Talk:Francisco Franco/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

What do the sources say on Franco being, or not being a Fascist

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

• If people are looking for a quick and easy insult to those on the right, then fascist, is your go-to term...If you’re asking an academic political theorist what constitutes a fascist then you’d have to say Franco isn’t.
  — Paul Preston, Francisco Franco: is it accurate to call the Spanish dictator a fascist?, [[1]]

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

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

• The predominant ethos of nationalist Spain was thus primarly rightist, traditionalist and religious, rather than fascist in the strict sense...Franco was essentially a right wing nationalist authoritarian and cultural traditionalist who had little empathy for the most and distinctively fascist aspects of Falangist culture and doctrine"
  — Stanley G. Payne, Spanish Fascism, Salmagundi No. 76/77 (Fall 1987-Winter 1988), pp. 101-112 (12 pages) Published by: Skidmore College

  J Pratas (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• [Franco] possessed a fundamental set of beliefs that changed very little during his life-time. He believed in nationalism, central unity, Catholicism, strong authoritive government without political parties, and a programme of modern economic development determined by political and nationalistic priorities, with social reform a secondary byproduct of economic growth...He was fundamentally monarchist in political principles , though he was also tempted by some of the more radical ambitions of fascism before 1943, temptations to which he never fully succumbed
  — Stanley G. Payne, The Franco Regime, 1936-75

• Aside from the crucial conservation of personal power, Payne argues, Franco never defined a formal ideology and throughout his regime used what he wanted from the ideas of others.
  — Back-cover blurb, The Franco Regime, 1936-75, by Stanley Payne

  J Pratas (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

They are not alone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• the lack of a defined ideology allowed [Franco] to move from one dictatorial formula to another, touching fascism in the forties and the developmentalist dictatorships in the sixties - In the original: la ausencia de un ideario definido le permitió [a Franco] transitar de unas fórmulas dictatoriales a otras, rozando el fascismo en los cuarenta y a las dictaduras desarrollistas en los sesenta
  — Javier Tusell, Historia de España en el siglo XX - 3: La dictadura de Franco

And on Franco's Regime scholars say

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are indeed tons of problems with the interpretative framework given by JPratas to these quotes, which are common to all WP:CHERRYPICKING. And it is indeed telling that the Dylan Riley quote, in the bit which JPratas chose not to highlight, says that Franco adopted the fascist model of rule. Similarly, as I mentioned in the RfC above, Payne states explicitly that Franco's political orientation was definitely pro-fascist. A few of these quotes do unambiguously support a NO vote but most do not. Paxton has already been discussed extensively above, for instance, and I couldn't disagree more strongly with the spin JPratas has put on this text. There are also flagrant errors, such as quoting Payne's "core fascist" statement twice, the second time incorrectly glomming it onto a quote from Roger Griffin and Matthew Feldman's Fascism. Of course even Griffin and Feldman, known for being an essentializing source, only go so far as to state that Franco is not considered a "core fascist". They do still refer to him as a "semifascist". The question of whether a figure who is widely acknowledged to have "adopted the fascist model of rule" because of his "pro-fascist" political orientation should be included in the "fascism" category is hardly an open-and-shut case for NO as JPratas appears to suggest. This is an occasion for the community to weigh in after carefully examining the sources and relevant policies, as was done in the RfC above. Generalrelative (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Payne agrees with Javier Tusell. The lack of a defined ideology allowed [Franco] to move from one dictatorial formula to another, touching fascism in the forties and the developmentalist dictatorships in the sixties. Scholars agree that Franco’s ideology (insofar as he had one) was basically traditionalist and catholick, he was pre-eminently a soldier.J Pratas (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

We all understand that this is your position. However please try not to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. Numerous highly informed members of the community disagree with your assessment, and it should be possible for you to accept that. Generalrelative (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Note - This thread is bordering on disruption since it was just closed in the thread above. Time to move on before administrators step in because Wikipedia is not a soapbox. struck-thru since the close was reopened by the closer. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• With regard to the regime-model of fascism, an important distinction has to be made between those cases where a fascist leader became head of the government (Italy, Germany, Greece), those regimes embracing the fascist component but headed by conservative figures (Spain) and those regimes embracing a less radical fascist component while ostracizing the more extreme variant (Austria, Portugal, Hungary)...His [Franco´s] co-operative attitude towards conservative institutions and social groups ensured that his position as system-stabilizer would be effectively entrenched and the more radical prescriptions of other participating forces (especially of the [Fascist] Falange) would be diluted and neutralized by the [Franco´s] regime(Payne, ‘Spain’, 200–5; Payne, History of Fascism, 252–67)...In Spain, the Falange was gradually absorbed and neutralized in the more conservative Francoist regime...the adoption of a ‘fascist’ profile by the regime was restricted to aping or counterfeiting formalistic aspects of the ‘fascist’ style but did not result in a clear departure from conventional political objectives (Austria, Hungary, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Romania)...In Spain, as we saw, the Francoist regime diffused the influence of the real fascist element (the Falange) on the political physiognomy of the ruling bloc and chose an essentially co-operative strategy in its dealings with traditional groups and institutions (Monarchy, Church, big landowners
  — Aristotle Kallis, The ‘Regime-Model’ of Fascism: A Typology, European History Quarterly. 2000;30(1):77-104.

