Talk:Francisco Franco

Objectivity Improvements

There are some glaring failures of objectivity in this controversial article. (Content must be written from a neutral point of view.)

For example, Hitler's policy is described as "shrewd and pragmatic": "A hundred per cent Franco's victory was not desirable from a German Point of view; rather were we interested in a continuance of the war and in the keeping up of the tension in the Mediterranean."[89]

Yet Stalin's Politburo - espousing virtually the same sentiment - is a "shocking" "Machiavellian calculation": "it would be more advantageous to the Soviet Union if neither of the warring camps gained proponderant [sic] strength, and if the war in Spain dragged on as long as possible and thus tied up Hitler for a long time."

Edit request, 1 November 2021

I would like to request a few changes on the 6th paragraph of the section "Spain under Franco".

First, I would like to request that the quote "Although Franco adopted some trappings of fascism, he, and Spain under his rule, are generally not considered to be fascist;" be changed to "There has been significant debate in academia over whether Franco and his regime can be considered fascist", in order to reflect the dispute in academia.

Second, the following quote should also be added "Helen Graham, on the other hand, states that his regime was "in a way, the true expression of Spanish Fascism"." (Source: Investigating Francoism, 2016, pg. 139)

Third, this sentence should be added as well "Francisco Cobo Romero notes that "in it's attempt to emulate Fascism, Francoism resorted to the sacralization and mystification of the motherland, raising it into an object of cult, and coating it with a liturgic divinization of it's leader"." (Source: El franquismo y los imaginarios míticos del fascismo europeo de entreguerras, 2008, pg. 123) -- 2804:248:f673:4f00:c957:a5ef:e88d:be8f (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. There are almost 600 editors with this page on their watchlist, and none have made this edit. I believe that shows there is no consensus for this edit at this time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

There are edit requests made around the same time as this one (and some, older) that have yet to be answered, that doesn't necessarily man that "there is no consensus" for this edit, also, what is wrong with adding content from new reliable sources? Why shouldn't it be done? The articles makes it look like scholars agree that Franco's regime wasn't fascist, but that is not the case, and there is controversy over it. No offense, but I think you have no idea what you're doing. -- 2804:248:f668:6e00:dc90:d91a:1d96:9708 (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish I realize you're fairly new to the project but unless you believe the edit is controversial your request for consensus is misplaced. Given the lack of responses other than your own it'd be best if you could point to what you specifically consider controversial.174.90.223.208 (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit request, 1 February 2022

I would like to request that the Fascist-related categories and template, which were removed on September 27th, should be restored. They were removed without discussion and without consensus, and the user who removed them didn't even bother to participate in a discussion. I believe the way they were removed was very inappropriate, and as such they should be restored. -- 2804:248:f610:7400:88e4:531f:8cb:1ad0 (talk) 05:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I have done this - at the very least, there should be a consensus discussion before these cats are removed again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The Tag was introduced in by an IP in January 5, 2020 without any consensus or any discussion. It was later removed by a registered user in September 2021 also without discussion. There is no consensus in the academia and there is no consensus in the Wikipedia When I look at Franco's major biographers it seems that they tend to agree on the not fascist. This is what Paul Preston said: “If people are looking for a quick and easy insult to those on the right, then fascist, is your go-to term,” he says. “If you’re asking an academic political theorist what constitutes a fascist then you’d have to say Franco isn’t.” A label should only be added if the label is consensual, which is not the case. J Pratas (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally, the January 2020 edit was not the first addition of "fascist" categories to the article. A random search shows that they were already there in November 2019, January 2018, and November 2016. The situation is obvious not nearly as cut-and-dried as you present it above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware of these things, and I'm aware that "Fascist" is a slippery term, and one often used as an easy pejorative, but I'm also aware that other scholars put him in the Fascist camp Don't you think that the article should have a section about whether Franco was a Fascist or not? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I do agree and will be happy in getting sources for different POVs. Where I disagree is on placing a tag. A Tag should be consensual.J Pratas (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see where there is a consensus for "fascist" categories one way or the other, so the best thing would be to find what the consensus is with an RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

