Talk:Francisco Franco/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Opening comments

Just a hint: I'm a wikipedian raw newbie (but a proffessional wiki user) and because of this I apologize in advance if my procedure has been not correct or efficient. I have made a minor contribution to this entry (check the last version) --> about the volunteers who went to the Eastern Front against Russians. I have talked about some military professionals who were forced to go. I have no quotations nor written sources, but my uncle was one of them. He and a lot of his colleagues did not want to go, but Spanish Army right after the war was a black/white territory, and a bad move in the bad movement could cost a life.

No, Jiang. It isn't enough to put the name once if the one version is a complicated long one. You and I may be able to understand the structure of his name but not everyone would. Remember kids doing school projects may visit this page and it would be helpful to state the short name at the start of the page, with then the full name. Just using the long name alone is not user-friendly.

If he is known as Francisco Franco then that has to be stated clearly. Frankly if only one name could be used, that is the one that should be. Putting the long name name in bold italics in parentheses is the standard way to deal with the full name (or has become so lately) and is the best way visually to provide both forms of name, so I have reverted your change. lol FearÉIREANN 05:31 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It is given in the title of the page that this is indeed Francisco Franco. I think that is clear enough. It is the convention, except with European royalty where a title supercedes the name, to list the entire full name as the first thing in the article and only the entire full name. This is done for all American presidents, and others such as H. G. Wells and Carlos Salinas. I'll settle for the last edit by Mkweise, which reiterates the common name, yet stays consistent with all the other articles in stating the full name first. And please don't revert my entire edit when I have made other contributions besides the part you intend to do away with. --Jiang 05:45 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

1. Sorry if I reverted some other edits. They did not show up on my screen. (Wiki has done some strange things tonight. At one stage it would not let me move a page, then when I looked at the random pages I found it had moved it, but left the talk page orphaned!)

2. No it is not the case that this is the format only followed with European royalty. There are vast numbers of articles on people who have long versions and short versions of names. The previous format many of these used was to put a birth name down in the article in bold. That was proving unsightly and other options were discussed. One was that if the article already has two versions in (and this one had) to do as with royalty and put the full name - particularly where it was in a language and format that might not be easily understandable, ie, surname not at the end - in bold italics in parentheses. I was in fact the person who made the suggestion before going away for a few days. When I came back I found that a lot of people had begun changing at lot of articles to this format which everyone agreed was the most user-friendly format to use. A large number of articles have been put in this format by a large number of people and many new ones added in it. It is patently absurd not to use the common name as the opening words and that is how a large proportion of new users have been putting in articles. FearÉIREANN 06:07 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

points of view and facts

I removed the following two statements: the first because it violates the neutral point of view and the second because its factually inaccurate.

Franco soon gained a reputation as a meticulous and fearless officer 

What is the source of this statement, the official Franco biography? Unless someone can give a source that pre-dates Franco's rise to power I don't see a reason to include it.

Becoming the youngest general in any European army in 1926, 

Tukhachevsky was leading 100,000 soldiers into war at the age of 27 in 1920! In 1926, although he was a year younger than Franco, he was serving as chief of staff of the Red Army. -- 14:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tuka was Russian, that's not necisarilly European. I guess by "European", the author meant "Western european"? -Alex 23:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC).

A quick question (Secret police)

Under Franco's rule, was there a secret police force? If so, what was it called?

I don't remember one. The Guardia Civil (Spain), Dirección General de Seguridad, military courts, Falange, would be enough. --Error 23:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please don't confuse Guardia Civil (Spain) with a kind of secret police. It is just a police corp and existed long before Franco was born. Dirección General de Seguridad was the responsible for repression on political parties, including tortures.

The closest thing to a secret police force (Gestapo/KGB like) was the "Brigada Politico-Social" of the "Direccion General de Seguridad", the "sociales". It was the section of the plainclothes police which dealt with political crimes.
At least in the 60's and 70's their members were everything but "secret", on purpose. Also every armed forces branch, the various police corps, the Presidency of the Government, and, for a time, the Party had their own intelligence office, which could also engage on political surveillance. All in all, by the demise of Franco's regime most if not all the oppositional movement was heavily infiltrated (the best known example today is the "Lobo" affair, a mid 70's policeman infiltrated into ETA)--Wllacer 01:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I had added the NPOV tag because I consider that the article does not comply with the Wikipedia NPOV policy. As I understand it, it means that all points of view must be fairly described and that a particular point of view cannot be treated as if it were a proven fact. I want to make clear that I do not oppose the information included in the article (excluding some passages I consider are mistakes) but I consider it must be completed to be 100% valid.

The specific parts I believe are not neutral are the following:

  • "When miners in Asturias started a full scale rebellion a year later, it was Franco who ensured that colonial troops were sent to crush the uprising." I believe that the rebellion was intended to take place in all of Spain in order to overthrow the existing "democratic" government. A lot of important politicians took part in the plot and were arrested after it failed. Besides, in Catalonia there were also some incidents (although the rebels were defeated in 24 hours). It was not only the miners and not only in Asturias.
  • "Franco's government actively promoted this division between "victors" and "vanquished" while its incompetence did little to improve the economic situation." As you can imagine, there are a lot of alternative theories.

I believe the following is a mistake: "Franco is buried at Santa Cruz del Valle de los Caídos, [...]. Later, the Spanish Government of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero decided (2005) to convert the site in an homage to democracy." I believe the decision has not been made yet .

While I am sure you know what you're talking about, my first impression when I browsed by this page and saw the NPOV tag was that the page must have been hijacked by neo-Fascists or something. According to what you write, the problem is of a much less serious nature. Why not use some weaker version, such as factual inaccuracy? Jørgen 28 June 2005 20:25 (UTC)
First of all, thank you for your interests. I believe the NPOV tag is the most suitable here as the points I talked about in my previous edit are really existing theories to explain the History of Spain and Franco's life. I believed the article is not neutral because they are presented like proven facts not like theories. My aim including the tag was simply to warn other users of that. In fact, in my opinion the information included in the article (excluding some mistakes) must be preserved in future versions.
Unfortunately, I'm not an expert user so perhaps you are right as I do not know all the differences between the meaning of the NPOV tag and those used to identify factual inaccuracies. Hagiographer 29 June 2005 16:38 (UTC)
I am not an expert user either, not at all, I just wanted to mention my first impression as I dropped by this article while intending to learn more about the Spanish Civil War. I suggest that you remove the tag if you do not intend to improve the page soon, however, if you disagree, that's fine with me. Jørgen 29 June 2005 19:44 (UTC)
Indeed, the NPOV tag is overkill in this case. We're talking about pretty minor issues I think. Either do the changes yourself or remove the tag. Why does every political article in the Wikipedia have to have the NPOV tag? Javier 6 July 2005
Removed NPOV tag. Interestingly, the book that lead me to this subject (The Blind Man in Sevilla) is about a guy called Javier. OK, that was probably not interesting. Jørgen 11:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Franco and fascism

I removed Franco from Category:Fascists since he did not consider himself as such and people who call him that use it mostly as an insult. He was more of a conservative-authoritarian military leader, in the same way as Augusto Pinochet (who is also frequently accused of being fascist on loose grounds). /Jebur 3 July 2005 03:02 (UTC)

It is ironic that although Franco is considered to be a typical fascist and the fight against him to be an anti-fascist struggle, he wasn't a Fascist. NYCity Expat 01:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Somebody added December 10 on the head of the article the apelative fascist to Franco. I erased because as previous comments mark, even as a taxonomy term is debatable. Probably the same discussion could be applied to Oliveira Salazar and Engelbert Dollfuss. Anyhow it would make an interesting subtopic on the article --Wllacer 09:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, Franco was a nationalist, and the Republican army had mostly become Communist during the course of the war, so of course they are going to accuse him of being a fascist

Catalan language

The Catalan language was banned,

This could cause to think that Catalan was absolutely banned from 1936 to 1975. Either the article gets more precise or "banned" is toned down. --Error 01:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

As somebody seems to have put it again on the article, to make this discussion rest forever (I hope) some samples (remember that ALL the books published had to pass, at least before the 60's, a previous censure):
  • IIRC, the first book published in Catalan after the war was Elegies de Bierville from Carles Riba in 1942
  • Salvador Espriu published -in catalan- his first book after the war in 1946.
  • Editorial Destino (IIRC), had a line of catalan books from the late 40's onward
  • Editions 62 is named after the year it started to publish
Any of this samples, makes highly unlikely any general banning. It's true only spanish was allowed in the Public Administration (as it was before 1932), that they weren't taught at school -but on the university-, that the usage of the other spanish languages was publicly discouraged, and looked upon with suspicion (the link with the separatist threat was too obvious). Is also true that specially during the 40's some use spanish only campaigns were started, and that some provincial and local authorities, and teachers went too far, but a general ban AFAIK never happened --Wllacer 09:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
It would sure be nice if someone wanted to research exactly what restrictions existed. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Another interesting point would be the actual use in mass. The Catholic church kept alive the languages to reach the peasant population. The Tridentine Mass would be in Latin, of course, but from some certain year, Catalan, Galician or Basque sermons would be preached, I guess. --Error 00:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Good question. But there might be distorting factors. I remember having read eons ago that the bishopric of Tortosa already ordered to preach in spanish by the XVII century. It was a detail that struck me, but i never followed it--Wllacer 11:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

On 16-II-1939 a Franco's Decree states «queda prohibido el uso del catalán en calidad de segundo idioma».

"Between 1939 and 1975, during the dictatorship following the Civil War, Catalan was subject to intense and systematic persecution, especially until 1962. The publishing of books, newspapers and magazines, the sending of telegrams, and telephone conversations in Catalan were all banned. Films could only be shown in Castilian and stage productions were only put on in this language. Radio and television could only be broadcasted in Castilian. Government, notarial, legal and commercial documents were drawn up exclusively in Castilian and any written in Catalan were deemed null and void. Road and shop signs, advertising and in general all exterior images of the country were solely in Castilian.

Despite all this, Catalan continued to be the language spoken in families in Catalonia and the rest of the Catalanspeaking territories). During this time, many writers educated during the previous period, some of whom were in exile, produced works of great importance." Source: [[1]], from an official Generalitat site.

Certainly, some uses of catalan were accepted after some few years, but only in low-level issues, in order to constraint the language to a folklore status.(Note that after the war a number of people could not understand spanish language, mainly in rural areas). Finally, in the 60's, a litle aperture of the regime lets catalan publications begin a slow recovery. Catalan was not taught at school (nor at university, of course), and childreen were often punished if they talk in catalan (writings in catalan were not accepted until the 70's, I remember it very well).

You can see a detailed cronology of such a repression in [[2]], (in catalan). --Joan sense nick 03:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

On 16-II-1939 a Franco's Decree states «queda prohibido el uso del catalán en calidad de segundo idioma».

¿May i ask for more details? I've searched the BOE's historical database [3] and I coudn't locate any decree dated 16 february 1939--Wllacer 11:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

"Between 1939 and 1975, during the dictatorship following the Civil War, Catalan was subject to intense and systematic persecution, especially until 1962. The publishing of books, newspapers and magazines, the sending of telegrams, and telephone conversations in Catalan were all banned. Films could only be shown in Castilian and stage productions were only put on in this language. Radio and television could only be broadcasted in Castilian. Government, notarial, legal and commercial documents were drawn up exclusively in Castilian and any written in Catalan were deemed null and void. Road and shop signs, advertising and in general all exterior images of the country were solely in Castilian.