  J Pratas (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Franco was an average general with very few political ideas beyond the values of order, anti-communism, traditionalist Catholicism and an obsession with the `liberal-Masonic conspiracy'. Franco's relationship with the FET-JONS was also more utilitarian than ideological - he was not the original party leader and neither was the party to be a determining factor in his taking power, sensitive as he was to both the armed forces and the Catholic Church - the other powerful institutions involved in founding the new regime. Despite Franco's support for the Axis powers during the Second World War, his intellectual background and his professional career make it dificult to position him as a fascist leader once he was in power.
  — António Costa Pinto, Elites, Single Parties and Political Decision-making in Fascist-era Dictatorships, Contemporary European History , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , August 2002 , pp. 429 - 454

  J Pratas (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

For those editors that are interested in studying the topic of Fascism in Spain, and can read Spanish, there is an excellent work from Julián Sanz Hoya, titled "Falangismo y dictadura. Una revisión de la historiografía sobre el fascismo español" (translation: Falangism and dictatorship. A review of the historiography on Spanish fascism). It is review of the historiography so the author makes a critical evaluation of the most representative sources that have been published on the topic, until 2013. It is a very valuable document, with the caveat that it is mostly about the Falange and Francoism, but not about Franco, the man. [2] . Franco the man has been portrayed prominently by Payne, Preston and TusellJ Pratas (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC: "Fascist" categories and sidebar

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

First of all, I'd like to thank Iamreallygoodatcheckers for their initial closure of this discussion and graceful response when challenged. Although I haven't read their closing statement, I understand it's not an easy thing to do, to go through a long-winded discussion about a topic one might not be at all familiar with, and reach a conclusion that will be satisfactory to all participants. It can be quite stressful, especially knowing it might be challenged. Thanks as well to all participants, who were collegial and went in-depth when discussing and analyzing sources.

I think it's important to note, before commenting on the participants' points, that this RfC is preoccupied with the categories and templates related to Fascism in this article. This is not to say that we should forego policies such as WP:V or WP:NPOV, but to make it clear that this close should in no way influence future discussions on the article's prose.

Those in favor of keeping the categories and template first pointed to sources that are both recent and quite reliable, but not academic, that the subject is labeled as fascist. In turn, participants who believe that the classification is incorrect noted that some scholars clearly say that, although Fascism was a part of Franco's regime, the man himself was not exactly fascist, but instead "something much worse".

As the discussion progressed, it became clear that some scholars avoid calling Franco a de facto fascist, they still talk about his adoption of fascist policies. A lot of the points against the label are also related to Franco's lack of territorial ambition and lacked any ideologies himself. On the other hand, those in favor of the categories pointed the fact many of the same cited academics also say Franco did adopt a fascist type of government and is in the spectrum of Fascism. Not only that, they've also pointed to academics and other reliable sources that do call Franco a Fascist.

There were some policies mentioned, mostly WP:CATPOV, which states: Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial. This was countered by the fact there is no controversy, but scholarly disagreements, which is expected, as most topics will never see unanimous agreement. Not only that, this disagreement is already described in the article itself, with lots of sources agreeing with the label.

Having gone through the arguments, it's clear to me here that the disagreement seems to be one of personal interpretation of the sources. As there is agreement that Fascism is an important part of this person's politics, that his regime was considered fascist by several reliable sources, and that the man himself is labeled as fascist by several some of the presented reliable sources, I see consensus to maintain the categories (such as "Spanish fascists", "Christian fascists" and "Fascist rulers") and the Fascism navbox. I should also note that Franco is, obviously, already in the francoists category, which itself is inside the Spanish fascists' category. Participants are reminded to see if that category is to be considered non-diffusing or not.

-- (non-admin closure) Isabelle ^🔔 01:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

n.b.: I've added a correction to make clear resources more commonly talk of the regime as fascist, instead of Franco, though some sources pointed by participants have labeled him as such. Isabelle ^🔔 18:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

