1947 (in terms of form of "government" as the infobox implies) being a breaking point is also somewhat dubious (the notion of being "totalitarian" before 1947 and "not totalitarian" after 1947 doubtlessly looks like the opinion of some Wikipedia user). It certainly brought no "constitution", ffs! For the rest of descriptors other than dictatorship, while not all of them being exactly oxymoronic, they are haphazard, and condensing them in the infobox in two or three words is not an improvement (not the least the "Francoist regime" being a "Francoist regime", a rather circular statement if you ask me particularly as the Francoist regime does not seem to have developed into a class either). For an actual up-to date commentary on the elusive characterization of the dictatorship by commentators, see Gil Pecharromán (2019)[1].--Asqueladd (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

What's so ominous about simply leaving "dictatorship" rather than "one-party dictatorship", anyways (according to 179.176.20.110 "[leaving only dictatorship] is inappropriate, and doesn't happen with any other article about a former state" [sic])? The regime is best described as personal dictatorship as suggested by Gil Pecharromán (above) or as explicitly described as such in essence by Berman (2019)[2], putting the emphasis, not on the party, which to a large extent was a toy, but on the ruler.--Asqueladd (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and linked to the "personalist" section of the dictatorship article, as per these suggestions --Havsjö (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Why is the regime best described as personal dictatorship though? -- 186.213.51.121 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Stalin, Hitler, Mao used their party as the main weapon to control everything. Franco did not do that--he made sure the Falange party was not very powerful & did not control the Church or the Army or the economy. That way he made a lot more decisions himself. Result esp as he got too old the system was ineffective. Rjensen (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Refs

Form of Government

I like dictatorships, I don't understand why Stanley G. Payne was so envious Franco had unlimited political power... Dude, Franco was an autocrat, but he was a benevolent dictator. His dictatorship should have continued with his son as King, Prime Minister and Head of the Secret State Police.