BTW, don't I remember you making these same arguments concerning Salazar and Portugal, or am I misremembering and thinking of someone ese? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

and as I look further into the history of the article, I find that your edits consistently emphasize anything positive about the Nationalists and anything negative about the Republicans, so please don't present yourself here as a neutral party, you are very much a partisan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor. Wikipedia is written through collaboration. Bringing up conduct during discussions about content creates a distraction to the discussion and may inflame the situation.J Pratas (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC: "Fascist" categories and sidebar

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Question: Should the "Fascism" sidebar and "fascist" categories such as "Spanish fascists", "Christian fascists" and "Fascist rulers" be included in this article? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes: Franco's regime adopted many fascist characteristics, and many of his regime's social and economic policies were inspired by other fascist regimes, so I believe it is appropriate to include them. -- 2804:248:f610:7400:e48a:f30c:75f2:c66e (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Yes - Most sources paint Franco as "last surviving fascist dictator" so why wouldn't we? In 1937 he fused the Spanish Fascist Party with the Carlists, and even recently Spain removed his heirs from property they held since his regime. I can see where some would say otherwise since his dictatorship was more based on institutionalized authoritarian rule, so there is some technical grey areas. But Spain just made it a crime to glorify Francoism and the fascist civil war. If it walks like a duck... Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, the Franco regime was clearly identified by reliable sources as having been fascist. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• No All the votes above are ungrounded. The first vote is an unsourced personal opinion. The second is hardly sourced and the third vote admits that the area is grey. What we should take into account is the sources. Preston and Payne, the most important Franco's biographers, both say that Franco was not Fascist. Paul Preston says that “If people are looking for a quick and easy insult to those on the right, then fascist, is your go-to term,” he says. “If you’re asking an academic political theorist what constitutes a fascist then you’d have to say Franco isn’t.” And Payne recognizes that for some time Franco adopted some of the paraphernalia of fascism, but without really adopting the ideology, and this was for a very short period of time. Payne also explains how the hyperbolic statement, ""last surviving fascist dictator", was part of a post war propaganda effort to attack Franco. We can also read the Britannica entry. Not Fascist. J Pratas (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  The 1938 Fuero del Trabajo was partially inspired by the Carta del Lavoro

  The Instituto Nacional de Industria was inspired by Mussolini's IRI

  Educación y Descanso (a leisure organization run by the regime's trade union) was inspired by Kraft durch Freude and Opera Nazionale Dopolavoro

  The Cortes Españolas were modeled after the Italian Camera dei Fasci

  Those are just some examples I can think of. Also, Payne and Preston are not the only scholars who study Franco's regime, there are others who do consider his regime fascist as well. -- 2804:248:f610:7400:e48a:f30c:75f2:c66e (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. Not unlike Communism, Fascism had several variations. Franco's regime was one of them. Sources referring to it as a partially or temporarily fascist regime can easily be found ([1], [2]). Borsoka (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  This article is on Franco not on the regime. Stanley Payne, the source you use, explains how Franco "cleverly submerged the Falange within an amorphous umbrella organization that included both fascists and traditional monarchists, the Falange Española Tradicionalista y de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional Sindicalista. Its leader was condemned to “impotence as a decorative part of Franco’s entourage." The domestication of the Falange made it easier for Franco to give his dictatorship the traditional form, with a minimum of fascist excitement, that was clearly his preference, certainly after 1942, and probably before".J Pratas (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. Plenty of our reliable sources discuss the fascist aspects of Franco's government, for instance the respected Greenwood publication of political scientist Paul H. Lewis's book Latin Fascist Elites: The Mussolini, Franco, and Salazar Regimes (ISBN 9780275978808), and the several books on the topic by historian Stanley G. Payne. Wikipedia follows top quality sources such as these. Binksternet (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  The sources don't support the claim. Paul Lewis never claims that Franco was fascist, Franco had to deal with fascism and the Falange but that does not make the man a fascist. Payne also does not claim that Franco was fascist. Finally Paul Preston, who oppenly hates Franco and spent his life studying Franco says “If people are looking for a quick and easy insult to those on the right, then fascist, is your go-to term,” he says. “If you’re asking an academic political theorist what constitutes a fascist then you’d have to say Franco isn’t.” Good quality academic sources say NO. J Pratas (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  Pyane says that there is no proof that Franco ever understood the fascist revolutionary project or that he ever decided to apply it. (Franco: A Personal and Political Biography). Payne portrays Franco as a military, without a clear ideology other than law, order and catholic tradition.