Despite all this, Catalan continued to be the language spoken in families in Catalonia and the rest of the Catalanspeaking territories). During this time, many writers educated during the previous period, some of whom were in exile, produced works of great importance." Source: [[4]], from an official Generalitat site.

Certainly, some uses of catalan were accepted after some few years, but only in low-level issues, in order to constraint the language to a folklore status.(Note that after the war a number of people could not understand spanish language, mainly in rural areas). Finally, in the 60's, a litle aperture of the regime lets catalan publications begin a slow recovery. Catalan was not taught at school (nor at university, of course)

  • BOE 26/IV/1958. Order to select a profesor for (inter alia) "filologia catalana"
  • BOE 28/VIII/1967 A full departament of "filologia catalana" is created at the university of Barcelona
Dates are from the second half, but the 1958 order mentions the place as "vacant" not as new creation.--Wllacer 11:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

, and childreen were often punished if they talk in catalan (writings in catalan were not accepted until the 70's, I remember it very well).

You can see a detailed cronology of such a repression in [[5]], (in catalan). --Joan sense nick 03:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Joan, NOBODY here is denying that the other spanish languages were repressed to a degree beyond it's mere disallowing in administrative life. I repeat NOBODY here. What I object it's putting the "were banned" clause. We strive for OBJECTIVITY. That's why I've come forward with counter-samples.
I want to propose you one thing. Why don't you try, to come forward with a list (dated if possible, in 40 years many things change) of restrictions on, for instance, catalan? Then we could validate it and compare -or look for help- with the situation in an equivalent country (a centralized country,f.i. France). The result would give the "specifity" on the francoist case, we could add to the article. The rest would be the general case of any minority language, and is of no interest in this particular context
If you (or some other) accept the challenge, please bear in mind a couple of things
  • Try to separte (but not exclude) the anecdotical from the normative. A sample (i read in one of the references you sent). Fining for a phone call in catalan is anecdotical. Systematically doing it isn't.
  • Try to distinguish between regulations from the central government and regulations from local (provincial) levels. Sometimes they had more playing ground that it's usually thought. An overzealous or a lenient officer can make a difference. A sample (not related to this, but just for show). Carnivals were banned by default, but, at least in Cadiz, survived disguised -barely- with the complicity of local and provincial authorities.
  • Don't take the levels of public usage of the language from 1932-1939, nor current, as a standard measure. They are in a sense exceptional.
--Wllacer 11:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I have created a skeleton at Language politics in Francoist Spain. I have great plans but got tired in the way. --Error 02:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I've linked your stub into the main article. Perhaps this way we can "fish" someone willing to complete it. Let's hope it does not become too controversial.
If nobody minds, I'll copy this thread there. It's the place where the discussion belongs
--Wllacer 08:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't edit my text. This is not use in wikipedia, and a great lack of politeness. I'm not in the mood to accept "challenges" if you can't have a discussion. I've repalced my original text.--Joan sense nick 15:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Besides this, certainly, the strongest repression against Catalan-language took place in the early years: 1939-1945. It was really strong: the final target was to suppress this language. When it was evident that it will not be easy to do, and when the international context changed, the dictatorship's repression energy decreased a little bit. --Joan sense nick 15:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

My mistake, i broke a long paragraph. I thought it made it more clear, addind subthreads in specific statements, as I've seen in a lot of places here. I beg sorry if my behavior worried you. I take note for the future
I'm open for discussion on this topic. Sometimes i'll not have the time or the resorces to answer, and i avoid entering in either personal or political discussion. I'm not challenging anyone here. I'm codeveloping with you. You wrote some statements, I put forward some data that contradict them, and wait your answer. Besides i put a plan of how i would research the matter, if I had the time to do it. I guess you're more interested than me on this, so this is why i proposed it to you. It was not a challenge but a research plan.--Wllacer
OOOps, i reread carefully my original answer to User:Joan sens nick, and in fact, I use the word challenge. It wasn't mean as an invitation to (dialectical) duel, but on the sense that the task is hard and complex, so that the task in itself is a challenge. Mine was a pretty forward translation of the common "si aceptas el reto de hacer...".
BTW. I'm extremely interested in locating what you refer as the decree of 16/II/1939. The chronology link you added -definitevely a most interesting source- is equally vage. It could be a smoking gun if located. I've tried a couple of combinations at the BOE site, to no avail.--Wllacer 08:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

If nobody objects, I'll copy the whole thread to talk:Language politics in Francoist Spain, deo volens, on Wednesday morning (CET).--Wllacer

Wllacer, I accept your reasons, no trouble. I just don't use to follow the discussions on opinions: WP is not a forum. I try, if possible, to provide useful links, in order to improve the contents of the articles. I tought the reference I gave ([[6]]) was reliable enough for the prestige of the historian that signs, and a similar point of view is given by Josep Benet. But this vague 19/02/1939 decree seems to resist to be found. I've also trying it in your useful BOE site link. I'll try in the "paper" book, if I can.

I'm not an historian, but probably this decree does not exist as a general law. If does, really it should be as famous as the "Nueva Planta" decree. In my opinion, the reason is that it was not necessary to forbid Catalan-language in a general law: the state of terror among war loosers, the brutal repression after the war (civil wars are the worst), were enough to discourage any public usage of this language. Somebody that insists in using it should be quickly suspicious of "unafection" and a strong candidate to have troubles (don't forget that, in Barcelona, there were some dozens of executions every week, for years). You can see the spirit of this language repression in a (not general) Order of 21/05/1938 (published 26/05/1938 in [7]). Note the paternalistic style.

By the way, your quotations on university "vacant" places... Can you imagine where this teachers were, from 1939 to 1958? See you in Language politics in Francoist Spain. --Joan sense nick 10:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, we're up to the same, only i tend to be a little more verbose, more "socratic" ;-). And with success. IMHO your second paragraph has hit the mark, and I subscribe it. Let's think how we can put it with a good wording in the new article. And there is still a long work to do --Wllacer 10:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed picture

File:Monumento Brigadas Internacionales en Universidad de Washington.jpg
Monument tribute in the University of Washington to the International Brigades, who defended in Spain the effective democratic order --emanated from the Constitution of the Spanish Republic-- against the attack of Mussolini, Franco and Hitler.

Removed since it is not very related to Franco or Spain under Franco. Besides, some Brigadists defended Stalinism. --Error 23:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


I would contend this is a rather sanitised view of Franco's rule on display here. There is no mention of the massacres he instituted on his road to power. And the paragraph beginning "The Republic's failure to satisfy Spanish expectations...." is defnitely biased.

Franco was a "strange" character he did both things that was considered good and evil and the basques and left wing in spain have tried to make him look worse then he was. (not that he was good)+ both the Republicans and Falange massacred people under the spanish civil war.


His death was much rejoiced across the world, and it truly signalled the end of the trinity of fascists: Hitler, Mussolini and Franco.

Was his death so really relevant? Was he so important as to be grouped with Hitler and Mussolini unlike Salazar or any of the Axis members? --Error 00:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I remember it been news -as it always is when a dictator dies peacefully after many years in power and transition is peaceful .... but I do not remember that rejoicing. Maybe among the communists, but that would be all. That sentence should be removed. --Anagnorisis 05:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree the US considered Franco a Friend at his death--Jack.Danish 23:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

If someone wants to follow up on this, I have a couple of suggestions, although much of this would better be handled at Spanish transition to democracy.
  1. Allard Lowenstein was in Spain during Franco's long deathwatch, and wrote a fascinating short piece about the reactions in different sectors of Spanish society; he was an American politician, who didn't write a lot (and was murdered by a crazy man only a few years later); there's a (rather small) book of his writings out there somewhere, this is in it.
  2. It would be a research project, but not a terribly difficult one, to see how different newspapers around the world reported his death. I can only speak for the coverage here in the U.S. Yes, he was on good terms with the U.S. government down to the end, but still a lot of the coverage here was "end of an era" coverage, and there definitely was a sense of "last of the fascist trinity". The television show Saturday Night Live had a running joke for the better part of a year of including in the "top news" of their satiric "newscast" the item "General Franco still dead". -- Jmabel | Talk 19:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


I have added:

The historian Ricardo de la Cierva says that on the 19th around 6 pm he was told that Franco had already died.

As a reference, I watched De la Cierva himself say so on Informe Semanal. --Error 00:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hitler on Franco

The following was removed:

(Hitler remarked that he'd rather "have two or three teeth pulled out" before trying to negotiate Franco's entry into the war again).

Is the quotation false? I have heard it elsewhere. --Error 00:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, [Error] The sentence appears also on S.G Payne's article about Franco in the "Britannica" (15th edition). If not real, seems widespread.--Wllacer 17:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I got some more info. The primary source seems to be Count Ciano's memories--Wllacer 18:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Soviet involvement

Nazi, Italian and Portuguese involvement is highlighted in the Military command section, but the Soviet contribution, which was amongst the largest (as is detailed in the specific article about the war and foreign involvement) is not mentioned.

It says that before the great war in 1940 if I'm correct the great war is WW1

Intro names and titles

His full name was Francisco Franco Bahamonde. That's it. That's what appears in all legal documents and that is how he was referred to by everybody. Never in his life did he use any other names. The rest of the Christian names *may* appear in his baptism but have no legal validity and were never used. Consult all legal documents, press citations, etc. and what you see is Francisco Franco Bahamonde and, therefore, that is what his name was for all intents and purposes. Not his abbreviated name but his full name. Any references to other ancestral family names or christian names should be relegated to a footnote as they are of little interest or relevancy. Citing it like it is now just serves to foster the mistaken stereotype that Spanish people use really long (many) names.

During his rule he was called as "El Caudillo de la Última Cruzada y de la Hispanidad, El Caudillo de la Guerra de Liberación contra el Comunismo y sus Cómplices" -- He was called this by who? This is nonsense and it ought to be removed. (alf - Madrid)

Franco was also referred to as "Miss Canary Islands, 1936" due to his "girlish" reluntance to involve himself in earlier rebellious plots. This was by fellow right-wing plotters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Obscure wording

"The Legion symbolically, if not materially, saved the Spanish enclave of Melilla": what can this possibly mean? - Jmabel | Talk 06:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The Disaster of Annual had collapsed the Army group which defended Melilla, and it was thought that the city, totally demoralized, was ripe to fall in the hands of Abd el Krim and his troops. The arrival of Franco's column (IIRC, June, 28th) and its three day march to position, seems to have been the key event which triggered the moral recovery of the city (and of its remaining military commanders) and allowed the reorganization of the defense positions. So, at least was how it was seen by contemporaneous accounts, and was the passport to Franco's entry in the Military Hall of Fame of that times.
It's hard to believe that only this move saved the city, but so it went into the public opinion, long before he became Chief of State. Thus the wording on the article. Wllacer 09:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

How about "Franco's Legion forces executed a gruelling three-day forced march to the Spanish enclave of Melilla. Their arrival restored morale there, and was credited at the time with saving the city"? - Jmabel | Talk 05:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Dictator, dictatorship

I am quite surprised to see that the word 'dictator', or 'dictatorship' seems to have been eluded, at least referring to Franco and his regimen. The only two times that 'dictator' is used, it refers to Hitler and Mussolini.