---

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

Survey

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

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

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

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

  The Cortes Españolas were modeled after the Italian Camera dei Fasci

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

• Yes. Not unlike Communism, Fascism had several variations. Franco's regime was one of them. Sources referring to it as a partially or temporarily fascist regime can easily be found ([3], [4]). Borsoka (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Yes. Clearly the thing can be argued either way, and the arguments deserve to be ventilated more than they yet are on wikipedia. Possibly in this article. And/or maybe here. But Yes. While he was alive Franco received a more favourable press from the commentariats and establishments in the US and in England than Mussolini and Hitler did simply because he had the sheer human decency to stay out of the war. (Sensible chap.) And later he took the precaution of living a long time, so that he was predeceased by most of his victims and even by their children. Others managed to emigrate and preferred to forget. Today, as others have pointed out here already, concepts of "Fascism" and "Nazism" grow ever more slippery: they carry an awful lot of baggage that has more to do with Trump and Johnson than with the fascists of the 1930s and 1940s. Thus historiography evolves and distorts to tell us so much more about our own age than about the subjects which too many mainstream scholars purport to describe and analyse. But of Francoist Spain, the extent of the unmarked graves and surviving folk-memories tell their own stories. Charles01 (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• No Most scholars --led by Payne and Preston --say that there are some minor fascist features, but overall not decisive. For example no aggressive foreign policy. Rjensen (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Yes Franco led a fascist regime, it is covered in numerous reliable academic sources [5]. There are too many apologists for a man that remained a brutal and ruthless dictator his entire life. WCM_email 12:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Yes See. Edit: PH Lewis's 2002 book categorizes Franco as a fascist. This 2021 article also reviews the debate and concludes that 'fascist' is an accurate label. Regarding Payne, his narrow definition of fascism has been criticized, i.e. at odds with the evidence he actually presents. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• Yes I believe there is enough research that support these statements, even though some have also disputed this claim. Some users have already made the point in this discussion, such as Fyunck(click) and BMK, so I agree with them. Whether to include this is up to the editors, academics have already given their point. --Vacant0 (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I cannot believe how many editors say that reliable sources call Franco fascist without providing any sources. In fact, the leading fascism scholars today say that Franco was not fascist. Franco combined fascist supporters with traditional reactionaries (this was Spain after all) and came to power with support from Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, although he refused to join them in WWII. Ángel Alcalde's article for example "argues that analysis and contextualization of the history of the Francoist veterans of the Spanish Civil War (1936–39) leads to an understanding of Franco’s dictatorship as a fascist regime typical of the late 1930s and early 1940s." But that's just an isolated opinion in an obscure paper. I am leaning to include however because although Franco was not fascist, there were fascist elements in his government. Inclusion in a fascist category or sidebar does not necessarily mean Franco was fascist, but that he is of interest to students of fascism. I am creating a discussion section in case anyone wants to reply to this. TFD (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• No-ish (weak no) - googling shows me a number of places saying ‘not really’, or that there is academic dispute. Mostly a Francoist or authoritarian nationalist who was friendly with fascist powers and adopted some aspects, and he wouldn’t hate the term. Commonly called fascist yes, but... In casual use fascism might be just a catchall or an opponents WP:LABEL and for categories I would prefer a clearer case than this. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• Big fat Yes to Category:Fascist rulers category. The features, necropolitics and enacted violence of the regime he ruled over have been WIDELY analyzed within (and embedded in) the comparative scope of generic European Fascism by quality sources in recent academia (I mean, it's already mentioned and sourced in the article). Indifferent to the other mentioned categories and inclined not to include vertical sidebars insofar they tend to wreck the article presentation as they often are a nuisance more than anything (not to say that topic sidebars are prone to haphazardness and are subject to less strict editorial control than articles: they are often controlled by fans, really). --Asqueladd (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Note: I now see that the disputed template is placed at the bottom of the article using full width, instead of vertically/laterally placed in the middle of the article so I give it that.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - Most non-Spanish scholars, avoid the classification of Franco and his regime as fascist. Stanley G. Payne (The Franco Regime, 1936–1975 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987)) Paul Preston (Franco: A Biography (London: HarperCollins, 1993), Christopher J. Ross (Spain 1812–2004, 2nd ed. (London: Arnold, 2004)) Howard Wiarda (The Transition to Democracy in Spain and Portugal (American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1989)), Margaret MacLeish Mott (Catholic Roots and Democratic Flowers: Political Systems in Spain and Portugal (Praeger Puiblishers)), Robert O. Paxton's (The Anatomy of Fascism) Roger Griffin [[6]], Ribeiro de Meneses (Franco and the Spanish Civil War [[7]], David Gilmour (The Transformation of Spain: From Franco to the Constitutional Monarchy, [[8]]) etc. On the other hand, many Spanish historians insist on the classification of Franco’s regime as fascist: Juan Marsal, Pensar bajo el Franquismo.J Pratas (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  As I mention in my comment below, we should consider not just the scholarly consensus but WP:COMMONNAME as well here. When The Times of London says Apologising for Francoism and glorifying the Spanish Civil War are to be banned under a new law intended to stamp out the last vestiges of the fascist dictator’s grip on the nation [9], they are using "the fascist dictator" as a substitute for Franco's name. It's the equivalent of a pronoun, but one which conveys additional context implicitly. Just one more source showing that Franco is commonly understood by reliable mainstream sources to have been a fascist. I believe that the scholarly consensus supports this usage too, but real historians are typically quite reticent to fit figures and events into neat categories as is demanded by the format of this encyclopedia, thus a bit harder to pin down, which is why it will always be possible to CHERRYPICK and quibble. But this should not be confused for genuine controversy. Generalrelative (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Three scholars' opinions

