Talk:Francisco Franco/Archive 3

Franco the Fascist?
Pardon my apparent ignorance about this piece of history, and I apologize for whatever flame war may ensue, but was Franco a fascist? Did he ever claim to embrace fascism or express pursuit of its aims? I've always been under the impression he was just a "basic" autocrat. 74.107.119.82 (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The term 'fascist' is a little subjective. Franco may have not instigated the holocaust like Hitler and as perceived fascists go he was probably a moderate.  I suppose his far-right neo-conservatism, his colonial desires, his distaste for democracy, his love of censorship and his heavy intervention in everyday life possibly put him in the category for fascists, although all the above statements apply aptly to Winston Churchill, yet history has a different reminiscent view of him.  Calling Franco a fascist does equate him somewhat with Hitler and Mussolini, which is probably not entirely fair and a little misleading, but somehow the terms 'moderate fascist' and 'liberal fascist' have an inherent irony to them. Mtaylor848 (talk) 08:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The term 'communist' is a little subjective. Franklin Delano Roosevelt may have not instigated the Holodomor like Stalin and as perceived communists go he was probably a moderate.  I suppose his far-left neo-liberalism, his colonial desires, his distaste for democracy, his love of censorship and his heavy intervention in everyday life possibly put him in the category for communists, although all the above statements apply aptly to Clement Attlee, yet history has a different reminiscent view of him.  Calling President-for-Life Roosevelt a communist does equate him somewhat with Stalin and Mao, which is probably not entirely fair and a little misleading, but somehow the terms 'moderate communist' and 'liberal communist' have an inherent irony to them.  (I just wanted to see how that sounded with a little editing.) 192.40.24.4 (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Shandafurdie

FYI the question has popped up a couple of times earlier in this talk page. Perhaps the best discussion was at the Not a fascist thread. Btw, Jmabel contribution there should not be glossed over. There are a couple of reasons why, though, to reach a consensus is mainly impossible: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wllacer (talk • contribs) 15:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The concept Fascism is really difficult to define
 * 2) Very early (prior to 1933) it became a "propaganda" derisive term, i.e. deprived of real meaning, but not of derogatory sense (it was not unusual to call socialdemocratic parties "social-fascists", for instance) The derogatory sense of the term has outlived its origins.
 * 3) The equation Fascism = Nazism has made the term the apex of the unacceptable in political thinking, and to stick this label on to any political movement is to deprive it of any legitimity or "goodness" without the need of further discussing it.

Actually finding a consensus is not quite that difficult, as Stanley Payne, the preeminent scholar on fascism and Spain notes: "scarcely any of the serious historians and analysts of Franco consider the generalissimo to be a core fascist." (quoted in Laqueur, Walter Fascism: Past, Present, Future, p. 13, 1997 Oxford University Press US) The reason for this consensus is that fascism is almost always described as having a radical, revolutionary, palingenic component or a goal to "remake" man. Franco unequivocally lacks this element. As to consensus on a definition of fascism, there has been for sometime talk of a "new consensus", interestingly, as pointed out by Roger Griffin, even most of those who object to the existence of a consensus posit definitions which are consistent with what Griffin says is the consensus. Mamalujo (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that that definition is denied as soon as one considers Russell's assertion in his History of Western Philosophy that Fascism is not only a political movement but also a philosophy which, like some others, has as a fundamental belief that there are those who are born to have power and those who are not. Thus the right to slaughter one's opponents - including political or religious opponents - is an inherent part of Fascist philosophy, not merely an inconvenient trait of some Fascist politicians. In sum, was Franco a far right politician and dictator who slaughtered his opponents? Yes. Does that reasonably qualify him to be called Fascist? IMV yes.