  I am not saying that there aren't some academic sources that claim that Franco was fascist but the top quality sources you are using are saying the opposite. J Pratas (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yes - Add to the above sources Robert O. Paxton's The Anatomy of Fascism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  Robert O. Paxton's The Anatomy of Fascism says NOT fascist. Paxton says that "the Iberian dictators Franco and Salazar reduced fascist parties to powerlessness....Franco’s regime did have a single party—the Falange—but without “parallel structures" it lacked autonomous power...The elimination of the Falange’s charismatic leader José Antonio Primo de Rivera at the beginning in the Civil War, as we recall from chapter 3, helped Franco to establish the preeminence of the established elites and the normative state. Thereafter he was able to exploit the multiplicity of extreme Right parties and the inexperience of José Antonio’s successor, Manuel Hedilla, to reduce fascist influence further. He cleverly submerged the Falange within an amorphous umbrella organization that included both fascists and traditional monarchists, the Falange Española Tradicionalista y de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional Sindicalista. Its leader was condemned to “impotence as a decorative part of Franco’s entourage." When Hedilla tried to reassert independent authority in April 1937, Franco had him arrested. The domestication of the Falange made it easier for Franco to give his dictatorship the traditional form, with a minimum of fascist excitement, that was clearly his preference, certainly after 1942, and probably before.J Pratas (talk) 09:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  Paxton also writes, summing up the range of scholarship on the subject, the Franco is "often considered fascist". (p.150). Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  That is not accurate. Paxton is not summing up the range of scholarship on the subject. What Paxton really says is that Franco is "often considered fascist" because he received military support from Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy", but then Paxton goes on explaining that this logic does not make much sense and explains why Franco is not fascist. J Pratas (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  He goes on to explain that Franco took the fascist Falangist party under his personal control, and then defanged them by not allowing them the kind of parallel structure that the Nazis had. That doesn't amount to not being fascist. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  And then Paxton says that "The domestication of the Falange made it easier for Franco to give his dictatorship the traditional form, with a minimum of fascist excitement, that was clearly his preference".--J Pratas (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  The issue here is that Paxton's definition of fascism is non-essentialist. He's not interested in categorizing Franco one way or the other. See especially the nuanced discussion on p. 217. Clearly Paxton sees fascism as a spectrum rather than a simple yes/no question, and Franco's regime as somewhere on that spectrum –– less fascist than Mussolini's but more fascist than Salazar's. So on balance, I'd say that I agree more with Beyond My Ken's analysis here. Importantly, Paxton notes on p. 149 that helping the Spanish Republicans defend themselves against Franco’s rebellion after July 1936 was the first and most emblematic antifascist crusade. While Franco did suppress and incorporate Spain's existing fascist party the Falange, so that it did not develop into a "parallel structure" with autonomous power, the Falange remained Spain's only legal political party throughout Franco's rule. Generalrelative (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. Clearly the thing can be argued either way, and the arguments deserve to be ventilated more than they yet are on wikipedia. Possibly in this article. And/or maybe here. But Yes. While he was alive Franco received a more favourable press from the commentariats and establishments in the US and in England than Mussolini and Hitler did simply because he had the sheer human decency to stay out of the war. (Sensible chap.) And later he took the precaution of living a long time, so that he was predeceased by most of his victims and even by their children. Others managed to emigrate and preferred to forget. Today, as others have pointed out here already, concepts of "Fascism" and "Nazism" grow ever more slippery: they carry an awful lot of baggage that has more to do with Trump and Johnson than with the fascists of the 1930s and 1940s. Thus historiography evolves and distorts to tell us so much more about our own age than about the subjects which too many mainstream scholars purport to describe and analyse. But of Francoist Spain, the extent of the unmarked graves and surviving folk-memories tell their own stories. Charles01 (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• No Most scholars --led by Payne and Preston --say that there are some minor fascist features, but overall not decisive. For example no aggressive foreign policy. Rjensen (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Yes Franco led a fascist regime, it is covered in numerous reliable academic sources [3]. There are too many apologists for a man that remained a brutal and ruthless dictator his entire life. WCM_email 12:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  The majority of the sources say NO. You are missing the point. The point is not if Franco was good or bad and it is not about being apologetic of Franco. Paul Preston hates Franco and said that Franco wasn’t a fascist … he was something much worse. But still not a fascist. J Pratas (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  Here's a 2021 statement of the consensus of historians: " Moradiellos underscores the limitations of fascism as an analytical framework for understanding the at once military, Catholic and traditionalist Francoist regime. Offering an overview of the different ways in which Francoism has been conceptualised over the years, from Linz’s ‘authoritarian’ thesis in the 1960s to the concept of a ‘fascistized’ regime more recently championed by Ismael Saz, Moradiellos concludes that ‘the dominant perception now that it was a military dictatorship first fascistized and then transformed into an essentially authoritarian regime, despite the fascistic features which remained until the end’." [ Stephanie Wright, "Out of the Ordinary: Confronting Paradox in the Historiography of Francoism." Contemporary European History 