If you read List of dictators you read that Franco is 'often referred to as a dictator or caudillo', but it is not said that he was indeed a dictator. I think that Franco being a dictator is not under discussion.

Is there any reason for Franco not being referred as dictator in Wikipedia? Or have I misunderstood the terms?

It could be a terminological prevention. The term Dictadura (without qualifiers) in Spanish history has always been understood as Miguel Primo de Rivera's rule(1923-1930). And there is another factor. The term "Dictator" has been -in regards to Franco- so abused, that its usage is to be avoided if one wants to keep a NPOV. This done, i think it's evident he was one (he wasn't a ruler neither by right of birth nor of election)Wllacer 23:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand you. However, "Dictador", as in any other language of the latin branch, refers to the control of the state by one leader, usually from the military. In Spain at least 3 people have been called "Dictadores": Espartero, Primo de Rivera, and, of course, Franco. It is an statement you will hear even from his most persuaded worshippers.
Wllacer, I disagree. I am a Spaniard myself, and the term 'dictadura' (without qualifiers) is most often understood as a reference to Franco's regime (which lasted longer and is closer in tme). The phrase 'la dictadura de Franco' is very common. I don't think defining Franco as a dictator implies a NPOV problem. Dictator, according to the Oxford English dictionary, 'dictator' is:
1 a ruler who has complete power over a country, especially one who has gained it using military force
2 a person who behaves as if they have complete power over other people, and tells them what to do
and according to Webster's English dictionary:
1 a : a person granted absolute emergency power; especially : one appointed by the senate of ancient Rome b : one holding complete autocratic control c : one ruling absolutely and often oppressively
2 : one that dictates
If according to these neutral, objective definitions, Franco is not a dictator, I don't what is!

A belated answer: I confess not to use the term Dictator in regards to Franco is rather a protective measure. Objectively there is no question. Being etymologically pedant he was more a tyrant -in the greek sense- rather than a Dictator -in the roman one-. But the current usage of both words is unavoidabily linked with a derogatory sense.

If you had spent your youth devouring antifrancoist (by then forbidden) propaganda (as was my case) the appearance of the terms Dictator or Fascism without qualifiers or clear context more than twice in an article about Franco and his Regime (same with the words Alzamiento and Caudillo), would ring all the alarms about the objectivity of the writer.

IIRC Espartero was never a dictator, although his way to the Regency was not exactly "by the books". But that is so common in contemporaneous spanish history that is hardly news ... --Wllacer 11:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, compare with the article on Fidel Castro, a real dictator: He is a "revolutionary leader" ???, who called himself "Comandante" now becoming "coma...andante". Franco called himself "Caudillo" and he was a "miltary and political leader". The technical term that best describes his leadership is "autocrat" (see autocracy), not in the meaning of despot, tyrant, or dictator - as the "belated answer" prevents -, but something more akin to a lord protector "for his life" as Oliver Cromwell was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Altough I understand the technical point the unsigned above is making about sematics it misses the objective of the article. This is an English language article so caudillo may be acceptable in an article as a reference to local terminology but means nothing to english readers in a general sense. While terms like Lord protector are just blatantly inappropriate. While its possible to distinguish between degrees of dictatorship Franco was a dictator. 1) He was the sole commander/director of his countries actions. 2) He used force and brutal repression when necessary to retain power and 3) He banned opposition and removed legal basis of opposition. All are traits of other dictatorships in the same era ranging from Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini through to Horthy and Salazar. I think dictator is an entirely reasonable term to use? Kurtk60 (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Dictator is the only term to be used. Head of state already implies some kind of legitimacy and is thus not a good term to have a neutral point of view. He was technically a dictator, behaved as such (military power, coercion, censorship), and had all the attributes (military coup d'état etc): more information on wikipedia's dictator page.--Arnaud'Amiral'Montiel (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Head of State implies nothing at all. It simply means that he was the legal and recognized Head of State of Spain. It's not neutral to label his office as "Spanish Dictator" - articles such as Joseph Stalin's has his correct office listed, not "Soviet Dictator". Lt.Specht (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The controversy continues

Am including a small reference, plus link to the BBC original, to the following news item:

Franco guaranteed the maintenance of traditional values in Europe and we lack such statesmen today

Maciej Giertych, MEP, said: "Thanks to the Spanish army and Franco the communist attack on Catholic Spain was thwarted. The presence of such people in European politics as Franco guaranteed the maintenance of traditional values in Europe and we lack such statesmen today. Christian Europe is losing against atheistic socialists today and this has to change."

If he said that he knew nothing. It was the catholic church who has always attacked the people. The reaction of the people was just the natural consequence against the system. Anyway these words are just the fruit of his ignorance, they have no relevance for the article; it's just political propaganda.

Onofre Bouvila 04:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Onofre Bouvila or othewise Josep Vicent Saval, a Catalan Marxist academic claims anyone has the right to attack anyone. This speaks volume of the intellectual level of his viewpoints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KAFlood (talkcontribs) 19:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Not unlike you own words sir. As if terms like "the people" actual refer to anything even remotely meaningful. Take a look at what you mean by "the people" and you will see an amorphous group ranging from the most destitute to the unbelievably wealthy, from the moronic to humans of genus. Believing that such a group as "the people" can have anything in common with one another aside from their humanity is in itself ignorance. It is people like yourself sir, wording mindless platitudes such as "the people" to further who are attempting to further their own political ends. Perhaps you should be more clear for example instead of "the people" you could say non-catholics, socialists, communists, etc. Lets be clear, the counter-revolution of Franco, like all successful counter-revolutions, would never have succeeded if many of "the people" you claim rose up in mass against "the system" (a another absurd meaningless term) were not in supporters of the Second Republic.

The statement of Maciej Giertych speaks to a belief held by some in Spain and the rest of Europe. It also sheds light on why many argue the legacy of Franco. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 18 December 2006.

The above-mentioned paragraph didn't mention Giertych by name, but somehow I knew right away that it was him. I just want to emphasize that the guy is an extremist nutjob, and his party has about a 3% approval rating in Poland as I write this. The paragraph, as it currently stands, implies that admiration for Fascism is widespread, which is not the case. -- 03:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ferrol: contradiction

This article says "between 1938 and 1969 his hometown would be known officially as El Ferrol del Caudillo". Ferrol, A Coruña says "…was officially known as El Ferrol del Caudillo from 1938 to 1982." One of these is wrong. Neither is cited. - Jmabel | Talk 02:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Wayback to the rescue. --Error 16:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! By the way, its proper name is the Internet Archive. - Jmabel | Talk

López Ochoa

There is a request for a citation about López Ochoa's head being cut off & stuck on a pole in '36. I haven't readily found anything citable, but I have no reason to doubt [8]. It may be suggestive of research directions for anyone who wants to follow this up. - Jmabel | Talk 03:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can find something on this article [9] with a deeper insight in the Spanish version, and a wide scope on the beginning of the last Spanish civil war in the Angel Palomino's book "La guerra civil empezó en Asturias" (The Civil war began in Asturias) [10], with very impressive pictures.

Cult of personality

The following was cut some time in the last few months:

Since Franco's death, almost all the placenames named after him (most Spanish towns had a calle del Generalísimo) have been changed. This holds particularly true in the regions ruled by parties heir to the Republican side, while in other regions of central Spain rulers have preferred not to change such placenames, arguing they would rather “not stir the past”. Most statues or monuments of him have also been removed; in the capital, Madrid, the last one standing was removed in March 2005.

It was vague and uncited, so I'm not restoring it, but if someone can write something solid on the topic, I think it would make a good addition to the article. - Jmabel | Talk 03:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Plaque generalisimo.jpg
Plaque franco.jpg
We need some text to anchor plaque images from Commons. --Error 16:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Rise to Power

I've rewritten the section Rise to Power. The entire section was vaguely cited to the French translation of Hugh Thomas's The Spanish Civil War; no page citations were given, and there was quite a bit in the section that is not citable to Thomas (and quite a bit relevant in Thomas that was not in the section). I've rewritten with clear citations. There are several claims relative to Mola that I am sure are nowhere in Thomas, but that seemed important enough that if they are citable from elsewhere should certainly remain; I've marked them with {{cn}}. If no one can cite for these, they should probably be removed.

In general, a lot of the rest of this article has similar problems, but I only felt like working on the one section right now. There would be a lot of fertile ground for anyone who wants to do similar work. - Jmabel | Talk 06:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the reference to most people believing that Mola was assassinated, which, as far as I know, is not accurate. Perhaps he was killed, but that doesn't appear to be the belief of most historians. Aussiesta (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

About José Antonio Primo de rivera

In the section "rise to power" is quoted that JA Primo de Rivera was in prison in Madrid, but actually he was being held in a prison in Alicante. --Don severo 18:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm away from my books right now. If you are sure of that, feel free to change it. In any case, I'll look it up next week and cite for it. - Jmabel | Talk 16:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Unattributed opinion

From the article: "Because of the government's strong control of the economy, active government investment in private enterprise, and political ownership of the trade unions, Franco's Spanish State could be classified as "left" if it were not for Franco's distaste of Socialism and democracy." Oh, and his rampant and exclusive embrace of Catholicism, his friendly relations with Mussolini and Hitler, etc. But, above all, this opinion is attributed to no one. All it is is a rehash of the familiar fact that there are some resemblances between a basically fascist regime and state communism. And, actually, "active government investment in private enterprise" is not even something in common with state communism. In short, on the face of it this is superficial and misleading. It would make Imperial Japan "leftist", too. Unless this opinion can be attributed—and soon—it does not belong in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 16:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the above mentioned statement. It's simply absurd and doesn't have a citation. This article's tone is till generally Franco-apologist. It, along with the Falange article, have been stripped of discussion of Spain's level of fascism.--Bkwillwm 01:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
That statement was indeed absolute nonsense. Franco's regime stood for the antithesis of a leftist ideology ('sindicatos verticales', repression against communism, radical defense of Catholicism and traditional family values...).

Blanco, Hitler and Mussolini

Just some small factual stuff, in the section Spain After Franco, it is said that Adm. Blanco was killed by a car bomb, but he wasn't, the ETA had instead placed a bomb in a tunnel underneath the car and exploded it as Blanco drove on the street above.

Also, in the section Relationship with Hitler and Mussolini, it says: "While Franco ruled undemocratically, he seems to have reluctantly accepted that Spain would be a democracy after his death." This isn't true at all, the only reason Franco worked with the western democracies was because Spain was in dire need of the supplies they could provide for Spain's weak economy, and later on, during the 50's and 60's, it was because Franco's advisors realized the need for Spain to take place in the burgeoning international economy. Franco was a devout enemy of democracy, and thought throughout his entire life that it would lead to anarchy or communism.-Black Mage- 16:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

He was not democratic, which is in fact why it say he "ruled undemocratically" and he "reluctantly accepted that Spain would be a democracy after his death". Franco certainly wanted ideally to set up a permanent authoritarian monarchy, but towards the end of his rule (in the 70s) he observed many stable capitalist states in western Europe and accepted, reluctantly, that Spain would be the same. N-edits 12:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the above. He did not accept that Spain would become a democracy - he worked hard to try and secure his authoritarian legacy.