Drg40 (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Fully agree with Wllacer's comments above. Individuals are far too complex to slap mere labels on them, and Franco's personality has been/is/and probably will always be notoriously difficult to define. Consensus on this issue, as with just about any other issue, is therefore impossible, and like all consensus, will only depend on the specific moment in time said consensus is reached. The oft-quoted Payne states that Franco was not a "core" fascist. Nothing more, nothing less. On the other hand, at the time of the SCW, while much of the support for Franco in Spain came from pro-fascists, and outside support came directly from fascists, this obviously does not make Franco a fascist himself, although he undoubtedly had more sympathies with fascism than with the opposite end of the spectrum at the time, communism. Simplistic? Necessarily so. BTW, George Orwell, among other writers writing at the time, referred to fighting against fascism, represented in Spain by Franco. Notwithstanding the above, I personally would not define Franco as a fascist, and I think Mtaylor sums it up quite neatly above. --Technopat (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The general consensus I have seen among is that Franco wasn't much for ideology, so its hard to pin him to a specific "ism." On the other hand, he ended up leading the Fascist Falange and put Falange members in to high office after the civil war. He also supported the Axis in WWII.  After WWII, Franco stepped back from his alliance with the Falange and put less ideological people in charge, dropped the Roman salute, and steered toward more garden variety autocracy.  As others have stated, the definition of fascism is vague, but Franco at least shared the conservatism, traditionalism, militarism, and nationalism of his fascist allies.  I think the article has generally reflected this complex relationship between Franco and fascism.  That said, is there a specific point to this discussion? Talk pages are not supposed to be about edits to the article, not general discussions.--Bkwillwm (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Bkwillwm n this case i do think its relevant. First because it is an issue which comes forward with certain regularity, it's about if the term fascist is or not a weasel word in Franco's case, and, though important, is a question which shall be discussed to understand Franco but only fits in the main page seriosuly digested, and could have serious impact in the rest of the article. Just as a sample let me fisk your (and Technopat) comment:


 * he ended up leading the Fascist Falange and put Falange members in to high office after the civil war
 * Well, what Franco really did in 1937 was to create an unified political support branch with a forced merger of the two groups with leading militias on his side (Falangism and Carlists) and a number of other supporters  of the "Alzamiento". The unified party remained for the rest of its active live a  balanced coalition of very divergent views, and always secondary to the state and army (the opposite to "real fascist" states). Although cross-dressed with fascist trapping, the majority ideological view was rather linked to "Accion Española" -authoritarian right-. than to Falange proper, In the Ramón Serrano Suñer times (up to 1943) there was a trend to "fascistize" the regime, but it never took off (this last statement is wide open to further study). If this balance of power is not understood the internal political development is unintelligible.


 * He also supported the Axis in WWII.
 * And for the greatest joy of historians who love to discuss in a complex and ambiguous manner ;-)


 * After WWII, Franco stepped back from his alliance with the Falange and put less ideologicfal people in charge, dropped the Roman salute, and steered toward more garden variety autocracy
 * See first fisk. The internal imbalance of power inside the goverment and party was shifted against the "old shirts" (camisas viejas, pre 18-july falangists) in two phases. First in 1943, where both the international situation and internal incidents like the bombing at the shirne of Begoña, made an end to the most militant falangism (and carlist oponents, btw), and later in 1954/57, when a series of politcal and economical unrests, made the falangists lose their influence in the economical realm. Even after that, people like Jose Antonio Girón de Velasco still kept important positions. IIRC the roman salute outside the party was dropped in 1947


 * As others have stated, the definition fo fascism is vague, but Franco at least shared the conservatism, tradditionalism, militarism, and nationalism of his fascist allies
 * Well, exactlcy the two first caracteristics are what do NOT make francoism fascist, and the two others are rather neutral. If anything, nor italian Fascism neither german Nazism were conservative or traditionalists


 * I shall point that this discussion is not new, as it exists since 1936. One of the funniest moments in Radosh's Spain Betrayed is document #27, where Antonov-Oseenko (General Consul of the Soviet Union in Barcelona) tells how he lectured Companys and others that they were fighting "Fascism" and not classical "reactionaries", as the spaniards thought. YMMV but i found it telling ..., what brings me back to Orwell (but this time 1984) --Wllacer (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this does raise an important point. It is not for us to put labels on politicians one way or another.  Perhaps the text should outline this divisive question in the opening statement.  'considered by many to be a fascist' (with citations) is better than just putting 'fascist'.Mtaylor848 (talk) 10:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * He also supported the Axis in WWII. - Again, that is also a little difficult to verify. Spain was neutral in the Second World War.  Hitler supported Franco during the Spanish Civil War, presumably expecting Spanish military assistance in future wars, however this did not happen.  Diplomatic support was offered to Axis powers, however the Axis powers and the Spanish government never saw eye-to-eye during this era either, with the two powers disagreeing on issues such as Gibraltar.  The Franco regime is a little bit of an enigma, because it never really committed to any international alliances, fascist or otherwise and more-or-less followed its own agenda.  The characteristics of an autocracy are there but not necessarily the characteristics of fascism.  It is never possible to say conclusively that someone was a fascist (although I doubt there is the same debate about Adolf Hitler), some people would say that all traffic wardens and other representatives of 'the establishment' are fascists. Mtaylor848 (talk) 10:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I still think it would help to establish a clear, article-related objective for this discussion. The article currently doesn't describe Franco as fascist, and I think it does an OK job of describing his relationship with fascism.  If you want to remove the fascist side bar, I don't have a problem with that.  I don't see the point to any of the responses to what I said.  This isn't the place for debate unless disputes are tied back to the article.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. The argument runs and runs because it has an aftermath. Eisenhower (I think) would have done a post war deal with the devil himself if he thought it would weaken Stalin. So he did a deal with Franco. To some, the thought that a President of the United States did a deal with any sort of Fascist is unthinkable, and therefore Franco could not have been a Fascist. To others, "My enemy's enemy is my friend" is logic enough and Franco could have had horns as long as he permitted US bases on Spanish soil. The argument would be completely academic or even barren, merely a discussion about labels, AISI, were it not for the inconvenience of the corpses that appear from time to time. There is also the point that Franco felt hiself able to offer support to Hitler in 1940 in return for expansion of the Spanish empire. Hardly the act of a man with entirely clean hands. It is held by a number of Catalonians that the US payment for their bases on Spanish soil propped up Franco's madcap economic policies for many years after they should have been seen widely for the foolishness they were and perhaps caused his fall from power. Does this sort of analysis, done by better historians than me, have a place in a Wikipedia article, or is it enough merely to mention that there is dispute? Or is there enough fuel for a "Bastions against Communism" policy article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drg40 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Franco favored the Spanish cultural diversity
I would like to change a paragraph that states that Franco repressed the cultural diversity of Spain. Before doing that I would like to start a discussion here in an attempt to ask the wikipedia contributors the source of this information. This is the original text in the version of April 20th 2011: “Franco's Spanish nationalism promoted a unitary national identity by repressing Spain's cultural diversity. Bullfighting and flamenco[51] were promoted as national traditions while those traditions not considered "Spanish" were suppressed.”