30.1 (2021): 136-146 quoting pp 137-6 regarding Enrique Moradiellos, Franco: Anatomy of a Dictator (London: I.B. Tauris, 2018).] Rjensen (talk) 12:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  I don' think most people deny that his regime distanced itself from fascism after World War II, it is noted however, that even after the war, his regime still maintained some fascist features, at the very least this means that Franco can be considered closer to the Fascist/Axis-aligned leaders of the 1930s and 1940s, than to, for example, a regular military dictator like Pinochet. -- 2804:248:f610:7400:b52e:a639:7cc8:c2df (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  the statement "Franco can be considered closer to the Fascist/Axis-aligned leaders of the 1930s and 1940s, than to, for example, a regular military dictator like Pinochet." is original research and not supported by a reliable source. Much more important were the differences: a) no aggressive foreign policy & no wars; b) strong role for Church; c) very strong role for army d) much weaker political party. e) Franco was invited to join UN (1955) -UN was the anti-Nazi organization. Franco elected to Security Council 1969-1970 term--impossible if considered a fascist. Rjensen (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  Rjensen: This is a survey of the opinions of editors, and not an article where OR and RS are applicable policies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  You only need to look at his regime's policies and characteristics to realize it, and your arguments are weak: a) Why does Fascism needs to have an aggressive foreign policy to begin with? Plus, Franco's regime did have expansionist intentions, one example is how it wanted to take Gibraltar back, also, during WWII, Spain occupied the Tangier and only left after the Allies forced it; b) Same can be said for other Fascist regimes such as the Ustase in Croatia; c) Fascist regimes are militaristic; d) This one I will concede, but it still had a political party which did play a role in the regime; e) Spain was banned from joining the UN because of it's ties to the Axis, and also foreign and domestic policy are not the same thing. -- 2804:248:f610:7400:b52e:a639:7cc8:c2df (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  Rjensen: I respect that you are a historian, but, come on, an invitation to the UN in 1955 was a geo-political decision, and had nothing whatsoever to do with whether Franco's Spain was considered fascist or not. By then the UN had moved far away from what it had started as -- a collection of the victors of WWII -- and was attempting to be a true world-wide deliberative body. Including Spain as a member made perfect sense. Can you cite any country that was denied membership in the UN because they were considered to be fascist? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  Spain was blocked from joining UN because of "fascist" issue in 1945--that issue was dropped by USA in 1950 and by UN in 1955 because the "fascist" allegation was no longer believed. Eisenhower went to Madrid in 1959 to emphasize US support for Franco. In true fascist states the Party ruled nearly everything & not the army --it was the reverse in Spain. And no wars and no aggressive foreign policy (Spain had wanted Gibraltar back for centuries and still does so it's not a fascist characteristic.) The point most historians make is the fascist features are small (eg youth organizations) while in major factors Spain did not resemble Germany or Italy of the 1930s. Rjensen (talk) 06:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  The issue was only dropped because the U.S. realized that Spain could've been a useful ally against the USSR in the Cold War, the Falange still did play a role in the regime, and again, Fascism doesn't need to have wars or aggressive foreign policy, and Gibraltar being a centuries-old claim doesn't disprove my point, Fascist expansionism in general is usually a continuation of older national ambitions, and the fascist features are not small, many of the regime's social and economic policies, as well as some of its institutions, were modeled after those of other fascist countries. -- 2804:248:f610:7400:b52e:a639:7cc8:c2df (talk) 06:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  Clearly in 1945, immediately post-war, things were very different then they were in the middle of the Cold War in 1950. The US government didn't change its mind about Spain joining the UN because they did a careful in-depth study of Franco's regime and decided that it wasn't fascist, they changed it because, as the IP above points out, they were building an anti-Soviet coalition and wanted Spain as an ally. This is the reason they cozied up to many right-wing authoritarian regimes or despots of many sorts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  It was Payne who said that "the hyperbole associated with “Europe's last surviving Fascist dictator” was remarkable". This catch phrase and all the UN thing was the work of Molotov and Soviet Propaganda. It has nothing to do with scholarly opinion and reliable sources.J Pratas (talk) 11:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yes See. Edit: PH Lewis's 2002 book categorizes Franco as a fascist. This 2021 article also reviews the debate and concludes that 'fascist' is an accurate label. Regarding Payne, his narrow definition of fascism has been criticized, i.e. at odds with the evidence he actually presents. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• Yes I believe there is enough research that support these statements, even though some have also disputed this claim. Some users have already made the point in this discussion, such as Fyunck(click) and BMK, so I agree with them. Whether to include this is up to the editors, academics have already given their point. --Vacant0 (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I cannot believe how many editors say that reliable sources call Franco fascist without providing any sources. In fact, the leading fascism scholars today say that Franco was not fascist. Franco combined fascist supporters with traditional reactionaries (this was Spain after all) and came to power with support from Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, although he refused to join them in WWII. Ángel Alcalde's article for example "argues that analysis and contextualization of the history of the Francoist veterans of the Spanish Civil War (1936–39) leads to an understanding of Franco’s dictatorship as a fascist regime typical of the late 1930s and early 1940s." But that's just an isolated opinion in an obscure paper. I am leaning to include however because although Franco was not fascist, there were fascist elements in his government. Inclusion in a fascist category or sidebar does not necessarily mean Franco was fascist, but that he is of interest to students of fascism. I am creating a discussion section in case anyone wants to reply to this. TFD (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• No-ish (weak no) - googling shows me a number of places saying ‘not really’, or that there is academic dispute. Mostly a Francoist or authoritarian nationalist who was friendly with fascist powers and adopted some aspects, and he wouldn’t hate the term. Commonly called fascist yes, but... In casual use fascism might be just a catchall or an opponents WP:LABEL and for categories I would prefer a clearer case than this. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• Big fat Yes to Category:Fascist rulers category. The features, necropolitics and enacted violence of the regime he ruled over have been WIDELY analyzed within (and embedded in) the comparative scope of generic European Fascism by quality sources in recent academia (I mean, it's already mentioned and sourced in the article). Indifferent to the other mentioned categories and inclined not to include vertical sidebars insofar they tend to wreck the article presentation as they often are a nuisance more than anything (not to say that topic sidebars are prone to haphazardness and are subject to less strict editorial control than articles: they are often controlled by fans, really). --Asqueladd (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Note: I now see that the disputed template is placed at the bottom of the article using full width, instead of vertically/laterally placed in the middle of the article so I give it that.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - Most non-Spanish scholars, avoid the classification of Franco and his regime as fascist. Stanley G. Payne (The Franco Regime, 1936–1975 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987)) Paul Preston (Franco: A Biography (London: HarperCollins, 1993), Christopher J. Ross (Spain 1812–2004, 2nd ed. (London: Arnold, 2004)) Howard Wiarda (The Transition to Democracy in Spain and Portugal (American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1989)), Margaret MacLeish Mott (Catholic Roots and Democratic Flowers: Political Systems in Spain and Portugal (Praeger Puiblishers)), Robert O. Paxton's (The Anatomy of Fascism) Roger Griffin [[4]], Ribeiro de Meneses (Franco and the Spanish Civil War [[5]], David Gilmour (The Transformation of Spain: From Franco to the Constitutional Monarchy, [[6]]) etc. On the other hand, many Spanish historians insist on the classification of Franco’s regime as fascist: Juan Marsal, Pensar bajo el Franquismo.J Pratas (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  Please note: JPratas removed the fascism sidebar and the fascist categories from the article while they were under discussion here, at a time from the raw !vote is in favor of keeping them, 11-3. I have reverted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  Please note: The Tags have been discussed many times in the talk page and they never got any consensus. They were some times reintroduced without discussion by a sneaky IP. But this tags have been out since September 2021, almost 5 months now. And since then they have been discussed with no consensus. The status quo ante is no tag. J Pratas (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  The article stays in the state it was in while the RfC is ongoing. As you can clearly see, the current sense of the RfC is to keep them in the article, so you cannot claim that there is no consensus, as the working consensus is in favor of them. Please do not remove them again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  Its poor form to make an edit like that whilst an RFC is ongoing, especially when the consensus is clear that they should stay. I will be reporting this to WP:ANI if it happens again. WCM_email 16:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yes per Binksternet, Beyond My Ken, Charles01, AugusteBlanqui, and my own comment above. Experts like Paxton see fascism as a spectrum rather than a simple either/or, and Franco's regime was definitively on that spectrum. Since the question here is whether the "Fascism" sidebar and "fascist" categories are appropriate, the answer is simply yes. Generalrelative (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  Here's another key quote, this one from Stanley Payne's comprehensive Fascism in Spain, 1923–1977: Franco was never a "core fascist" or a genuine Falangist, and never personally espoused or gave any priority to all the goals of the Falangists and their Twenty-Six Points, but his political orientation was definitely pro-fascist. As far as I'm aware, there is not much genuine controversy here, but rather the fact that real historians demand nuance in their discussion of historical figures. None of that nuance should be allowed to obscure the obvious and uncontroversial fact that Franco was a pro-fascist dictator. Anyone whose political orientation was definitely pro-fascist was in some very real sense a fascist. That's why he belongs in the category. Generalrelative (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yes per Generalrelative's upthread comment. CarringtonMist (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I know this has been dead for a few days, but I've thought about it and decided to change my vote to No. If categorizations are meant to be uncontroversial, it's probably best to err on the side of not including it. If there are concerns about whitewashing in the article, that can (and should) be addressed on its own. CarringtonMist (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• No. WP:CATPOV tells us Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial. This categorization is controversial, er the evidence presented by several editors that shows that this classification is disputed in mainstream sources, and thus it should not be applied here. I note that my own assumption would be that Franco was a fascist, but my own assumptions and beliefs are irrelevant here. BilledMammal (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment — Given the lack of source citations, I am adding a chart of some of the scholarly sources I am familiar with that might help clarify. On the one hand, his categorization as fascist does not seem uncontested, but on the other hand, he is inextricably linked to the rise of movement that was uncontroversially fascist, and as Paxton admits, many do consider him fascist. I am unsure where I fall as of yet.