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

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

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

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

• No Per Rjensen, J Pratas and BilledMammal. Especially per the argument that categorizations shouldn't be controversial. In the multiple quotes cited below and above this section, it's shown that there are many scholars who discuss Franco's relationship with fascism but say that he wasn't fascist. It is relevant to point out that Franco was never a member of any political party and sidelined the original Falange leadership to consolidate power to himself and other generals. Pro-fascist and fascist are different things too. --46.30.132.129 (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment and Yes again. Those who are citing that categories should be 'uncontroversial' are stretching that particular guideline. The example the guideline gives of a 'controversial' category is a politician (not convicted of any crime) should not be added to a category of notable criminals. This is not the case with Franco. That different opinions exist among academic historians is not an indication of controversy, and I say that as an academic historian. There'd be literally nothing to write about if academic historians did not debate among each other. This is scholarly conversation, not controversy. Recent academic work, and it is cited on this page, identifies Franco as a fascist. Reliable Sources identify him as a fascist. It's all over--take this article from NPR about the decision to exhume Franco's remains: Before it became Franco's semi-final resting place, the Valley of the Fallen was built as a mass grave for tens of thousands of people who died during Spain's civil war. Franco deemed it a healing tribute to the dead. But after he joined those buried there, critics called it an ornate homage to his time in power. Franco's fascist government was notorious for imprisoning, torturing and killing people who spoke out against his regime.Booker, Brakkton (2019-10-24). "Spain Moves Dictator Francisco Franco's Remains, After Months Of Legal Battles". NPR. Retrieved 2022-02-24. I'm sure jpratas or an IP address will say that NPR says Franco's regime was fascist but this does not mean Franco was fascist. I hope that the closer will ignore such Jesuitical thinking. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. This is a scholarly conversation, not a controversy in the conventional sense. And here's another indisputably RS press source, The Times: Apologising for Francoism and glorifying the Spanish Civil War are to be banned under a new law intended to stamp out the last vestiges of the fascist dictator’s grip on the nation. [10]. A relevant policy to consider here is WP:COMMONNAME. Generalrelative (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yes Franco's regime was closely enough associated with Fascism for the sidebars to be appropriate. I would favour a section being added to the article called "Franco and Fascism" to explicitly address the ways in which Franco is, and is not, considered a fascist. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. Sources overwhelmingly describe Franco as fascist in some form; they disagree on the extent, but the fascist character of his regime is well-established and uncontroversial. Sources describing him as completely non-fascist are sufficiently few that that perspective can reasonably be considered fringe. A few scholars (eg. Paxton and Payne, who are repeatedly mentioned above) might opt for more cautious language, but both of them plainly acknowledge that their views are in the minority, and even then they hedge with their wording - especially Payne, who cannot reasonably be described as rejecting the idea that Franco was fascist, merely the idea that he was one of the core fascist leaders. Other sources include: - note that most of these treat Spain's fascism under Franco as an entirely uncontroversial historical fact. --Aquillion (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Discussion

I am pinging those who have contributed to the survey above to let them know that Iamreallygoodatcheckers has voided their close and reopened the RfC: Fyunck(click), Seraphimblade, J Pratas, Borsoka, Binksternet, Beyond My Ken, Charles01, Rjensen, W, AugusteBlanqui, Vacant0, TFD, Markbassett, Asqueladd, CarringtonMist, BilledMammal, WhinyTheYounger. Please help me out if I missed anyone. Generalrelative (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this RfC should've been reopened, but since it was, I'm going to add sources on the examples I gave above:

On the Fuero del Trabajo and its influence: [11]

On the Instituto Nacional de Industria: [12]

On Educación y Descanso: [13]

On the Cortes (page 176): [14] -- 2804:248:f6a1:c500:c8e6:67f6:d80d:a3a9 (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment This RfC shouldn't have been re-opened. I perhaps should have referred to sources in my comment but it is clear from sources that Franco was considered a fascist and should be listed as such. I didn't feel the need to list them as its clear that there is more than sufficient sources to justify it. I would also comment that over the last couple of years the literature still frequently refers to him as fascist and it is both disingenuous and cherry picking to selectively quote academic texts to infer that there is a different consensus in the academic literature. An example of such cherry picking, Paul Preston is quoted from this article [15]:

“ “If people are looking for a quick and easy insult to those on the right, then fascist, is your go-to term,” he says. “If you’re asking an academic political theorist what constitutes a fascist then you’d have to say Franco isn’t.” ”

That isn't quite the whole story, Preston goes on to say:

“ But that’s not intended to let the Spanish dictator off the hook. “I caused quite a stir in Spain a few years ago when asked this question,” Preston recalled, “and I said Franco wasn’t a fascist … he was something much worse.

“What I meant by that is that the only absolutely indisputable fascist leader is Mussolini and the only indisputably fascist regime is Mussolini’s regime. And, there are so many ways in which Franco is different.”

”

I would suggest reading the article to get a better picture, selective quoting is very misleading. What this boils down to is how people decide to define fascism and an attempt following WW2 to rehabilitate Franco's reputation to justify cold war links with Franco's Spain; with the US seeking bases for it's nuclear submarines and B-52s. We have also seen in Spain the re-emergence of the far right in Spain seeking to rehabilitate his image. Look at these videos and it is clear that fascism never really went away [16], [17], [18]. However, and thanks to AugusteBlanqui for some suggestions, its clear that academic sources still do refer to him as fascist.