[1] Supposed repression of cultural diversity

I have read the source that is referenced identified as [51]. This source is based on an interview of a Flamenco Guitar teacher about the decline of students in flamenco guitar lessons. This teacher states that during Franco´s dictatorship this was more popular. I think that Franco’s dictatorship is a key episode in The Spanish History and so does deserve a more grounded reference. I lived during the dictatorship and traveled throughout all the Spanish regions. I didn’t see any policy of erasing the cultural diversity. On the contrary, Franco allowed one of the many political parties that supported him (Falange) to take care through its feminine Members (Sección Femenina) to provide visibility of the Spanish folklore and traditions of all its regions. This could be checked in the video footage of the yearly cultural events “Juegos Florales Internacionales”. So I state that this is not only false but that it is exactly the opposite. If Franco´s mistake of forbidding the regional languages as he did for public usage is considered by itself a cultural repression then the statement is true. But I consider that this has a broader meaning. I would consider more a cultural repression the language the policy that today some separatist regions apply when suggesting the teenagers to talk the regional language during the school break. The mistaken policy of using only one official language for public affairs was with the purpose of creating an efficient country and not for repression.

[2] Supposed unitary identity by suppressing regional supposed non-Spanish traditions

The dictator based the unitary identity on the Catholic System of Beliefs. This identity was not created by Franco but by The Spanish Queen Isabella I of Castile. Franco placed himself below God as did all the traditional Spanish Kings until Ferdinand VII of Spain due to The French Revolution. He was a traditional leader and so very religious so it is hard to believe he wanted a cultural homogenous country. Look at today’s facts: Spain is still one of the richest countries in the world in cultural diversity in just half a million square kilometers. Only leaders stick to an Ideology try to homogenize a country in its cultural expressions and Franco has not ideology at all (This is explained in the books of Pío Moa). The two homogeneous policies he applied were to observe the Catholic ethical beliefs and to use a common language in all the nations for public affairs. I don't think is a a proper way to use the term "suppression of regional traditions".

[3] Bullfighting and Flamenco

Both were very popular during Franco´s dictatorship but they were that because the people wanted them to be popular. Franco didn`t force anybody to love Bullfighting and Flamenco. There is an important thing missing here: “La Jota Aragonese”. The Jota was also very popular and is not from Andalusia but from Aragon. I think that this statement provides a narrow view of those times. These were famous before Franco. Flamenco had a revival in the early nineties and Franco was already dead.