In fact, one of Franco's most famous phrases during his later years was 'está todo atado y bien atado' (everything is well under control), in direct reference to the continuation of his regime after his death. 17:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the Law forced King Juan Carlos I to swear respect to the Movimiento's premises if he wanted to rule. "Juro guardar lealtad a los principios fundacionales del Movimiento Nacional". After his rise to power, the king erased this law.

Question about his name

His name is given in the article as, "Franco Bahamonde": but was the correct form not, "Franco y Bahamonde"?
Flonto 15:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Somebody really needs to come back here, delete the fallicies and make a Franco entry proper. Without the sympathetic 'whitewash' the fans of his that obviously made these entries created.

Major POV problem

This article's quality is crippled with POVed subtle messages that labels Franco as 'right-wing' and/or that fascism is a right-wing ideology. Although this may perhaps be a popular understanding, these are highly challengeable statements, and the kind usually used by the left to discredit the right. In fact, authoritarianism and anarchism are antipodes where anarchism (absolute freedom) represents the far right. Franco did not believe much in anarchism... --Childhood's End 18:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe you are right in this at all. In fact I think you are completely reversing the terms. I also personally believe that if the article is biased it is biased in favor of Franco and not against him.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 20:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Childhoodsend, it is important to note that Franco himself was not a fascist, nor was his regime. Franco certainly sympathised with fascism, but he lacked the ideological base that would define his regime as one. Defining Franco as a fascist would be incorrect. 'Extreme-right' is probaby more accurate in this case. 15:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Childshoodsend, I also believe you are wrong. Anarchism and Communism are considered far-left, while Fascism is considered far-right. Therefore, Franco would be considered right wing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22 January 2009

This is a total misrepresentation and does not warrant an NPOV marker at all. By all accounts, anarchism is commonly classified as left wing (with the exception of so-called anarcho-capitalists, which are rejected by most anarchists) Historically, anarchists have often identified themselves as "libertarian socialists". And there cannot be a serious dispute about whether or not Franco's government is labeled "right-wing" on common political scales. It undoubtedly is. What else? --Johannes Rohr 03:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

As a point of information to find the meanings of words we look in a dictionary. The best and most comprehensive dictionary of the English language is the Oxford English Dictionary. It contains the following definition. Fascist - A person with right wing authoritarian views. Franco fits this definition. Neilj (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is a definition of Fascism, ... what's the difference between Louis XIV of France, Alexander the Great and Hitler. Please, let's be serious --Wllacer (User talk:Wllacer|talk]]) 00:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
A more formal answer would be, this definition would encompass the governments of Horthy, Pildusky, Primo, Oliveria, Dollfuss, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco (speaking only of people of the 20's and 30's). Only a very infantil usage of the term Fascism would suit all of them. Look in the archives, here and in other relevant artices, the issue has been discussed more than onceWllacer (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
One argument against Franco being a fascist, requiring that to be defined as one, fascists must have a following. Two ad hominem arguments: "Please, let's be serious", "infantil"(sic) and one is additionally self-referencing "this definition would encompass the governments of Horthy, Pildusky, Primo, Oliveria, Dollfuss, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco" (your definition of fascism is not correct because according to your definition, my definition of your definition indicates a flaw). I am not convinced. Anarchangel (talk) 08:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Nixon's statement re Franco

The statement illustrating the diplomatic alliance between the USA and Franco's regime on the basis of a common anti-communist policy has been deleted from the article. The editor claims that the source (Saturday Night Live) is not legitimate. SNL actually recorded his statement on November 22 1975 and aired it, so there is no real alternative for a source I am afraid: SNL _is_ is in fact the source. If the problem arises from citing a TV program as a bibliographic entry, perhaps an external link could be added, pointing at the SNL web page where the statement was transcribed ( 15:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Saturday Night Live is a comedy show. It is not an actual news report, and most of its "Weekend Update" coverage is fiction. Just looking at the transcript at the link used to cite the supposed Nixon quote shows several other, obviously fictional, stories from the same segment including:
"The top story tonight: The Senate Intelligence Committee has revealed that the CIA has been involved in no less than nine assassination plots against various foreign leaders. Commented President Ford upon reading the report, quote, 'Boy, I'm sure glad I'm not foreign.'"
"Ex-heavyweight champion Joe Louis, the Brown Bomber, proved he still has the fastest hands in the business by catching a live mortar round in mid-air."
The transcript describes screenshots used during the segment and no mention is made of a Nixon video. I also did a simple Google search of the supposed Nixon quote's text and found only mirror versions of this article and references to the SNL comedy skit. I'm deleting the quote because I can't find any evidence of this aside from SNL's skit. If you think this SNL transcript is valid source, I suggest that you add the fact that Joe Louis caught live mortar rounds to the Joe Louis article.
Even if the quote were real, I think it's being used in a POV manner. At the very least the wording "affirmed" should be removed since it implies that the quote reflects the truth rather than one person's opinion.--Bkwillwm 03:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bkwillwm. I can assure the quote _IS_ real. It was reported by the New York Times. This is the reference: New York Times "Nixon Asserts Franco Won Respect for Spain". November 21, 1975, Friday. Page 16. The article contains Nixon's exact words (which are as quoted by SNL). I am substituting the SNL reference (which some people may have an issue with) with the NYT quote, which is pretty irrefutable. 14:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for finding a valid reference for this quotation. I'm not sure it's the best place for it since it refers to Franco's death, and its placed in the middle of the narrative. I won't mess with the quote further though. If someone else feels like moving it, they can. I am changing the first part of the section though since the link takes you to a Nixon toast, not a eulogy.--Bkwillwm 03:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the quote is more relevant in its present location (as an illustration of the diplomatic alliance with USA) than it would be in the 'Franco's death' section. Spet1363 18:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Legitimacy of the 2nd Republic

The introduction mentions that one of the controversies surrounding Franco's regime is whether the 2nd Republic constituted a legitimate democracy. I am deleting this. There is no doubt about the democratic legitimacy of the 2nd Republic, insofar as the government had been legitimately elected. This is not open to argument. I am leaving the rest of the sentence (regarding extremism and anti-clerical violence), as that may have a more solid base. I have also deleted the suggestion that the 2nd Republic had become a communist regime. That is also out of question-- no communist regime has ever been in power in Spain. The most one could say is that the 2nd Republic had adopted an extreme-left position 17:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Tut tut. You come in here as an anonymous editor and make categoric statements and deletions of the work of others with no source materiéls to support your actions. The 2nd Republic, for instance, sent all of Spain's gold reserves to the Soviet Union, from whence they have never returned. The so-called "International Brigades" were co-ordinated by a Moscow-based organisation and consisted mostly of communists from numerous countries. Might I suggest you read The Revolt of the Masses by Jose Ortega y Gasset (English edition 1932), for starters. He was sometime a government minister and had much to say about the types of people attracted to the Republican cause in Spain. You might also get hold of a copy of Spanish Rehearsal by Sir Arnold Lunn (1937) which deals with the Civil War and its combatants, including details on the 2nd Republic's personnel. David Lauder 20:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Tut tut. How is that any indication that the government was communist? I am not expressing opinions, I am adhering to FACTS. The 2nd Republic 1. was decmocratically elected (there is little doubt about that), 2. was not a communist regime (there has never been a communist regime in Spain). As I said before, one could say the 2nd Republic adopted extremist positions and communist-sympathising policies, but that does not make the 2nd Republic communist. That is misleading and inaccurate, and needs to be addressed (regardless of personal creeds). By the way, I have read Ortega y Gasset's Revolt of the Masses (in Spanish, as I am a Spanish speaker). I found it a bit too reactionary and class-conscious for my taste. Anyway, back to the text, I have reverted the changes. I would be happy to reach consensus (e.g. by emphasising there was turmoil, religious violence, and assassinations). However, I would not be happy with leaving any suggestions that the 2nd Republic was a communist regime or that it was not a legitimately and democratically elected government, as that is simply inaccurate. 12:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Take a closer look at The Revolt of the Masses Ortega y Gasset was writing about the kinds of people that tend to support totalitarianism--both fascist and communist. He was not writing about the Second Republic. The Revolt of the Masses was published in Spain in 1930 and the Second Republic didn't even begin until the next year. Moreover, Ortega y Gasset was actually a member of the Second Republic: a member of parliament and civil governor of Madrid.--Bkwillwm 19:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


Some statements seem to use Pio Moa's books as source. This writer has admitted to be biased, in the spanish media, and has been discredited by the Principal of "Real Academia de la Historia" [[11]]

Pio Moa has been supported by some english speaking reputed historians [12], therefore Pio Moa is a legit source. Please sign your comments. Thank you. Randroide (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Franco and WWII

Copied from WP:RD/H for processing. --Ghirla-трёп- 22:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It was at one time the accepted wisdom that Francisco Franco played a very close game, pro-Axis for security and apperance, but always managing to stay free of lavish commitments to Hitler. This view has largely been exploded by the work of Paul Preston, though it still manages to cling on, I see, in the page Spain in World War II.

The important point about Franco is that he was Fascist only in the most superficial sense, and would never have been moved by appeals to soldarity alone from his fellow dictators. He also was deeply resentful of German attempts to take advantage of the massive indebtedness of Spain for aid given to the Nationalists during the Civil War. What he was, though, was a good old-fashioned opportunist, one who did not want to be left on the wings in a German dominated Europe. Above all, as a former Legionnaire and an 'Africanista', he had ambitions to create a new Spanish Empire in Africa, largely at the expense of the French. Recognising that Spain was too exhausted economically to risk prolonged conflict, he was ready to enter the war, so to say, at one minute before midnight. This was the whole basis of his dealings with Hitler in 1940.

For Franco the decisive minute came in June 1940 with the fall of France. According to Ramon Serrano Suner, soon to be Foreign Minister, the Spanish government was swept by a wave of 'pro-war enthusiasm', deepened by Mussolini's entry into the conflict on 10 June. On 19 June Franco offered to enter the war in return for French Morocco, part of Algeria, and an expnsion of Spanish Sahara and Equatorial Guinea, along with substantial economic and military aid. Hitler refused to make any such commitment. Though he was angered by this rebuff, Franco's faith in a German victory did not diminish, and he was still ready to enter the war that autumn. By this time Hitler, checked by the Battle of Britain, was beginning to turn towards a wider 'Mediterranean strategy' in which the Spanish had a part to play. However, in the end, the price demanded by Franco was too high, and the risk of Spanish involvement to wider German strategic considerations too great.

The face to face meeting between Hitler and Franco at Hendaye in October 1940 failed for one simple reason: Spanish demands in Africa could only be granted at the risk of a major reaction in the French colonial empire. At Hendaye Franco was told that "the great problem to be solved at the moment consisted in hindering the de Gaulle movement in French Africa from further expansion, and therby establishing in this way bases for England and America on the African coast." In private conversation with Serrano Suner Franco gave vent to his anger;

These people are intolerable; they want us to enter the war in return for nothing; we cannot trust them if they do not contract, in what we sign, to cede as of now the territories which as explained to them are our right; otherwise we will not enter the war now...After the victory, contrary to what they say, if they do not commit themselves formally now, they will give us nothing.