1. Ferrandiz, F., 2022. Francisco Franco Is Back: The Contested Reemergence of a Fascist Moral Exemplar. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 64(1), pp.208-237.
2. Valencia-García, L. D. (2020). Pluralism at the Twilight of Franco’s Spain: Antifascist and Intersectional Practice. Fascism 9, 1-2, 98-120, Available From: Brill https://doi.org/10.1163/22116257-09010001
3. Paul H. Lewis (2002). Latin Fascist Elites: The Mussolini, Franco, and Salazar Regimes. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-275-97880-8.
4. Charles River (13 February 2021). Benito Mussolini and Francisco Franco: The History of Europe's Other Fascist Dictators. Independently Published. ISBN 9798708978745.
5. Stanley G. Payne (15 November 1987). The Franco Regime, 1936–1975. Univ of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 978-0-299-11070-3.

Quoting the second

“ Franco, was a commixture of militarism, nationalism, patriarchy, religion and Spain’s own strain of fascism, Falangism. Under Franco, Spain’s fascism resulted in the enslavement, incarceration, murder and exile of people who did not conform to strict social norms (including feminists, anarchists, communists, socialists and members of the LGBT community). ”

In addition, outside of academic sources, the heavy-hitting RS such as NY Times and others describe him as a Fascist.

Finally, it was clear that the RfC had run it's course, the consensus was fairly clear and whilst I would take issue with some of the comments in the close about strength of argument, it was a pretty good summary of the discussion. I would say that perhaps the close allowed themselves to be influenced by a small number of editors seeking to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. Please close this RfC again. WCM_email 08:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. This RfC should not have been reopened. The closer also voided a decision they made in relation to Uyghur genocide and I fear that self-doubt has affected their decision making here. It is regrettable that jpratas was successful in getting this reopened. Jpratas based on their edit history on this article clearly has a 'stake' in removing the fascist category. Now those editors who are concerned with accuracy must devote precious time and mental load to combating jprata's blue-ink and what appears to be highly selective and sometimes out-of-context source spam. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that Paul Preston said that "Franco wasn’t a fascist … he was something much worse". But something much worse is not what it takes to categorize the man as a fascist. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial and this is definitely not the case. There are many sources saying Not Fascist and also many saying that there is controversy. In addition the Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories and this is not the case of this article. The article would benefit from having a section on Franco's ideology presenting the several perspectives on the topic. As Paul Preston said, if you are looking for a quick and easy insult then fascist, is your go-to term, but if you’re asking an academic political theorist what constitutes a fascist then you’d have to say Franco isn’t, and Wikipedia is not about quick and easy insult. J Pratas (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that some of those who disagree with you here might be academics with professional expertise on the matter? Generalrelative (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Generalrelative, I am adding another interesting source. World Fascism: A-K [19] . On page 8 Roger Griffin explains that a serious source of confusion for the novice to comparative study of fascism is the relationship with conservatism. Griffin argues that the fact that Franco was supported by Mussolini and Hitler helped the confusion and was the cause for Franco to be equated with fascism. But General Franco was by instinct true to his profession as an army commander. He cultivated the image of a fascist dictator to make Hitler and Mussolini see him as a true partner. He maintained a fascist facade while essentially perpetuating the institutional structures of preliberal Spain - notably the aristocracy and the Catholic Church. Griffin is very much in line with Payne. Basically Franco was not a fascist but his regime adopted some of the fascism's window dressing. J Pratas (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I have read the 5 listed sources that are supposed to support the "Yes".

• Paul Lewis does not argue anywhere that Franco himself was Fascist. Lewis' book addresses a very specific point: the role of the fascist elites in latin countries. Lewis argues that in Italy e Fascist Party and its para-state organizations were to remain determining factors in access to a ministerial career, even when the power of the ministries was limited by the dictator and the single party. However according to Lewis Salazar’s Portugal went to the opposite extreme with a cabinet dominated by technocrats, and Franco was somewhere in the middle (p. 180). Lewis’s illustrates quite well the greater weight of the Italian PNF – Partito Nazionale Fascista, in the selection of the elite.
• Stanley Payne is being misused because Payne said many times that Franco was not Fascist. I have created a separate section below where I have listed an extensive amount of sources that argue that Franco was not a Fascist. Payne is part of that lis. Payne argues that Franco took over the Spanish Fascist Party to have it under his control and then downgraded it. This view can also be found in a recent Payne interview that is published on Youtube. [20] (starting in min 28:40). Payne's view is shared by other scholars that have published on Fascism such as Griffin.
• Charles River. This is not exactly an author or a scholar. Charles River Editors is an independent publisher. The weight of this source is very low when compared to Paul Preston or Stanley Payne. Despite that, the source seems to be in line with Payne. The source says that "Franco used political ideas and ideology as it suited him, though he did seem to advocate conservatism, militarism, Catholicism and monarchism. Franco adeptly steered Spain through the Second World War and the Cold War without really committing the country to any specific engagements, but he still managed to secure support and backing from more powerful allies.""