So I would suggest to erase that sentence and I don't see it properly grounded and doesn't reflect the experiences I had by this time. --Keenonmaps (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with the proposal. Yes, the statement should have a better citation, but a reference based on specific reference in a tangentially related article is better than no citation at all. Please find a source that says that says Franco promoted cultural diversity. Also, I think you should not dismiss the importance of Franco's suppression of minority languages. You can't write this off by coming up with your own personal explanation justifying language suppression for the sake of efficiency. Do you have any citations for this view? From what I've read, Franco actively censored minority languages, especially culturally important media like music, theater, and literature. Most sources consider this censorship and not a benign attempt at efficiency. I'll try to get my citations together soon.--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Name
The name given at the start of the article is incorrect
 * Francisco Paulino Hermenegildo Teódulo de Franco y Bahamonde Salgado-Araujo y Pardo de Andrade

His name, by modern standards, would simply read:
 * Francisco Franco (y) Bahamonde (given name - paternal surname - maternal surname)

If we were to include the baptismal names:
 * Francisco Paulino Hermenegildo Teódulo Franco (y) Bahamonde (given name - baptismal names - paternal surname - maternal surname)

By the looks of it someone has simply tacked his parents maternal surnames on the end Salgado-Araujo y Pardo de Andrade —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.48.204 (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Paulino Hermenegildo Teódulo" should not be there. Maybe he was put under the advocacy of those saints when he was baptized but they were not his names in any way. The legal record of his birth only says "Francisco" and that was his legal name and the name he used and by which he was known all his life. His full name, legally and otherwise, was always "Francisco Franco Bahamonde". GS3 (talk) 08:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

in North Africa...in Spain
"Curiously, the city of Melilla, located in North Africa, has the distinction of being the only place in Spain where a statue of Franco is still visible on a public street."

Say wha...? This needs a bit of clarification for those unfamiliar with Melilla. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * From the very Wikipedia: Melilla "is a 12.3 square kilometres (4.7 sq mi) autonomous city of Spain and an exclave located on the Mediterranean Sea, on the north coast of North Africa surrounded by Morocco". Anyone needing a clarification would just have to follow the link. 150.214.222.81 (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The article text:

"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."

should be seriously reconsidered. The definition of fascism is sloppy, and the wording is convoluted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekoostic (talk • contribs) 02:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Franco was a fascist. His regime banned and persecuted Jewish,gave shelter and honored to hundreds of Nazis. He wrote proclamations against Jews under the pseudonym of Jokim Boor. His regime killed and tortured to hundreds thousands. Also 200 000 people died of starvation in the 40, and created a network to steal thousands of children with Nazi eugenic theories of psychiatrist Vallejo Nájera. Sorry for my english, i´m spanish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.55.217.71 (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Not true. Franco did not take particular steps to persecute Jews in Spain or Spanish Morococco. He did not hand over any Spanish Jews to the Germans. He allowed Spanish territory to be used as safe passage for Jews fleeing Nazi-occupied Europe. He later allowed Spanish territory to be used as a safe passage for Jews fleeing Arab lands to the State of Israel. Ultimately it was Franco's government that cancelled the Alhambra Decree, the Edict of Expulsion forcing Jews to leave Spanish territory or convert to Catholicism. Franco formally paved the way for the return of Jews to Spain. 89.138.152.216 (talk) 08:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Jacob D

Charles Foltz, American journalist played by the Associated Press correspondent in Madrid at the end of World War II, author of a book called "Masquerade in Spain ', published in Boston in 1948, says that according to official data that are provided in the Ministry of Justice of Madrid, between April 1, 1939 and June 30, 1944, the number of executed or died in Spanish prisons reached the figure of 192,684 people.

http://pnb.blogcindario.com/2009/04/00692-izquierda-socialista-psoe-cadiz-masquerade-in-spain-un-libro-prohibido.html

The list of Franco to the Holocaust The Franco regime in 1941 ordered provincial governors to develop a list of Jews living in Spain. The census, which included the names, employment data, ideological and personal than 6,000 Jews, was presumably given to Himmler. The Nazis drove into their plans for the final solution. When the fall of Hitler was already a fact, Franco's authorities tried to erase all evidence of their collaboration in the Holocaust

http://elpais.com/diario/2010/06/20/domingo/1277005953_850215.html

The idea of ​​the intimate relationship between Marxism and mental inferiority and above had other jobs in checking our hypothesis has enormous political significance social, because if they are active in Marxism preferably antisocial psychopaths, as is our idea, the segregation of these subjects from infancy, could free society so terrible plague. "These words of Antonio VallejoNájera commander, chief of the Military Psychiatric Services, culled from the book The madness in the war. Psychopathology of the Spanish war, published in Valladolid in 1939

http://www.elmundo.es/cronica/2002/111/1011609459.html

Children lost or stolen children of Franco by Franco, are those children who, during the Spanish Civil War and the Spanish Civil War, were taken from their mothers Republican, either because they were in prison or because they had been killed by the military coup. 1 The crimes of which were the subject are: kidnapping, child trafficking and adoption ilegal.2