Franco stayed out of the war not because he was cautious. It was rather more basic: his greed had been frustrated. Clio the Muse 00:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Franco never was a fascist.He was a realist.If he declared to be against Hitler, in 1940, Spain would be invaded by nazi Germany, in the same week.If fact, there was just one conversation between Adolf Hitler and Franco.This conversation was in 1940 and after the conversation, Hitler decided not be with Francisco again.The caluny that Franco was a nazist or facist was a fraud invented by marxists, during World War II and even more preached, during Cold War.Francisco Franco was a pious catholic, not a mad pagan such as Hitler or Mussolini.Spain's neutrality was a thing praised by Winston Churchill and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.Agre22 (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)agre22

The nobility of Franco's motivations can be seen even earlier, in 1936, when he accepted the Luftwaffe's kind offer to drop bombs on the country he was intending to rule. Obviously a practical man, also, as seen by his decision to tarmac over all the cobbled streets in Seville so that the tanks could roll through more easily. But seriously, fraud by marxists? pious, not a mad pagan? Personally, I am dubious of the convention of naming governments after another government, namely, Mussolini's. While that convention exists, however, Franco adheres firmly to the definition of Fascism:

Anarchangel (talk) 08:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Agre22, you're making the point that Franco wasn't as keen on Hitler as is commonly said, not that he wasn't a fascist. Although there is no real commonly accepted definition of 'fascism' as far as I'm aware, it is broadly understood to mean an ethos whereby the government has a strong grip on society and does whatever it can to keep order and promote unity, even if that means disbanding personal freedom. It is undeniable that Franco did exactly this (repressing the Basque/Catalan identities, censuring the press etc.). He most definitely was a fascist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The article talks about Franco's demands for "food, military equipment, Gibraltar, French North Africa, Portugal, etc.". What is meant by "Portugal". I am unaware that he any territorial demands over Portugal? (Shippers (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC))

  • If I well remember, Spain sent soldiers to fight for US against Japan in the Philippines in 1944. Is it true? --Deguef (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Opus Dei?

The article mentions Opus Dei as Franco's ideology. There is no citation. If there is no evidence for this then it should be deleted. In fact Franco was not a member of Opus Dei and some members actually opposed Franco and were imprisoned while others did serve in the government. Overall a poor article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A mess

This article is a mess, from the unqualified use of the term "fascist" on. It needs substantial rewriting. Jaimehy (talk) 11:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A real mess indeed

This article is deporable. So many words for such a poor result.

"Francoism" lasted for almost forty years. From its start to its end, Spain, Spaniards, and Spanish society as a whole changed dramatically in any respect (demographics, education, religion, economy, culture, external relationships, class dynamics,...). And Franco's regime did so; even in its politics (... yes, politics).

Therefore characterize Spain under the 40 years of Franco dictatorship just by some (mostly anecdotal and/or irrelevant) of its features from the early forties is a real mess, indeed.

Just a little sample: Most towns were patrolled by pairs of Guardia Civil, a military police for civilians. As every Spaniard more than 40 years old know, this is a pure, and rather stupid, fable. And so on ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buron444 (talkcontribs) 10:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles requires

I want what English Wikipedia has two articles in Castilian Wikipedia (Spanish Wikipedia) considered feature articles there.

Thanks for all! and excuse me for my english. Thor8 (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(Un)Deletion in talk page December 14

I find totally inapropiate to delete comments in the talk page unless you are the author or there are objective, read legal, grounds (with no exception after discussion)

I disagree with the comment just deleted (and undeleted by me) but for the title and a few details. ATM I'm in no mood to refute it (but interested search for my signature in the archives and here). But I feel the user has ALL the right to expose its points --Wllacer (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Small details corrected, structure and vocabulary need cleanup

Regarding to the section Franco's death and funerals, I replaced "the new title of Prince of Spain" by "the new title of King of Spain". It is important to remark that although the position of Juan Carlos de Borbón before Franco's decision was of "Prince", Franco designated him as "King" of Spain.

Regarding to the section Franco's legacy, I changed the currency in which the family's estimated wealth was expressed. Since that fortune is currently existent, it is pointless to express it in Pesetas, currency that is not used anymore in Spain. I changed it to its equivalent in Euros. The next economic data, regarding to the pension to Franco's widow, was left as Pesetas because that pension was strictly at that time, when Pesetas were being used.

These are small details; however, the structure of the article needs a complete different shape. For instance, Juan Carlos's designation is mentioned in "Franco's Death and Funerals", when it has actually nothing to do with his death, and not even at the time of it.

Finally, the vocabulary of the article needs a strong cleanup. For example, in the section "The first months", the expression "Despite Franco having no money" appears to be more like a novel than an encyclopedic article.

--Antonio.bustamante (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Portrait for the infobox

An official portrait (like the one on the cover of Preston's biography) should be uploaded and placed in the infobox. Currently it contains a blurry 1969 photo cut from a newspaper just because Spanish Wiki has it readily available. A photo from civil war period wouldn't make harm either. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Righteous Among the Nations?!

Franco appeared listed in the "Righteous Among the Nations category" and in the list by country. As I didn't find an official list from Yed Vashem, the organism that regulates the award, I emailed them about this (I hope) good faith mistake, and I got this response from its Director, Irena Steinfeldt:

It is indeed a mistake. Francisco Franco was never recognized as Righteous Among the Nations.

We are presentely working on an upgraded website, where we will also put all the names of the Righteous recognized by Yad Vashem. Hopefully the site will be up within a couple of months. Thank you for informing us and for your interest. Irena Steinfeldt

Director, Righteous Among the Nations Department

Yad Vashem

P.O.B. 3477

91034 Jerusalem

Tel: 972-2-6443 521

Fax: 972-2-6443 743


So I'll delete him from the category.JorgeGT (talk) 12:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Film Clip: Franco with wife & daughter, addressing the people of the U.S.A.?

Back in the early 1980's I saw a black & white film clip of Franco, with his wife & daughter, addressing the people of the U.S.A., describing their family values etc. It was on a PBS show. I suspect it was made as part of the normalization of relations during the Eisenhower period. Does anyone have a reference for this film clip? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this one [13]? From the decorations (and the uniform) he wears, it was shot during the war. I a only remember one with the full family but spoken in Spanish (edited for propaganda purposes here [14], haven't found yet and unmanipulated copy-) and IIRCs it's only a little later (1942-43). Carmencita married in 1950.
Despite what current comentators say, Franco speaking in english (he is said to have studied it prior to the war), which until recently, say mid 60's, was a very minoritary foreing language here in Spain, was something remarkable then. Current spanish politicians don't fare that well if at all ;-) --Wllacer (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Political prisoners and the Valle de los Caidos

I've excised following sentence from the last contri

It was built by Republican prisoners of war under forced labour.

While it is a common propaganda topic that it was build by political prisoners, the reality has been thorougly studied and it wasn't ... almost. Perhaps some 1000 political prisoners worked there for the 20 years of building, and all of them in administrative posts and, in relative terms, exceptionaly good conditions. The rest was free labor (f.i. the father of late actor Paco Rabal).

For a quick review of the question, see an article of 2006 by noted journalist Victoria Prego here. (sadly in Spanish) Only a martian would ever accuse her of being a francoist, so don't expect such a bias.

Anyhow, for the doubtful ones, the Valle is carved out of a granit mountain, so it was built primarily by blasting. Would anyone use -if only for security reasons- for this task presumed untrustful convicts , with dynamite or the like within easy reach ? I wouldn't, for sure. Wllacer (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Current relations

I removed the following:

===Current Relations===
Francisco Franco's currently living distant relations are not sure of, but could be Mexican-American. There have been a few vague records of--although not known to be totally true-- a few families with the name of Franco moving to Mexico from Spain, and later to the USA during World War II.

It is vague, unreferenced and not very interesting. There are already unmentioned living descendants of Franco who at least appear in gossip magazines. --Error (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Unorthodox citation

The obelisk at Las Raíces is "cited" by linking the words Las Raíces to a photo of the (heavily grafittied) obelisk. For one thing, linking this way is not how we normally link references. For another, it's really hard to know that the photo is what it ostends to be. There isn't much online about this, in any case. Can anyone suggest a source for a good print citation? - Jmabel | Talk 06:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


Unlike the article on Chiang Kai-shek, the article on Franco makes no reference to him as Generalissimo. The NY times, Time Magazine, et al all use Generalissimo when referring to Franco. Any problem using that phrase in the article?--Work permit (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Use now or used it? Nowadays, in Spain using this word in regard to Franco is taboo (and, cum grano salis verging on felony). You'd get automatically labeled as a hard core francoist, if the term appears even once in a paper ...
More seriously, as I wrote before in this talk page; regarding the usage of the term 'dictator' for him, current spanish usage puts me, without a very careful redaction, on seeing both words regarding Franco, on NPOV "alarm mode". Besides a phrase stating that one of the most usual contemporany styles for him was Generalisiimo (de todos los Ejercitos); I'd refrain from using the term extensively --Wllacer (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I wasn't aware of the sensitivity, though I suspected there must have been a reason I didn't see it in the article. I'll leave it alone of course. I find it interesting that Generalissimo labels you a francoist. To my untrained ear the term seems derogatory.--Work permit (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The term Generalissimo hears itself like a tintinesque dictator's title, but in the case of Franco and Chiang was a more or less official title. While neutral to hostile sources used (in his lifetime) to use the plain appelation general Franco (in a somewhat demeaning, but uncompromising sense) to him, his supporters (and the official press) started emphasizing the form generalisimo (spanish spelling), and it stuck, and still is. For generational -and other- reasons it's becoming more uncommon, but the cliché stays.--Wllacer (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a fascist

I recently made an edit indicating, correctly, that contrary to a sometimes popular misconception Franco and Franco's Spain were not fascist. It was reverted and suggested that it is POV to say Franco's not fascist. To state that Franco was not a fascist is not POV. It is a fact of history and political science. It is the overwhelming consensus of scholars on the subject; Payne, the leading scholar on Spain and fascism, says as much. I provided two reliable sources to support this, Payne and Laqueur. The fact that he may have borrowed the trappings of Fascism is beside the point. Many interwar governments had policies and trappings in common with fascism, including the New Deal. It is fair to say Franco was authoritarian and a dictator, that he borrowed some of the trappings of fascism and that some of his supporters early on were fascist but going beyond that is not accurate. One distinction, is that he lacked in particular the revolutionary nature of fascism.