Three scholars' opinions

Dylan John Riley: Y — As should be evident from the title, Riley examines Spain as one of the three case studies in his book about fascism. E.g. "Franco's rise within the Burgos junta, to the position of caudillo, or supreme leader, corresponded to a shift toward a more explicitly fascist model within nationalist Spain: consolidated in April of 1937 with the establishment of the FET-JONS single party. ... [He] thus rejected a purely personalistic dictatorship and adopted the fascist model of rule." (circa Kindle loc. 1490) (Riley, Dylan J. (2010). The Civic Foundations of Fascism in Europe: Italy, Spain, and Romania, 1870-1945. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 9781786635235.) Robert Paxton: N — Paxton has a narrower definition of fascism and points to Franco's sidelining of the Falange as evidence that he was right-authoritarian as opposed to full-blown fascist. "The Spanish dictator General Francisco Franco, for example, is often considered fascist because of his armed conquest of power in the Spanish Civil War with the overt aid of Mussolini and Hitler. ... After the terrible bloodletting of 1936–39, Franco wanted order and quiet; fascist dynamism fit badly with his reserved temperament. Franco's regime did have a single party—the Falange—but without 'parallel structures' it lacked autonomous power. ... The elimination of the Falange's charismatic leader José Antonio Primo de Rivera at the beginning of the Civil War ... helped Franco to establish the preeminence of the established elites and the normative state. Thereafter he was able to exploit the multiplicity of extreme Right parties and the inexperience of José Antonio's successor, Manuel Hedilla, to reduce fascist influence further." (Paxton, Robert O. (2004). The Anatomy of Fascism (1st ed.). New York: Knopf. ISBN 1400033918.) Stanley G. Payne — Depends. "Though Franco never fully adopted the entire core fascist revolutionary ideology, there is no question that he identified his regime politically with the fascist powers and considered himself not merely an associate but virtually an ally of the Axis."(326) Yet at the same time, "The National Movement that survived for more than three decades after the end of the world war is most accurately described as an increasingly postfascist partido unico. It kept one foot anchored in historic fascism, did not receive a fully postfascist program until 1958, and scarcely completed its full defascistization until the very last years of Franco's life, if then. Yet it had been forced by the unalterable consequences of world history to abandon any effort to realize a genuinely fascist program after 1943, and served merely the political and bureaucratic convenience of an aging dictator..." (478). (Payne, Stanley G. (1999). Fascism in Spain, 1923-1977. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 9780299165642.)

WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 02:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Just a comment on Payne's words, I don't think it is contradictory to consider his regime fascist, while at the same time recognizing that it did distance itself from fascism after World War II (albeit still maintaining some fascist characteristics and symbols). Perhaps it can be compared to what happened to some communist countries after the Cold War (e.g. China and Vietnam), which still maintain some elements and symbols of communism, but have adopted capitalistic economies, yet, for all purposes, those countries are labeled as "communist" here on Wikipedia. -- 2804:248:f606:8900:65fd:373d:4387:8d17 (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. China in 2022 calls itself Communist, and is totally run by its Communist Party today. Spain did not call itself Fascist, & the main party did not have full power (the army was superior to it) -- fascist leftovers were pretty minor. Rjensen (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Generic stand-in neutral title (feel free to replace with something equally neutral)

Too many reliable sources say Not-Fascit and categorizations should generally be uncontroversial

Paul Preston and Stanley Payne are the most proeminent Francos` biographers and say the following

• If people are looking for a quick and easy insult to those on the right, then fascist, is your go-to term...If you’re asking an academic political theorist what constitutes a fascist then you’d have to say Franco isn’t.
  — Paul Preston, Francisco Franco: is it accurate to call the Spanish dictator a fascist?, [[7]]

• He [Franco] has frequently been denounced as the general who led a Fascist coup d'état against a democratic republic, but this allegation is incorrect in every detail. The only accurate part of this claim is that he was a general...The hyperbole associated with. Europes last surviving Fascist dictator was remarkable.
  — Stanley G. Payne, Jesús Palacios, Franco: A Personal and Political Biography

• This does not mean that Franco was ever a generic fascist sensu strictu . More than twenty years after his death , Franco has still eluded precise definition save in the vague and general categories of "dictator" and "authoritarian"
  — Stanley G. Payne, Fascism in Spain, 1923–1977, p.476

They are not alone

• Franco was a dictator through accident and not through ambition. He thus lacked many of the attributes of those who spend much of their lives plotting to become dictators. He was no demagogue in need of cheering crowds and public adulation but a weak public speaker with a thin, high-pitched voice. Nor was he a thinker or ideologue, ready with some half-baked theory on how to galvanize the Spanish people. Whatever else he was, Franco was not a fascist. He was a devout, conservative, military man with a small and basic stock of highly reactionary ideas. It was these ideas, the product of a simplistic, catholic and extremely conservative interpretation of Spanish history, which became the guidelines tor the organization of franquista Spain.
  — David Gilmour, The transformation of Spain : from Franco to the constitutional monarchy

• First, it must be conceded that Franco was a very different sort of man from Hitler or Mussolini. They were first and foremost politicians, but he was pre-eminently a soldier… He was never a member of any political party, and thus there was no equivalent of the Nazis or the Fascists in Spain. The Falange, as we have seen, was the nearest Spain came to possessing a fascist party, but Franco took actions to limit its importance - and members of the Falange responded in 1940 with an assassination attempt
  — Robert Pearce, Fascism and Nazism, p.86

• Franco himself had few political ideas....Franco thus rejected a purely personalistic dictatorship and adopted the fascist model of rule...The FET-JONS attempt to establish a party fascist regime however was unsuccessful
  — Dylan Riley, The Civic Foundations of Fascism in Europe

• The domestication of the Falange made it easier for Franco to give his dictatorship the traditional form, with a minimum of fascist excitement, that was clearly his preference
  — Robert O. Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism

• Franco was not a fascist. There is an element of revolutionary politics in fascism, of wanting to provoke a dramatic change in society. That was not Franco’s intention: on the contrary, he wanted to preserve Spain from change… the debate as to whether Franco was a fascist is in many ways irrelevant, since the denial of Franco’s fascism has often been an essential part of attempts to legitimise his actions. The fact remains that his brutality matched or even exceeded that of Mussolin
  — Filipe Ribeiro De Meneses, Franco and the Spanish Civil War, Routledge 2001 p87

• Franco’s ideology (insofar as he had one) was different from that of Mussolini and Hitler
  — Steven C. Hause

• Franco was never a "core fascist" or a genuine Falangist, and never personally espoused or gave any priority to all the goals of the Falangists and their Twenty-Six Points, but his political orientation was definitely pro-fascist...This does not mean that Franco was ever a generic fascist sensu strictu . More than twenty years after his death , Franco has still eluded precise definition save in the vague and general categories of "dictator" and "authoritarian"...Thus scarcely any of the serious historians and analysis of Franco consider the Generalissimo to have been a core fascist
  — Roger Griffin, Matthew Feldman, Fascism: The 'fascist epoch, p98

And on Franco's Regime scholars say

• It is now increasingly rare to define Francoism as a truly fascist and totalitarian regime. The dominant perception now that it was a military dictatorship first fascistized and then transformed into an essentially authoritarian regime, despite the fascistic features which remained until the end’.
  — Enrique Moradiellos Enrique Moradiellos, Franco: Anatomy of a Dictator

• Since the development of a theoretical framework for the study of authoritarian regimes, and in particular the Francoist one, Spanish historiography has been immersed in a debate over issues of fascism versus authoritarianism
  — Ismael Saz Campos, Fascism, Fascistization and Developmentalism in Franco’s Dictatorship, Social History 29, no. 3 (2004): 342–57. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4287107.

• With their strong natural law traditions, the concepts of countervailing corporate group life, the competition of rival power contenders for power, and in the absence of any intense racial or ethnic persecution or of an all-powerful state or single party, the Iberic-Latin systems clearly do not fit Fascist and totalitarian molds either
  — Howard J. Wiarda, The Transition to Democracy in Spain and Portugal

• Whether Franco’s regime was actually fascist is contentious and subject to an ongoing debate. Most academic literature from the 1970s and 1980s, especially by non-Spanish scholars, avoided the classification of Franco and his regime as fascist, preferring instead the more benevolent term of ‘Francoism’ that did not invite direct comparisons with other fascist regimes of the early twentieth century. Stanley G. Payne, Paul Preston and Christopher J. Ross all focus on the ideological aspect of the Franco regime and point out that it was not ‘purely fascist’ and that it distanced itself from fascism due to international pressure. On the other hand, many Spanish historians from the late 1970s and through the 1980s insist on the classification of Franco’s regime as fascist.
  — Aleksandra Hadzelek, Spain’s ‘pact of silence’ and the Removal of Franco’s Statues, Published by ANU E Press. The Australian National University

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JPratas (talk • contribs)

"Franco thus rejected a purely personalistic dictatorship and adopted the fascist model of rule", that doesn't really support your point at all, and Hadzelek and Saz Campos are only mentioning that the label of "fascist" is controversial, something tat has been acknowledged many times here. -- 2804:248:f66c:7800:4df4:50ef:7a35:b671 (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:TONE and WP:BALANCE

Looking over this article I see some serious issues with WP:TONE and WP:BALANCE. It reads as almost hagiography in places, e.g. sentences like this: Franco himself certainly detested communism, but had no commitment to any ideology: his stand was motivated not by foreign fascism but by Spanish tradition and patriotism. Note too the problem of balance with regard to imagery, e.g. prominently displaying Franco's personal standard and coat of arms in the "Political repression" section. Are no images of his victims available? Generalrelative (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Hagiographic writing has been a problem for a while in this article. That detail about the personal standards is just the tip of the iceberg.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

It's very strange to have the coat of arms in that particular section. I would support that being moved to somewhere more appropriate in the article. CarringtonMist (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to note that JPratas is credited with 10% "authorship" of the article. Next up is Asqueladd with 6.9%. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)