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ni%C3%B1os_robados_por_el_franquismo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.55.207.78 (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Use of "dictator" in the first sentence
I think the consensus is that Franco was, to some degree at least, a dictator. But is it appropriate or needed to describe him straight off as a "general, dictator and the leader of the Nationalist military rebellion in the Spanish Civil War, and authoritarian head of state of Spain"? I propose replacing 'dictator' with 'politician' (not that I'm suggesting 'politician' is a synonym for dictator...) to counter the description as a general - because he was a general and politician. Also then describing him as the "authoritarian head of state of Spain", which is more appropriate, means that the description "dictator" isn't needed. -- Peter Talk page 16:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Where is the consensus for your change? I restore the word dictator. emijrp (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think dictator is clearly warranted and supported by sources. Whether it is redundant to then describe him as the authoritarian head of Spain I think is more debatable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that Franco was a great conservative icon. It is no surprise that he is called a dictator by Wikipedia whereas every communist dictator is called a leader. I wonder why? I think it would have been fine if they use the term consistently but it's pretty clear only right wing regimes are called dictatorships. Mao Zedong is actually redeem on his article introduction whereas Franco is slandered all throughout from beginning to end. Please put a banner on top saying this is an article written by the losers of the Civil War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.105.118 (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I have also restored "dictator". There is no room for debate in this label among serious historians. He was never a politician or a conservative icon. Politicians pass through the electoral process. He was a great admirer of Hitler and Mussolini. The church disavowed itself of him in the sixties and apologized for supporting him. Anyone who feels like they know enough to write about him knows better than to manipulate what his situation was in a place where people go to find basic information. Why bring all the left wing dictators into it? That has nothing to do with this article. Shameful apologists for fascism is all I can see in the reasoning above for trying to manipulate a truthful perspective on history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.122.2.170 (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Because it has to do with it. Consistency is key. We should have all dictators be called so in the first line or not. If we have Franco in the first line, we should also call Mao a dictator in the first line, but we don't. If we don't call Mao a dictator in the first line, we shouldn't call Franco a dictator in the first line. Then we should be consistent and also call Mao a dictator in the first line. As for being conservative, he was. He kept the monarchy, admittedly as constituan. but still. Hitler on the other hand did not restore the kaiser and was a revolutionary, I agree he was a dictator, but then why don't we have Mao as a dictator in the first line? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.179.63.34 (talk) 08:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * because he wasn't. You have no idea how China works if you think Mao was a dictator. "Extremely influential" or even "powerful" but dictator ? Chinese people just don't work that way. I know what the propaganda is but not from anyone who lives here.


 * and if his grandma was around, she was the one giving orders :) 116.231.78.79 (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

His Excellency
Why do we have the above words in the infobox? Or why do we not have, for example, "Her Majesty" in the article about Queen Elisabeth II? --E4024 (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead
Can user 86.156.204.235 please explain what is objectionable about the new lead? he seems to be implying NPOV but I'm not sure. Cliniic (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. The introduction that you are substituting by your own text is the result of several years of consensual editing by a community of Wikipedia users. The changes that you are introducing are objectionable because: 1. they are single-handedly replacing the existing text, rather than working consensually and incrementally along with the rest of the community of editors, 2. they omit important aspects of Franco's regime and its legacy (in particular anything relating to the condemnation of the breaches of human rights) and 3. they substitute these elements by anecdotal accounts of Franco's success (e.g. during the early stages of his military career), which, in the context of Franco's authoritarian regime, are frivolous and suspiciously flattering. --86.156.204.235 (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Page temporarily protected, Tom Harrison Talk 19:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

1. The lead is supposed to adequately cover the contents of the article. In this context, I have added background + military career in paragraph 1, the events leading to the coup + leadership during the war in paragraph 2, the policies of regime + maintaining power in paragraph 3, and lastly the final years, succession and legacy in paragraph 4. These are not anecdotal accounts but relevant to the biography.

2. Where in the lead is the breach of human rights (concentration camps, forced labour and repression etc) omitted?

Cliniic (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

If paragraph 1 is the offending bit, I suppose we can amend it to just something like Franco "was a decorated soldier" + his background. Still, I can't see how you are accusing me of putting up a cv for him. Cliniic (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This paragraph appears to be extolling the virtues of Franco’s early military career as a soldier (which, in the broader context of his authoritarian regime and crimes against humanity, seems frivolous and unnecessarily flattering):

He was in succession the youngest captain, major and colonel in the Spanish army, and was twice nominated for, and won once the Order of San Fernando, Spain's highest military award for gallantry.[1][2] Franco rose to national prominence as a commander of the Spanish Legion in the 1920s. At the age of 33, in 1926, he became the youngest general in Spain and in all Europe.[3]

“He was a decorated soldier” is a compromise that I would be willing to accept (I’d be happy to wait and see what others think).