In support of this point, please see the following: “Twentieth century dictatorships may be detestable, but the are not necessarily fascist. Japan in the 1930s was not a Fascist country…nor was Spain under Franco.” Laqueur, Walter Fascism: Past, Present, Future p. 13 1996 Oxford University Press “Franco was not a fascist. There is an element of revolutionary politics in Fascism, of wanting to provoke dramatic change in society. That was not Franco’s intention…” De Menses, Filipe Ribeiro Franco and the Spanish Civil War, p. 87 Routledge “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…” Gilmour, David, The Transformation of Spain: From Franco to the Constitutional Monarchy, p. 7 1985 Quartet Books “The aftermath of the civil war made it clear that the new regime was not so much a revolutionary fascist state as a rightist authoritarian system flavored with fascist rhetoric.” Payne, Stanley Fascism in Spain, 1923-1977, p. 347 1999 Univ. of Wisconsin Press “This does not mean that Franco was ever a generic fascist sensu strictu. … scarcely any of the serious historians and analysts of Franco consider the generalissimo to have been a core fascist.” Payne, Stanley Fascism in Spain, 1923-1977, p. 476 1999 Univ. of Wisconsin Press I think this plainly and clearly supports the point, I am going to reinsert the edit with the additional, multiple citations. Mamalujo (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

As to the edit to the effect that scholar debate the extent to which he was a fascist, it is not accurate nor sourced. I don't believe any substantial number of reliable scholars say he was fascist. The overwhelming view is that he lacked certain essential elements. Mamalujo (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't really agree here--as I see it, when Payne says he is "not a core fascist" this means is is to a considerable extent a fascist, though not entirely orthodox.I tink that is the meaning otherwise--he was not a literal follower of Mussolini, but he fits within the general umbrella. DGG (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we're getting there. I read some of what I could find by Payne online and Griffiths, who seems well regarded as a fascism expert. It looks like there is some consensus that Franco's Spain differed from Italian Fascism and Nazism since it lacked the idea of establishing a revolutionary new order. I think it's important that mention this as the primary reason why Franco is not lumped with Italian Fascism and Nazism. Franco still adopted many other aspects of fascism including nationalism, militarism, authoritarianism, anti-liberalism, single party rule, and fascist symbolism and rhetoric. Also, Griffiths (101-105) discuses how, while he thinks Franco was definitely not fascist in his later years, in the 30s and 40s his categorization was not as clear. Griffiths cites several of Franco's speeches and interviews in this time period were Franco accepts the label "fascist," albeit hesitantly. I think these sections (I can provide more thorough cites.. doing more research) show that Franco obviously had some ties to fascism, both the movement and the ideology, but wasn't a "core fascist," focused on ideology.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

To Mamalujo:While on the scholary debate on Fascism you're probably right, that there is a certain consensus that to label Franco's regime as fascist (at least without a long list of qualifiers) is to stretch the definition of the term; is undoubtly that a number of current historians of Franco (starting from Preston) use the term unqualified. Whether it is honest believe, lack of precision in terminology, political bias or sheer bad scholarship, is up for each individual case to judge. At least in this area the debate is not closed, so the edit you were victim was not totally off the mark.

To Bkwillwm None of the phenomenons you cite - nationalism, militarism, authoritarianism, anti-liberalism, single party rule - are (alone or combined) essential to fascism. They all can be found (in varios degrees of blending) in spanish political history from 1808 onwards (cf. Carlism, which predates over hundred years any form of fascism).

In general, the though question of Franco's fascism (or his regime's) rest on its origins: Unlike Mussolini or Hitler, Franco was not an intellectual or/and effective leader of an articulated political movement who took over/wanted to take over a State: Franco was a -for spanish standards, apolitical- military who was put on command of an ideologically diffuse counterrevolutionary party on a civil war, and who was in the need (ex post facto) to articulate a government and an auxiliary ideology. For a number of reasons, the outward trappings selected were those of an (already sui generis, and actually headless) fascist movement: Falange. While there is little doubt that from 1957 onwards, little of substance was left of fascism, the 20 years before (and specially up to 1943 -the dismissal of Ramón Serrano Suñer would be the watershed-) the degree of permeation of true fascism in the regime behavior are rather more open to question .

Add to that that Franco (public speeches excluded, whose authorship is always dubious) never articulated his political views in writing (there is no equivalent to Mein Kampf, or even to Mussolini's articles); and (as of 2008) there is only ONE biography which makes use of Franco's personal papers (that of medievalist Luis Suarez, fairly simpathetic to him, and which some historians make a point NOT citing); the debate of Franco's own ideological stance will last for a long time Wllacer (talk) 09:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wllacer, I think we're pretty much in agreement. From what I've read, Franco wasn't much for ideology. However, he had clear connections and associations with fascism, most notably associating himself with Spain's fascist movement and allying with Nazis and Italian Fascists. The article shouldn't say that Franco was or wasn't fascist, the argument is mainly semantic anyway, but it should reflect his association with fascism. And it should discuss the post-WWII move of Franco's regime away from fascism.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there,

As Mamalujo says, there was very little fascism in Franco's Spain. As far as modern Spanish historians are concerned, Franco would not be counted as a fascist in the political sense of the word, not by a longshot. Franco used a fascist movement, the Falange, as a counterbalance to his other main allied faction, the Carlists. He played them against each other, and it is widely believed that he had an active part in the destruction of Primo de Rivera Jr.'s movement; and then he melded what was left together, in a master stroke of opportunism, which was his main ideology. He has been defined as "National Catholic", as a pun on "National Socialist".

From an encyclopedic point of view, I really think that not listing Franco as a fascist would be an important point. And believe me, I have no sympathies towards this guy.

Cheers! Dr Benway (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

For those interested in a recent (1999) scholary review of the "state of the question" about Franco's (regime) as Fascismus, (and in general about Franco's regime), I've found this interesting document El franquismo. Visiones y balances (sadly in Spanish only). I haven't read it all, but with some caveats (due to IMHO to the excesive ideological slant of most spanish contemporaneous historical production) it's worth a serious look for this article.

The question of Franco's Fascism is dealt on Chapter 1 (Totalitarismo, fascismo y franquismo: el pasado y el fin de las certidumbres después del comunismo ), and to summarize only those (including Paul Preston) which use a very broad (or militant) definition of the term, so define the Regime. Wllacer (talk) 10:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I just dropped by here for the first time in a while. I largely agree with Wllacer on the facts, though we may view those facts differently. Franco is in no small part called "fascist" because of who his allies were in the Spanish Civil War, because he took over the shell of the Falange and many of its trappings, and because many of his policies early on were rather fascistic, though less so as time went on. I personally have no doubt that if the Axis had won WWII he would have fit happily into a fascist Europe, and would gladly have become more fascistic rather than heading the direction he did, but whether through conviction or expedience, he ultimately moved toward a type of authoritarianism that was not specifically fascist. Still, anyone who looks at the Valle de los Caídos and doesn't see fascist tendencies is blind. - Jmabel | Talk 20:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Picture: Cuban soldiers goose stepping

User Bkwillwm wrote "Franco still adopted many other aspects of fascism including nationalism, militarism, authoritarianism, anti-liberalism, single party rule, and fascist symbolism and rhetoric".My two EuroCents Excuse me, sir, but under that definition solely, present day Cuba would also fall under that definition of "Fascism" Randroide (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Only Left Wing antichlerical actions mentioned in previous facts to 18th of July

It should be noted that the 18th of July coup d'état had to be delayed to the pointed date, because of several reasons, but the conspiration had been forged since at least 4 months in anticipation. In addition, fascist militias had already started to hit on worker movement leaders as well as on left wing politicians through murder and violence. I think it would be partial to cite only the left wing antichlericalism as the reason for Mola, Sanjurjo and Franco to rise in arms. Moreover, the profound changes promoted from the left wing during their ruling periods within the II Republic were the main reason for the conspiration, supported economically by several wealthy families and factic powers (such as the Catholic Church and others conservative groups). And that had been forged long before Calvo Sotelo's murder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Regent of the Kingdom

Franco wasn´t Regent of the Kingdom. Franco was only the Head of State and "Caudillo" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

¿When did Franco die?

I'm spaniard, and I've always been told that Franco died on 20 november; But lately someone (Mirandamir) is telling us that it happened on 19 November... What should I do?
Javitomad (...tell me...) 17:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Material deleted by ; restored by Anarchangel (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Mirandamir is a banned sockpuppet of a notorious Wiki vandal who has in the past gone by the names of Boxingwear/Vesa/Projects/Francos22/etc. You are safe to ignore him and his ramblings.MKil (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)MKil
Well, point is not who is who or i doubt above user is mixed with others, question deals with time of franco's death.

Material deleted by ; restored by Anarchangel (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The article talks about real/true time and death of francisco franco at 6 pm on November 19th 1975 as Randroide indicated! It's also possible he was removed from life support! But november 20th was important day to franco's government!

Material by ; signature added by Anarchangel (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC) I'd be careful who is calling whom vandal here, article clearly states francos died at 6pm november 19th 1975, it's ok to say november 19 as long as word or is included.

Franco died on November 19, 1975. It was keept at the same hospital room for mora than twenty four hours even though he was dead. The purpose was to extend his death date until November 20, not to make it coincide with Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera's death, but to dismiss rumors prior to his death that he was to die on Noberber 19, 1975. The rumors were based on the fact that if you added the day, moth and year of the begining of the Civil War with the day, month and year of the end of the civil war you got the date in which Franco was to die (November 19, 1975). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Reproduction / Motherhood

Summary of edit Dec 18: "It would be incorrect to say the Franquist regime, with its theocratic aspect, look at women for "reproduction" but rather motherhood. The former is far too clinical to convey the cultural differences"
Setting aside its merits, you have made the best case against your argument. 'Motherhood' in fact smoothes over potential "cultural differences". Although as I say, the case has some merits, among them is not that 'motherhood' would make a better distinction. Perhaps there is a 3rd alternative? I certainly hope so. Anarchangel (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


Bassett's theory that Franco was bribed by Churchill to be neutral is not consistent with the claims in the article that Franco was in some degree pro-German before 1943. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Jews under Franco's rule

No one pointed out in the article that during WWII Franco massively gave Spanish citizenship to the Jews who escaped from Nazi regime. Franco favored the most Sephardi Jews, in 1941 Spanish Ministry of Education even established Jewish magazine called Sepharad. --DumnyPolak (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Know Franco abolished the Falange in 40s But what happened then?

Know Gen.Franco abolished the Faligist OParty in 1940s. But what became of this party and its role in supportting Franco?Thanks1Andreisme (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Franco's Testicle

I added this info in his "Early Life" Section. Here is the link. (Gomes89 (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

Unbalanced article

Franco is portrayed in an unreasonably benevolent light, particularly in the introductory paragraph. There is no mention of several key aspects of his regime, such as the constant violations of human rights, the lack of freedom of press, the use of concentration camps in the early years of the regime, the implementation of forced labor in prisons throughout the country, the use of death penalty as a deterrent for his ideological enemies, etc. Currently the article seems to portray the character as "a strong right-wing leader who fought against communism" -- there is a lot that is being brushed under the carpet here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have incorporated the info above to the intro paragraph and removed the unbalanced tag. (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Funny, now it's illegal to talk about Franco, that sounds like a human rights violation and an unfree press to me yes? (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As noted by the tag above, this is not a debate forum, but just for the record it certainly isn't illegal to talk about Franco in Spain (far from it -- there is currently a huge debate in Spain about what to do with people in mass graves, whether to modify certain aspects of the amnesty that was applied during the transition to democracy, etc.). What is illegal is to brand pro-fascist and anti-democratic symbols in public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Why the painting and not a regular photo?