So far in this debate the status is that there is an extensive amount of reliable sources that say Not fascist (see separate section below). The sources that say NO carry a lot of weight because Franco and his regime are the central topic of the source. Such are the cases of Paul Preston, Stanley Payne, Roger Griffin, etc.. On the other hand we can also see many editors voting yes but backing up their vote with sources that either say the opposite or do not really back up the yes. J Pratas (talk) 08:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Such behavior (bludgeoning and cherry-picking sources) coming from JPratas is not new. A few years ago, there was a similar discussion over the Portuguese Estado Novo regime, and he used the same tactics, eventually it was decided that, since no consensus was reached, the status quo would be maintained (that is, that the regime was fascist), but this didn't prevent JPratas from trying to impose his view despite that, many articles relating to the Estado Novo regime were placed under protection because of edit warring. I know we need to assume good faith, but it is honestly hard after seeing this for years now, maybe an investigation would be warranted. -- 2804:248:f6dc:6100:1c57:adb9:a16f:b368 (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

In the context of editing an article, cherrypicking means selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says. The accusation is groundless. An editor has accused me of doing that with Paul Preston by selecting Preston's statement, “If you’re asking an academic political theorist what constitutes a fascist then you’d have to say Franco isn’t.” and ignoring that Preston did not intend to let Franco off the hook and years later Preston added that indeedd he said that Franco wasn’t a fascist … he was something much worse. But the accusation does not really apply, because Preston did not contradict himself, he said again NOT fascist.

The accusation of cherrypicking is more applicable to those editors that voted Yes quoting Payne and Paul Lewis, some of them just using the title of the source and ignoring the content inside.J Pratas (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

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

WP:TONE and WP:BALANCE

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

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

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

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

• I'll point out that both that and several other similar things are cited to The United States and Spain. An Interpretation by Carlton J. H. Hayes. In addition to being extremely dated (published in 1951), Hayes is an extremely WP:BIASED source, and debatably not WP:INDEPENDENT - as the American ambassador to Spain, he had an extremely strong ideological perspective on how Spain should be viewed and treated during the war, and an extremely compelling reason to want to defend his actions towards it afterwards by portraying Franco in a positive light. He absolutely cannot be cited here without an in-line citation, and even those citations should be few in number (it is WP:UNDUE to repeatedly cite the opinions of someone with such a strident perspective on Franco and with compelling reasons to portray him in a particular light; we could mention them once or twice, but the article currently cites him at extreme length - in the article voice, unattributed, with no mention of his biases.) In fact, we seem to be citing Hayes for the importance of keeping Franco neutral - something that he is obviously a glaringly biased source on as the very person whose actions and decisions he is indirectly praising there. He's also the sole source for several paragraphs playing up the Communist threat - again, something that he had an obvious incentive to play up given his role in events and his desire to justify them. All of these need to be cited to something else or removed (although, again, we probably should not be citing Hayes without in-line attribution anywhere in the article; politicians and diplomats whose actions played a major role in the events an article describes can only be cited as WP:PRIMARY sources for their own actions.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. Given recent pushback on removing even the most tendentious text, it's clear that there is going to need to be a real group effort to bring this article into line with NPOV. I ask those who disagree to at the very least communicate here rather than simply reverting. Generalrelative (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I think a similar effort will be needed for the António de Oliveira Salazar and Estado Novo articles, which have similar problems with NPOV. -- 2804:248:f63f:bc00:c813:7c74:b11c:acb3 (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a clear case of argumentum ad hominem, attacking attributes of the author making the argument, ie attacking Hayes, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. What Hayes says is widely accepted in the academia. For example:Concha Langa Nuño says that most historians sustain that when the plot was organized, the plotters had no idea of what type of regime they would install. It looked like a plot against the government but not a plot against the republican regime itself. The truth is that none of the organizers of the coup d'état, all military, had a defined political ideology and it does not seem that anything was clear, except for imposing a short military dictatorship. [21]. Another example, Francisco Alía Miranda. [22]. J Pratas (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Criticizing the biases of sources is something we do all the time when determining the reliability and due balance of sources. Discussing these matters is absolutely not an ad hominem attack. Generalrelative (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I cannot read any reasonable argument to eliminate the text other than Hayes is biased. Other well established editors have also contended that Hayes is a RS. But the point here is that what Hayes is saying is widely accepted and I've provided sources that say that it is widely accepted. J Pratas (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@JPratas: You are now very clearly engaging in an edit war over this content. Failure to respect Wikipedia's policies, in this case WP:ONUS, is a serious matter. Aquillion has stated the argument against over-reliance on this source quite persuasively. No one is required to continue arguing until you are satisfied if the majority of editors agree that the language in question should be cut. I've left a second warning on your user talk page, this time a template. I strongly suggest that you self-revert in order to avoid possible sanctions. Generalrelative (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: I dont see any argument over content. I see an argument on the attack on the source but nothing written on the substance of the text that is supported by the source. I am not alone, another editor, Rjensen, has also reverted claiming that Hayes is a RS. But that is not the point. The point is that what Hayes said is supported by many other sources, and there are no sources supporting the opposite. So why delete it? Can you at least present an argument on the content and a source ? J Pratas (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