 * The phrase “secure the support of Italy and Germany” glosses over Franco’s collaborations with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. It is important to spell out who Franco was collaborating with and why. This is an important aspect of his ideological stands and the political-historical context in which he rose to power. Your version has removed all mention of the bombing of Guernica (a crucial turning point in the Civil War) and the Nazi use of Spanish ports during WWII (again, highly significant).


 * “Leftists” (or “reds”) was the derogatory term used by Franco supporters to refer to their enemies (i.e. those who defended the democratically elected Republican government which he was trying to overthrow). A less biased (more neutral) term is the “Popular Front”.


 * The expression “subsequently marginalized by the leftist government” is misleading. Marginalized implies bullying, or alienation. Franco was separated from the more vulnerable institutions surrounding the central government due to (well founded) suspicions about his intentions to overthrow the democratically elected government.


 * “became internationally known for suppressing the anarchist uprising of 1934” Again, this is excessively flattering, presenting Franco as an international hero. I would substitute this for a more neutral phrase: “and contributed to suppress the anarchist uprising of 1934”.


 * “emerged as the undisputed leader of the Nationalists.” Again, hints of heroism coming through. I would omit “undisputed”, which, moreover, conveys a misleading sense of unity during a period of turmoil and the imposition of might.


 * ”brutally repressing leftism” This is misleading. He repressed all forms of ideology that went against his own. He repressed regional identities, homosexuality, Freemasons, etc. “Ideological enemies” would be more accurate.


 * The list of referenced concentration camps that has been deleted from your version supports is useful and significant information (allowing users to better understand the meaning of “concentration camp” in this context). It should not be omitted.


 * The statement “Socially, Franco was a conservative” is a risible euphemism. David Cameron or Ronald Reagan are conservative. Franco was beyond conservative, he was “ultra-conservative” or “reactionary”.

Spet1363 (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * “Franco has a mixed legacy in Spain”. Again, this is misleading. The statement suggests that Spain is equally divided between those who admire Franco and those who have a few issues with his policies. True, some people support Franco, but let’s put it into perspecive: The public display of Francoist pre-constitutional symbols is banned by law in Spain. Franco is widely regarded as a war criminal, and publicly extolling his virtues and the values that he espoused is regarded as a form of hate crime under Spanish law.
 * I generally agree that the new version has POV issues. The previous version of the lead was the result of a lot of back and forth and shouldn't be completely tossed away. Clinic, what would you want to change from the old version if it were edited substantially instead of scrapped? Conversely, Clinic's version could be cleaned up. One of the biggest issues is the use of "leftists" where "Republicans" or "Popular Front" should be used. There's also a lot of ridiculous puffery on Franco's military career. Do we really need to list every promotion through the ranks? Can't we assume he wasn't born a general? How important is the "Order of San Fernando"? Maybe it's more significant than I know, but we don't list JFK's medals in the lead for his article.--Bkwillwm (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

1. I did not replace Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy with "Italy and Germany." Those were the words in use before. Anyway the edit was not meant to gloss over anything. I thought the article was focussing too much on the general civil war at the expense of Franco's role and actions during the war. That is why I also removed the bit about the Soviets supporting the government. But I dont see any problem in adding the text back. I will admit that I was not aware Guernica was seen as a major turning point in the war. Otherwise I would not have removed it. Maybe add "played a crucial role...etc" after the bit where it says "was able to secure the support"?

2. I was actually thinking about this. Maybe use republicans? Btw I was not aware leftism can be construted as a degtratory term. This is rather a suprise.

3. English is not my native language but still I cant see how anyone could make it out to mean that he was bullied or socially targetted. What I hope others would understand by marginalized is "marginalized from power". That is why I added the context, that he was identified as a conservative and monarchist officer after the establishment of the republic. Read between the lines and you can get that the government saw him as a threat. However, if others agree this is confusing maybe add clarifications? Marginalized to "marginalized from power" and for context, state that the government feared a army coup.

4. Didn't Franco become well known for that amongst the fascist powers? That and touring Germany while as a instructor in the Zaragoza academy? I thought it was relevant in showing how he was able to build connections that helped out during the war.

5. Actually from what I had read, Franco was able to take complete control of the rebels while the left remain divided. That the nationalists were united in fighting under Franco against a divided enemy is something I have often seen emphasized as playing an important role in the war. I think it is relevant to convey this.

6. Agree, I can see why this is confusing. Maybe change leftists to enemies?

7. Isn't the link to the Francoist concentration camps adequate for that? I wouldnt have deleted the names if they could be linked to respective articles but otherwise it seemed to be needlessly clattering up space.