Why the ridiculuos gloryfying painting of Franco and not a regular Photography? Nunamiut (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted to the photography. I'd like to see the rationale and have a reasonable discussion on the justification for using a glorified image in preference above an actual photography. Nunamiut (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The photo is of very poor quality and the subject is barely visable (old age, hidden behind glasses and a hat), what is your evidence that it is "glorified"? If Mao can have a clear painting which is a higher quality, then so can Franco. - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I request that the photo stays and that the page becomes semi protected for a while until the vandalism subsides / vandals give up. Why we should use photos of actual historic persons instead of paintings gives itself. I support removing a Mao painting too, even though it is a more recognisable "icon" of modern politics than the Franco image. The Mao picture is a retouched photography by the way, and not a painting, but if you want to split hairs, go ahead. Much in the same way I do not need a glorified Nazi Hero portrait of Hitler on the Hitler page either. Besides, I think most europeans are aware of how many died during the Spanish civil war, and how many suffered during decades of fascist oppression. I take it some minimal form of decency and some respect for the victims is not yet forbidden, excluding or alien concepts on wikipedia. Yet. Hope this is clear and consise enough. I will not be discussing this. Make up your own mind and use common sense. Nunamiut (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the painting shd be replaced by a photo. The painting is clearly by a pro-Franco artist and does not constitute a neutral POV. Asteuartw (talk) 15:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The painting is not ideal as the lead image, which is primarily for purposes of identifying the subject, but I think it is useful for us to use it elsewhere in the article. It is an interesting example of propaganda art and it tells us a lot about how Franco wanted to be seen. We include images of Nazi and Soviet propaganda art in the appropriate articles for similar reasons. The readers are not idiots. They know that these things are to be studied and interpreted rather than taken at face value. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

About the simbols

"Today, pre-constitutional symbols from the Franco regime (such as the national flag with the Imperial Eagle) are banned by law in Spain."

All those symbols ARE NOT banned in Spain, theyre easy to see in many official places, shops, and people use all Franco's simbols in far right demostrations.

Eagle IS NOT an imperial eagle. Its from the Reyes Catolicos, St. Jhon Eagle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Please, let me build on this. These symbols are ABSOLUTELY LEGAL in Spain today. Unlike what happens currently in Germany with Nazi symbols, in Spain the symbols used during dictatorship were sidelined by political reasons but not at all banned. Today, in the Spanish Congress, the 1812 flag can be seen with the shield of Sant John ("the eagle") upon it. As it was mentioned before, it is the symbol of the Catholic Kings and has been a Spanish symbol for centuries, as it hapens also with the yoke and the arrows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Who Franco was fighting.

Hide discussion not related to improving the article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It states in the article that Franco was fighting the Communists and that is a very slanted way of looking at the conflict. Franco was fighting DEMOCRACY. Against a legally-elected government by and for the people. The fact that the Communists, Socialists, and even Anarchists joined in the fight to keep the elected government in power does not make that fight against them. Yes, they fought Franco too, but it was the people of Spain, who wanted to live in a democracy who were the real enemy of Franco. Indeed, if Franco had not enlisted the Catholic Church with threats that a democracy would redistribute Church money and give it to the people, he could not have won that war. He used the threat of Communism to further his own right-wing agenda, but that does not mean he was actually fighting Communism. Make no mistake, he was fighting Democracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marisagallego (talkcontribs) 14:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

NONESENSE. The Nationalists were fighting to stop the Catholic genocide that was being commited by the "progressives" who had violently seized power. Catholics from all over the world including the US went to Spain to overthrow its genocidal Stalinist government. "Free Spain", like every other "progressive" government also butchered its own leftist supporters. Read Orwell's "Homage To Catalonia" to find out the truth about the mass murderers who ran "Free Spain". (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The article says clearly that Franco's government was an authoritarian one and he gained power by fighting against liberal republicans (whom according to Franco, were freemasons) as well as the communists and the anarchists. Clearly not all people of Spain wanted to live in an anti-clerical "liberal" "democracy" (similar to Plutarco Elías Calles ran Mexico) but with the addition of fifth columnist Bolsheviks and anarchists as part of a coallition government. Otherwise there would not have been so many Spaniards who were willing to take up arms and fight for the nationalist Crusade in the Civil War. Wikipedia is not bias in favour of liberal democracy, its already very clear that Franco was against that system—the Spanish patriots took up arms and defeated communism and democracy in the same blow. Its for the reader to judge whether it was a good thing or bad. - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of "catholic genocides". It sounds as ridiculous as it sounds stupid. The ridiculous gloryfying dictator painting illustrating the article also makes the article look ridiculous and POV, so I guess it just adds to the ludicrousness of people trying to defend a fascist who murdered his people and stamped down a democratically elected government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You could find out about the Catholic genocide by the dictatorship of "Free Spain" very easily. Also the intermural murders that always seem to plaque a society taken over by these creatures. See Orwell who returned from "Free Spain" disgusted and wrote Animal Farm. (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have read Animal farm and I dont think you understand it properly. The animals might be Spain/any socialist nation, Napoleon the Pig is clearly Stalin who ushers in his dictatorship, but later on Napoleon the pig (Stalin) and his pigs sit at the table with the humans (the capitalists) and exploit the animals in the same way as the humans (capitalists) did before. Eric Blair (George Orwell) would have seen how the democratic-socialists of Spain had been left to die by Stalin, when stalin removed his support, did not send the weapons and ammunition they needed to defend the democratically elected republic. Stalin also helped the fascists in lots of other ways by removing stalinist troops and finally stealing the spanish gold by sending it off to russia for "safe-keeping". Stalin was no communist, but a pure dictator. Spains young democracy, and any chances of creating a nordic style or social-democracy disappeared forever. The Nordic countries today are the richest and best governed democracies in the world. Not something you can say for poor corrupt Spain. Nunamiut (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to remind everybody that this is not a general forum for discussing Franco. Please focus on discussing improvements to the article. Please avoid personal viewpoints and suggest reliable sources that we can use in the article. Unsourced hyperbolic assertions (e.g. "Catholic genocide") do not help. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

additional info on Franco

General Francisco Bahamonde Franco was not the most popular leader in Spain during the early 1930s. A man of humble origins, he had worked his way up the military ladder fighting colonial wars in Africa. He was hardly charismatic; Hitler once described meeting him as "Iess pleasurable than having four or five teeth pulled." But Franco, a staunch conservative, was infuriated when a Republican alliance of socialists, Marxists, and liberals won Spain's first free elections in 1936. So the General decided to "restore order" by force.

Franco's Nationalists were losing the civil war, but military support from Hitler, Mussolini, and the U. S. corporations that backed Hitler turned the tide in his favor. Italy and Germany sent 6,000 trucks to Franco's fascists, but 12,000 were supplied by Ford, General Motors and Studebaker. The U.S. claimed neutrality but didn't stop these companies from aiding Franco. The failure of the U.S. and other democratic nations to assist Spain's democratic government was ultimately responsible for Franco's victory in 1939, and, sadly, American volunteers who had fought for the Republic were branded "premature anti-fascists" and relentlessly persecuted during the U.S. anti-communist hysteria of the 1950s.

Under Franco, all political parties and labor unions were banned, books were burned, and dissenters were tortured and executed. Spain was ostracized by the international community, but the U.S. considered Franco a Cold War ally and sank millions into the country. After Franco's death in 1975, Spain became a democratic republic once again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

the POV tag

To the people who removed the POV tag. read the top tags on this page. "This is a controversial historical topic that may be disputed. Please read the talk page and discuss substantial changes there before making them. Please also consider the particular importance of using proper citations when adding information to highly controversial articles."Nunamiut (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This section under the subsection Spain under Franco has a few problems to say the least:

Although Franco and Spain under his rule adopted some trappings of fascism, he, and Spain under his rule, are not generally considered to be fascist; among the distinctions, fascism entails a revolutionary aim to transform society, where Franco and Franco's Spain did not seek to do so, and, to the contrary, although authoritarian, were conservative and traditional.[1][2][3][4][5] Stanley Payne, the preeminent conservative scholar on fascism and Spain notes: "scarcely any of the serious historians and analysts of Franco consider the generalissimo to be a core fascist".[4][6] The consistent points in Franco's long rule included above all authoritarianism, nationalism, the defense of Catholicism and the family, anti-Freemasonry, and anti-Communism.

Although right wing or conservative historians try to remove, sanitise or wash away the fascistic traits of the Franco rule it does not make it so. The entire point of these historians hinge upon Franco's rule somehow not being revolutionary enough, not wanting revolutionary change. This is not a credible definition of fascism in any serious institution, any conservative historians apologetic view of the fascist rule in Spain notwithstanding. Franco's regime had its _basis_ in the tightly knit cooperation and interrelation between the corporations and the state. They were funded by the corporate civil society both before during and after the war, they had fascist support left right and center, most of their supporters were called fascists by all the rest of europe, by their allies and by themselves. Not to mention the all too obvious and frequent use of the fascist insignia, the fasces, an it's prevalence within the state and regime.

Pretending that anything that does not strictly adhere to a (very limited) scholarly (?) version and definition of fascism is like saying that the terrain should be forced to match the map. Under such pretenses of sticking to strict definitions, communist China was never communist, and Stalinist soviet union was never communist either. We could go on forever. The fact remains that if Europe ever saw fascism, its prime examples were those of Italy, Spain and more probably than not a majority of historians would also include Portugal and elements of the Greek post war governments. The fascist elements of nazism and the nazi regime are too numerous and obvious to warrant extensive work or exposition here.

But again: The fact that all the rest of europe at the time and after the civil war considered them a fascist regime should be enough to wipe the apologists for the weasle attempt at somehow cleaning francos reputation bit by bit, starting with a kind of rewriting of history that one never allows or grants to any apologist of left leaning policies. I just find it plain dishonest as well as an all too obvious side of intellectually bankruptcy. Nunamiut (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Such rubbish. Franco was a Catholic not a fascist. The fascists were a small part of his (winning) coaltion. The Communist led government imposed a dictatorship and murdered all its opponents it could get its hands on. It crucified, burned or buried alive every nun, priest or monk it could get its hands on, closing every church in the country. They even turned on their fellow marxists and butchered them by the tens of thousands as Orwell elequently discusses in "Homage To Catalonia". The people of Spain rose up and threw out their Soviet-style masters, ending the Catholic genocide. La Passionaria put her red tail between her legs and ran off to Moscow, leaving behind thousand of poor peasant boys who bought into her Stalinist "paradise" and died on the battlefield. Also, someone keeps posting that today Spain is a "democratic republic" when it is really a MONARCHY imposed by Franco and the winners very much against the wishes of La Passionaria and her murderous crew. (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. It is always nice to hear from people with strong opinions and a powerful writing style. Unfortunately, we are trying to write an encyclopaedia here and we are more interested in facts, proven by their inclusion in reliable sources, than hyperbolic assertions. What you say has no bearing on whether Franco was actually a true Fascist or merely a pro-Fascist ultra-conservative. This is a matter of genuine historical controversy with respectable historians on both sides. Our job as Wikipedians is to present an accurate overview of thinking on this subject. Not to argue the points among ourselves. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Last edit

The genealogie are deductive.--Giacomuzzo (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I have no idea what you intend to mean. Maybe there is some other language in which you could say this & be clearer? - Jmabel | Talk 05:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


It's much too long now and much too detailed - it's longer that most WP articles. I imagine random readers have inserted their tuppence at the start. It needs whittling. Spanglej (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I've tightened it considerably; it should now fit roughly on one screen of a typical display. - Jmabel | Talk 06:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I tried, but someone seems to have promptly undone most of my work. I have no idea why anyone thinks that things like an unfulfilled intention to go into the navy or a list of individual prison camps belong in the lede, but apparently they do, and I'm not going to fight over it. - Jmabel | Talk 22:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jmabel. I vote to remove it to make the article more readable. Have a subsection link (to separate page) called "Franco - a personal biography" / "Franco youth/early years" or something if you all want to include every single personal detail from his life. Nunamiut (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism fixed

I know i am just a anonymous peasant here, so I apologize if this is the wrong section, but I noticed some vandalism about goat testes and removed it, I hope this was correct protocol. (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Anonymous Peasant.