JPratas, as someone who has been watching this circus of mutual incomprehension unfold, it seems to me that you know more about Franco/Spain than most of the recent drive-by traffic created by the RfC (whether your views on those topics are particularly partisan isn't for me to say), and are frustrated that being "right" is not changing peoples's minds. My two cents: Rather than insisting on using Hayes as a source, I recommend that—if there are other reliable sources that substantiate the same/similar claims currently attributed to Hayes—then you should use those sources instead. Do not give your critics ammunition by insisting on a very old, conflicted source if (as you have suggested) you do not have to.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: thanks for the suggestion. I had already done that in the talk page, but it seems that some editors are not very interested in discussing content, just edit warring about sources. In this particular case eliminating the text is an absurd because the text is not contentious in the academia. Carlton J. H. Hayes is a well respected American historian. Saying that Hayes is a primary source just because he was an ambassador to Spain from 1942 to 1945 is ridiculous. With the same argument an historian that fought in ww2 cannot be quoted for the ww2 topic because he fought in the war, so he is a primary source. Editors should be asking for additional citations, or discussing content, not engaging in this kind of disruptive behaviour. Anyway, since the dispute was not over content, I have reinstated the content, using other sources, as per your suggestion. Thanks for the suggestion. Last but not least, I usually don't provide my own opinion, and try to focus on sources, but in this case I will open an exception, I dont particular like Franco, quite the opposite. The idea is to be rigorous in the analysis. For instance, Preston hates Franco, but still recognizes France as an outstanding military leader. The world is not black and white. J Pratas (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

What a strange comment. The more people that contribute to an article, the better it is and, sadly, jpratas 'ownership' of this article has resulted in content that is downright embarrassing. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

When evaluating whether to include a source, we consider things like WP:DUE weight; biased sources can be used, but it's important not to put excessive weight on them. Similarly, when deciding how to use a source, its biases are important - a source with strong opinions should at the bare minimum have those opinions made clear to the reader. We don't evaluate their arguments ourselves - that is WP:OR. What matters is what the sources say, and how we weigh, evaluate, and summarize those sources. It is also important to be cautious about WP:TONE, especially when citing potentially-biased sources, to avoid putting their opinions on the topic in the article voice (ie. assuming something is WP:DUE, saying "so-and-so thought this tactic was daring and brilliant" would be fine, but we wouldn't usually say that a tactic was daring and brilliant in the article voice unless the citations for that were completely overwhelming.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Paul Preston is one of the most important Franco's biographers. He also published 'The Spanish Holocaust'. He is widely known for hating Franco. Removing a statement from Paul Preston on the grounds that is hagiographic makes no sense. J Pratas (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC) By the way Filipe Ribeiro de Meneses a professor in Maynooth University has published a work where he argues that Franco was not a fascist. J Pratas (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Give it a rest. The article needs new hands on the steering wheel. Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• My comments above are with regards to why we want to attribute Hayes and avoid giving him excessive weight. Note, I didn't completely remove him from the article (although we should probably attribute him when we cite him), but it's a source from 1951 by someone with an obvious stake in portraying Franco a particular way - we have to be careful how we use it. With sources like Preston, of course we can cite him, but we have to consider the weight he gives particular aspects and be cautious about the WP:TONE - ie. is the specific wording for how he describes Franco's military strategy important? Can we summarize the totality of what he says in a more neutral tone without losing any meaning? Why did you choose to pull out that particular sentence from a nearly twenty-page paper on Franco as a military strategist, most of which takes a vastly different tone? For example, the source also says With Franco's knowledge and permission, the Legion and the Moroccan mercenaries of the Regulates Indigenas (indigenous regulars) functioned with terrible efficacy during their advance. Franco conducted the early stages of his war effort against the Spanish left as if it were a colonial war against a racially contemptible enemy. The Moors and Legionaries spread terror wherever they went, looted the villages they captured, raped the women they found, killed their prisoners and sexually mutilated the corpses. The use of terror, both immediate and as a long-term investment, was to be an essential part of Franco's repertoire both as a general and as a dictator. Omitting or downplaying that while citing his praise for Franco's military strategy in excessive detail is misusing the source by citing it in an unbalanced way. --Aquillion (talk) 06:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Aquillion: thanks for your comments, particularly those on content, that is helpful. I understand your reservation with Hayes although I guess those comments apply to almost any academic work on Franco. Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Both Preston and Payne have been extensively accused of not being neutral And while it is true that we have to be careful with older sources, in the particular case of the text that was deleted, it was quite easy to find more sources saying the exact same thing, that the coup was a military one and with no specific or well defined ideology, so why eliminate the text instead of asking additional citations? Now, on another turn, you are asking me why I choose to pull out that particular sentence from a nearly twenty-page paper, the sentence says that Franco was cold blooded, determined and optimistic. These characteristics were very important for Franco to succeed as a military leader, but as Preston very well explains , Franco's "cold-blooded bravery" (Preston words not mine) allowed him a "meteoric rise through the ranks" but also help explain his indifference in the use of terror against civilian population and his unshakable will in carrying out executions until his death (e.g executions of political prisoners authorized by the caudillo in March 1974 and September 1975). Throughout the years following his victory, he rejected any thought of amnesty or reconciliation with the defeated. (Payne and Preston).J Pratas (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Images and WP:BALANCE

Building off what's been discussed above, I'd like to open a conversation specifically about bringing the images in this article into WP:BALANCE. The problem, as I see it, is that the current article contains nothing but images that flatter the memory of Franco in one way or another. Rather than simply adding new images unilaterally, I'd like to open up a discussion and see if others can agree on a few images we might add to make sure our article isn't whitewashing the atrocities which mainstream sources invariably discuss whenever the name Franco is mentioned. Here are a few suggestions for places to start:

• "Twenty-six republicans executed by Francoists at the beginning of the Spanish Civil War" –– lead image of our article White Terror (Spain)
• Lluís Companys, a Catalan politician who was executed by Franco in 1940
• Franco and Hitler depicted on a poster celebrating the Condor Legion (German military units that supported Franco during the Civil War)
• A period socialist propaganda poster depicting Franco as a Nazi skeleton
• Francoist troops with captured Republican militiamen
• A 1972 demonstration against the Franco regime in Amsterdam
• Commons category:Monuments and memorials to the victims of Francoism
• Perhaps it would even be appropriate to show an image of Picasso's Guernica with proper context provided in the image caption

Just some thoughts. Please provide more ideas if you have them! Happy to discuss. Generalrelative (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Where would you propose placing those images? I believe "Twenty-six republicans executed by Francoists at the beginning of the Spanish Civil War" would be appropriate in our "The end of the Civil War" section as the white terror and mass executions are mentioned there, but I can't find an appropriate location for the others in the current text. However, this may be suitable for "Political repression". BilledMammal (talk) 04:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Hi BilledMammal, thanks for engaging. I agree that the "Twenty-six republicans executed..." image could fit well in any section dealing with the civil war (though note that this image is of the remains of people killed at the beginning of the war, so it may be a bit incongruous to include it in the section about the end of the war). Monument images will require some contextualizing, but if done correctly I think they could add a lot to the article. Franco and Hitler depicted on a poster celebrating the Condor Legion could go in either of the subsections that discusses the Condor Legion (the intro to "From the Spanish Civil War to World War II" or the subsection "Military command"). Perhaps the portrait of Lluís Companys could go in "Political repression" along with a caption detailing his arrest and murder. Generalrelative (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Good point regarding when the photo was taken, but I haven't been able to find a better photo for that section, and I believe it meets MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE - Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic. I also considered "Franco and Hitler depicted on a poster celebrating the Condor Legion" for both of those locations, but I don't believe either is appropriate; for the former, it is too specific (though the current image also has issues) while for the latter the image of Franco with his commanders is more relevant. The portrait of Lluís Companys would be relevant to that section, with a suitable caption. BilledMammal (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Would you object to including "Franco and Hitler depicted on a poster celebrating the Condor Legion" in the "Military command" subsection in addition to the existing image of Franco with his commanders? Generalrelative (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  No objection if we can make it fit. I would prefer an image of Franco with the commanders of the Condor Legion or the Corpo Truppe Volontarie, but this image is suitable for now. BilledMammal (talk) 03:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for pulling these together! The photo of Lluis Companys could go in "Spain under Franco." AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the suggestion! I'll give this a bit more thought and wait for a couple more days to see if others weigh in and then will likely add a few of these images. Generalrelative (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Another unreliable source

Another unreliable source to work on excising from this article is Maxim Litvinov: A Biography by John Holroyd-Doveton (2013). The author does not appear to be a historian of any kind (I could find nothing about him by Googling), and the publisher, Woodland Publishing, specializes in "natural and alternative health topics". Curiously, this book is cited numerous times throughout the article, often to back up highly opinionated claims. Generalrelative (talk) 07:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Even more curiously, there is a ref in the article which simply reads "Conversation between David Brightly (Ambassador to Spain '94-'98) and John Holroyd-Doveton". Was this ref contributed by the author himself? Is this perhaps an indication of a larger WP:OR / WP:SPAM problem? Generalrelative (talk) 07:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Fascinated by this odd book ("written at about the 6th grade reading level" according to its single Amazon review) I was able to hunt down an author bio: "After a successful legal career, the author resumed his schoolboy passion in history. In obtaining his Open University Degree, he was required to write a dissertation, choosing as his subject a defence of Chamberlain and his policy of appeasement before the Second World War. This sparked a fascination in Litvinov and after meeting Litvinov's daughter Tanya, it increased his determination to write this biography of the only prominent Communist politician to have an English wife."[23] And of course it's cited across numerous articles: [24]. Generalrelative (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Jesus.... AugusteBlanqui (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Holroyd-Doveton has a Worldcat listing. He also wrote a book called "Young Conservatives". I've replaced the first cite of his book on Litvinov. Carlstak (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! A minor update: looks like I was wrong about the publisher. On the title page which is visible on Amazon [25] it locates Woodland Publications in Devon, England (whereas the Woodland Publishing I linked to above is in Utah). I wasn't able to find any reference to this publisher online –– unless it refers to this UK print services company: [26] (this company doesn't currently list any branches in Devon). The cover page also includes a link to authorsonline.co.uk, which is now a dead link, but the company's Linked In profile [27] describes them as a self-publishing service. In any case, it appears that the book is some form of amateur SELFPUB. References to it should therefore be removed anywhere on the encyclopedia they appear. Generalrelative (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Carlstak (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Franco and Antiziganism

A category about antiziganism was added to this article, while this is not incorrect, it would be good to add sources.

Until 1978 the Guardia Civil had articles on its regulations specifically targeting gypsies, here is an article from El Pais at the time announcing its repeal: [28] -- 2804:248:f666:900:6d0b:4c3f:7658:6c7 (talk) 08:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)