8. I am not too sure about this. Many simply describe him as a conservative autocrat like the Latin American dictators.

9. Is he really widely condemned? By all accounts, Spain only slowly and hesitantly began to confront the Francoist legacy as opposed to Germany where Hitler quickly became the symbol of evil. Didn't the Spanish conservatives vote against the Historical Memory Law? Cliniic (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Bkwillwm. I did not mean to puff up Franco's military career. At the time of rewriting the lead, I had in mind four distinct sections as I have outlined in the second post. The old version had "Franco was from a military family, and although originally intent on entering the Spanish Navy, he instead became a soldier. He participated in the Rif War in Morocco, becoming the youngest general in Europe by 1926." I decided to expand and detail his military career in the first section according to the outline. I didn't realize at the time some people might find it distasteful or see it "extolling the virtues of Franco’s early military career." While I now recognize the problems with the rewrite, at the time I honestly could not see someone having a problem with it. I hope we can work together to get the problems fixed. Again let me retirate that I did not mean to make it look like Franco was a great hero. Apologies if it came across that way. I simply meant to devote the first section to his military career and decided that his quick promotions, and medal citations were the most relevant material to put in. Cliniic (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Unprotected, Tom Harrison Talk 11:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Cliniic, thank you for your comments. This sounds to me like a massive list of edits to end up saying more or less what was already there albeit from a different angle. Seeing as it has taken a large group of editors many months to work consensually towards the last version of the lead, may I suggest that we do it the other way around: i.e. revert the version to its original state before your modification and use that as a starting point to discuss aspects that you would like to have included? This would allow us to carry on working consensually and incrementally (which has proven to be the way forward with controversial articles like this). 86.156.204.235 (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

There are several remarks above praising collaborative editing. To help foster that, it may be necessary to temporarily suspend the editing privileges of individuals who repeatedly revert others' work wholesale. Tom Harrison Talk 17:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

funny that you (86.156.204.235) ask my opinion when you simply revert whenever you get the chance! Anyway any feedback Spet and Bkwillwm? Cliniic (talk) 06:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

"baptised on 17 December at the military church of San Francisco"
I think the article should make it clear we are not talking about the more famous San Francisco. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

"Generalísimo" or "Generalissimo"?
Both are used in the article - which is correct?

Even if both are technically correct, shouldn't one or the other be used consistently throughout?

"Generalissimo" appears in the introduction, throughout the body of the article, and in the Military Service section of the side box.

"Generalísimo" appears once in the body of the article, and also at the very top of the side box (above the subject's name). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.15.52 (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Generalísimo is Spanish; Generalissimo is English. &mdash; TORTOISE  WRATH  18:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

1936 or 1939
The Spanish Republic existed until March 1939 & the Civil War ended on April 1, 1939. Shouldn't that mark the moment Franco becomes dictator? GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Isn't there a better picture available for the article caption?
The present image is terrible. He's actually wearing sunglasses in this one. The color is irretrievably bad. Isn't there a reasonably good public domain picture out there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Criticality (talk • contribs) 07:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Native speaker of Galician
Regarding the claim made recently " [Franco was a native speaker of Spanish and Gallego... he occasionally made public addresses in that language."], and not having been able, until now, to check the source provided, I got in touch with our colleagues at Wikipedia in Galician, who have confirmed my suspicions. At best, the claim is original research and pure conjecture. The citation given is that of a clearly sarcastic short essay by Xesús Alonso Montero, the current president of the Royal Galician Academy, a professor of Galician literature, and a sociolinguist, and from which I quote the following:

"Se cadra, do que se trata é de que Franco empregou algunha breve frase ou algunha palabra en galego. No descarto, in extremis, que citase algún verso popular en galego... que, na súa incultura, atribuiría a Rosalía de Castro. ... creo que o seu coñecemento da lingua galega era moit cativo.", which roughly translated goes like this: "Franco may have interspersed the odd Galician word or phrase in his speeches. I don't rule out, in extremis, that he may even have quoted some popular verse in Galician... which in his lack of culture he would have attributed to Rosalía de Castro. ... I think his knowledge of Galician was very bad." Alonso Montero, Xesus. Ensaios breves de literatura e política. Nigra. 1996. pp. 64–65

So, far from bearing out the statement that Franco was a native speaker of Galician, the reference provided basically states the opposite. If anyone wants to reinsert a mention of Franco and his eventual knowledge of Galician, correctly reflecting what the reference provided states, fine. Meanwhile, out it goes. At least in its present wording.--Technopat (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Have modified my rough translation above to better reflect the Royal Galician Academy's Dictionary entry for "cativo".--Technopat (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Staying out of WW2
'Some historians argue that Franco made demands he knew Hitler would not accede to in order to stay out of the war.'