  • You did that correctly. On the other hand, when starting a new topic on the talk page, put it at the bottom, which is where I moved your remark. - Jmabel | Talk 05:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I also am new to this, but noticed that the first sentence of the article had a unhelpful insulting name applied to Franco.Medman1963 (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Economic policy section re-tagged

Removed three CN tags that were both stale and of dubious value as they were attached to things like "Spain now only lags slightly behind the economies of Britain, Ireland,[citation needed] France and Germany, and has now overtaken Italy in some respects.[citation needed]" I'd be the first to say that the areas thus tagged may have had some NPOV issues but the arbitrary nature of the CN placement led to a distraction in what narrative existed and added no value. That said, I think the whole section is muddy so I added the section-cleanup tag in its place to hopefully attract the sort of useful attention CN so often does not.[citation needed] gloin (talk) 10:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

POV in the Intro

This article tends to oscillate between POVs of Franco. I made an edit to the intro because it seemed generally seemed slanted to an apologist's perspective. My edit had four parts. The first, and most needed, concerned the causes of the civil war. Before the edit, the section only mentioned anti-clerical violence and the assassination of Calvo as events leading up to the civil war. While both were part of the run up to the war, they were part of a larger cycle of violence between both the right and left, and my edit was intended to more accurately and impartially reflect that. Yorkshirian undid this part of the edit. Yorkshirian seemed particularly concerned about reinserting the specific reference to anti-clerical violence apparently cited by Blinkhorn. Obviously anti-clerical violence occurred in the run up to (and during) the war, but it is POV to focus on it as an implied cause of the war, especially to the exclusion of references to right wing violence. I don't have a problem including anti-clerical violence, but it needs to be couched better both in terms of POV policy and English. It would also be good to know what exactly we're citing in Blinkhorn.

The second section of my edit involved the Blue Division. The article had stated that Franco "allowed" the Blue Division to fight for the Axis, but I think it's pretty clear in the historical record that Franco actively support the Blue Division. So far no one has contested this part of the edit.

The third section, on the Cold War and a quote from Nixon, was removed by Glorian. This section was inaccurate because it over represented the relationship between the US and Spain during the Cold War. They did provide assistance to one another but they were not formal or close allies. Second, I don't see the need for Nixon's quote to be in the introduction. Introduction's are supposed to be high level overviews and generally should not include quotations, especially one's that are not particularly consequential. Franco is not particularly well known for his relationship to the United States and there are already several sentences discussing this relationship in the intro. Basically, it is undue weight. I don't have problem moving the quote down to the Cold War or Death section, but I don't think it helps the introduction at all.

Finally, I added a section on Franco's current legacy status in Spain. This section reflects what already was in the article, and I think it's appropriate to mention the Law on Historical Memory in intro section. Glorian removed the section but did not give a reason why.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sentence removed from lead

"During his almost forty year reign, Franco's governance went through various phases, although the most common ideological features present throughout included fascism, a strong sense of Spanish nationalism and protection of the country's territorial integrity, Catholicism, anti-communism, anti-masonry and traditional values" was allegedly sourced to A History of Us: War, Peace and all that Jazz. I've not seen the 1995 edition but I doubt it's any different to the third edition which is viewable online and only contains the following sentence about Franco - "In Spain, a strongman named Francisco Franco muscled his way to power, although many Spaniards (and other Europeans, and some Americans too) fought against him". The content of the sentence is very similar to the POV pushing by banned editor Yorkshirian (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) who is well known for fabricating sources and who I see has been editing this article, although it has been in there for quite a long time so it may have been added by one of his block evasing socks during his one year ban by ArbCom, which has since been replaced by a permanent community ban. 2 lines of K303 13:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Dubious claim

After periods of rapid growth during the late 1980s and late 1990s, Spain now only lags slightly behind the economies of Britain, Ireland, France and Germany, and is now close to that of Italy's.

I would have said that the Spanish economy does not lag behind that or Ireland, on the contrary I would say it is someway ahead. Also Ireland's economic troubles have to some degree mirrored Spain's, with troughs often being at similar times, the exception perhaps being the economic stagnation in Spain in the 1940s which was matched by an improved time in Ireland as many Irish men went to work in British munitions factories and returned money home.Mtaylor848 (talk) 07:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is ridiculous. The state of the Spanish economy of the 1980s and 1990s has no place in an article about about a regime that ended in 1975. How the Spanish economy of the 1980s and 90s might have been affected by earlier policies belongs in the "Economic History of Spain", not here! (Economists will be arguing about it forever anyway: for all they know...)Provocateur (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Grateful citizens

I realise someone has already marked it as needing a citation, but this sentence should not remain without a citation and some work:

"The relative economic success of this period created a considerable group of grateful citizens, who found the increase in everyday standard of living more significant than any human rights abuses"

Apart from anything else, "considerable" is a weasel word. At first glance, and in the context of a fairly positive paragraph about the effects of Franco's rule, the sentence could suggest a majority of Spaniards approved of Franco. On the other hand, 500 people might also be considered "considerable". It's a word that means nothing without clarification, yet it is given enornous weight as it is used in summing up the first paragraph on Franco's legacy. Hobson (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


I think we should have a better picture of him in the infobox. What do you think? Spongie555 (talk) 06:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Terrible Article

This article is terrible, a biased apology for a bloody dictator.

  • The lack of clearly defining Franco as a dictator, as mentioned by an earlier poster.
  • The repeated, unsourced, justification of Franco's illegal coup of an elected government (under the heading "Nature of government overthrown by Franco"). The author is a blatant apologist. I would be interested to read the rational of the mentality which says: democracy is good, unless people elect someone too left-wing in which case it's fine to have a bloody coup and a dictator (ala Pinochet in Chile, backed by the CIA).
  • The repeated mention of anti-clericalism without referring to the fact that the Catholic Church assisted and worked with fascists in Europe before, during, and after WWII.
  • "The shooting of thousands of opponents during the civil war and in the early years after is a source of controversy". It's controversial because people in Spain are still finding their relatives buried in mass graves with bullet holes in the back of the skull. "a notable negative point on Franco's record" - makes it sound like he got a D- in math at school.
  • "From early 1937, every death sentence had to be signed (or acknowledged) by Franco. However, this does not mean that he had intimate or complete knowledge of every official execution.". Oh, so that's ok then.

If this author were to write about Hitler, I'd imagine they'd write something like "Bit of a bad egg, but he was nice to children and animals."

This article needs to be totally rewritten, by someone who can be objective as possible, using proper sources and analysis. 09:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, this is practically a humorous article, lets review just the beginning of it, shall we?:

-"General Francisco Paulino Hermenegildo Teódulo Franco Bahamonde (4 December 1892 - November 20, [1] 1975), commonly abbreviated to Francisco Franco (pron. IPA: [fɾan'θisko 'fɾaŋko]) or Francisco Franco Bahamonde, and also known as Caudillo or Generalísimo". I specially LOVE the part in which they say the nicknames that the supporters of Franco used to call him, some people used and still calls him a dictator (no trace of that here). If we are at it, why dont we keep digging for those nicknames, im sure his mom called him something, maybe his girlfriend called him pookie, who knows.

-"was the leader and later formal head of state of Spain from October 1936, and of all of Spain from 1939 until his death in 1975.". Still the words "dictator" or "dictatorship" fail to arise, instead we are using the more neutral word "leader", which says as much as to say that Franco was a human being.

-"In February, 1936, the left-wing Popular Front won the general election and formed a government" no way!, thats what you do after you win an election??

-"Anti-clerical violence against the Church by left wing militants further raised tensions". Yes, because that wasnt in a great deal part of the right wing propaganda; causes of the war: they was killing priests!. Of course the rightist extremists were saints here (not killing priest might do the trick here)

-After the assassination of a major opposition figure, José Calvo Sotelo by a commando unit of the Assault Guards in July 1936, Franco participated in a coup d'etat against the legitimately elected Popular Front governmen No word about the death of Castillo?, the article has a fixation on making it all seem like no harm came from the right wing, because indeed, isnt the generalisimo the saviour of spain from the communist hordes? (the demonic priest killers!).

-"After winning the civil war, he dissolved the Spanish Parliament, establishing an authoritarian regime that lasted until 1978, when a new constitution was drafted" This horrible part of spanish history seems to be a huge "scene missing" here, Franco just happends to win the war just like that, no mention of the mayor atrocities commited by the nationalists (maybe because they didnt killed priests?, just a guess). His "authoritarian" (could that be a sight of the word dictatorship appearing somewhere?) rule didnt quite end in 1978, as Franco handpicked his succesor and continued to keep Spain under the same dictatorship (a brief succesor if we may add).

-"From 1947 and until his death he was de facto regent of Spain, which he ruled as a dictator, repressing dissident opinions through institutionalised torture, concentration camps (such as Los Merinales in Seville, San Marcos in León, Castuera [2] in Extremadura, and the Camp of Miranda de Ebro), heavy prison sentences, and the application of the death penalty against criminals and political opponents. After his death Spain began a transition to democracy. Pre-constitutional symbols from the Franco regime (such as the national flag with the Imperial Eagle) are banned by law" Wow, finnally a semi objective view, but its almost like if the whole "leftist" side of history was thrown all at once right in the end... because we all know how important is to place Franco's nicknames at the beginning, dont we?. The article continues with heavily polarized opinnions, yet no consensus whatsoever. Not since the Pinochet article has an article been so full of both liberal haters and conservative amateur-facists that just cant get along.

The only reason Franco has not been condemned as a horrible semi-human being, is because he fought communists (the ultimate evil that lives under your bed [AKA Cuba]). I demand a little bit of respect for my slain political sympathizers. I feel that I must also add, that a dictator is not an autocrat (one who rules alone with absolute power) A dictator is only someone who has absolute power. This means that, although he has advisers, he could say any day that he wants- "kill this man," and it would be done. If we wish to go by a dictator being someone who rules alone, we can certainly say that Hitler was not the dictator of Nazi Germany, but his preferred title of Father of Germany. (If you wish to say that Hitler ruled without advisers you are an idiot, I'm sorry to say).- Comrade B.

I think whether you decide if he's a dictator or not is to ask the following question. "Would You Have Liked To Live In Franco's Spain?" YES or NO. The question takes on special signifigance if you are a woman. The same question could be asked about the guy running North Korea now, Kim Jong Ill or whatever his name is. The question would be the same, "Would you like to live in North Korea now, under the present government? YES or NO. I believe if you circled the "no" answer, then the guy for all practicle purposes, is a dictator. Most people choose not to live underneath dictators when given a choice. Witness loads of people coming to the U.S. illegally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ Laqueur, Walter Fascism: Past, Present, Future p. 13 1996 Oxford University Press
  2. ^ De Menses, Filipe Ribeiro Franco and the Spanish Civil War, p. 87, Routledge
  3. ^ Gilmour, David, The Transformation of Spain: From Franco to the Constitutional Monarchy, p. 7 1985 Quartet Books
  4. ^ a b Payne, Stanley Fascism in Spain, 1923–1977, p. 476 1999 University of Wisconsin Press
  5. ^ Payne, Stanley Fascism in Spain, 1923–1977, p. 347, 476 1999 Univ. of Wisconsin Press
  6. ^ Laqueur, Walter Fascism: Past, Present, Future, p. 13, 1997 Oxford University Press US