Yes. Hitler's minister Admiral Canaris, who was organizing a resistance movement, secretly rehearsed Franco in advance of the latter's meeting with Hitler. An experienced diplomat and fluent Spanish-speaker, he presented Franco with strong arguments for Spanish neutrality, and suggested terms that Hitler was certain to reject. Valetude (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The Falange was fascist therefore Franco was a fascist
I am baffled why Franco is not explicitly described as a fascist. He used to dress in the blue shirt of the Falange. He took control of the "movement". He destroyed democracy and murdered the opposition. If he is not fascist I don't know who is. He is described as apolitical which is exactly what the fascists said of themselves when they said they were "neither right nor left". Franco used the fascist salute. Stanley G. Payne, who wrote the Franco Regime, stresses the fascist influences of the Falange and calls Franco's régime "semi-fascistic". Franco eventually distanced himself from the Falange but that does not erase his prior commitment to the Falange. Pistolpierre (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This article needs to describe the fascist influence on Franco's regime
Clearly this article needs to be improved. Franco's fascist years are not described. The fascist influences on Franco's regime are not described. Pistolpierre (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This sentence is not only inaccurate, but it has five sources, which seems odd given how untrue it is:

Although Franco and Spain under his rule adopted some trappings of fascism, he, and Spain under his rule, are generally not 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.[72][73][74][75][76] Pistolpierre (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Francisco Franco's death
+ On November 20, 1975, just after midnight, when relatives asked doctors to remove his support systems, the 82-year-old Francisco Franco passed away. Well, at least he was disconnected from machines.http://www.jacanaent.com/Biographies/Pages/FrancoF.htm date was relevant to Francisco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.161.16.17 (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

1966 coin
A 1966 Franco coin is in the section of his military career before the Civil War. Should this be removed as there is already a coin in the economy secion of his rule? The Almightey Drill (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Fascism
I'm certain of had read Franco proclaimed his (and other generals) movement as "Fascistic", early during the civil war. And he indeed got Italian help. How much he appriciated the German "help" is doubtful though. Franco approved or requested the bombings of Guernica, but not in the way it was carried out, like a German experiment of what later would follow. He thereafter disliked Hitler and the Nazists. (Likewise Hitler told one of Albert Speers architects, during the last weeks of the Third Reich, that he didn't mind the Spanish socialists, but was afraid of a Russian-Bolsjevistic Spain. Don't recall that source either) But Franco still was a Fascist. Not a Nazist but a Fascist, like Mussolini in ideology. One difference is that Fascists were not antisemitic. And if Mussolini hadn't been so eager to attack France, when the battle already was decided, then the "Nazisim is a kind of Fascism myth ", originally coined by Stalinistic Soviet Union, would never become spread. I.o.w. Fascism is bad, but Nazism worse. This I can support - "The Concise Encyclopedia of World History" Edited by John Bowles, New Horizon Books, Hutchinson of London, chapter 20 by John P. Plamenatz, part V, page 485-486
 * "Nazism exploited Socialist sentiments without being genuinely Socialist; it rejected individualism and responsible government, not only in practice, as the Communists did, but also in theory. In whatever it shared with Fascism, it was more immoderate and reckless, especially against Communism. It differed from Fascism in its furious hatred of the Jew and the Slav and its faith in racial superiority, and also in the intensity of its contempt for the Christian virtue of charity. In Fascism there was a larger element of fraud, in Nazism a much larger element of fanaticism. "

Also "The Racial State", Michael Burleigh, page 306-307, ISBN 0521398029
 * "The Third Reich was intended to be a racial rather than a class society. This fact in itself makes existing theories, whether based upon modernisation, totalitarianism, or global theories of Fascism, poor heuristic devices for a greater understanding of what was a singular regime without precedent or parallel ." (But this is no excuse for Fascism) Boeing720 (talk) 01:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps does this regime not entirely conform to definitions of fascism, the tendency to focus on whether a classification applies seems like a belittlement to what remains a misguided and murderous regime showcasing an insane amount of moral bankruptcy or corruption to cooperate in any way with despicable national socialists, which in turn would have forbidden inclusion in a treaty organisation of the north atlantic of all things! lmaxmai (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Have we got the pronunciation of "Bahamonde" right? Usually in Spanish, a word ending in a vowel (or N or S) would have its stress on the second-last syllable, or else it would take an accent over the vowel in the syllable that is stressed. So, is [βaˈamonde] right, or should that read [βaaˈmonde]? I am reasonably sure that the name should not be written "Bahámonde", as even the Spanish article about Franco doesn't put an accent there. Kelisi (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure you're right, so I changed it. Thanks! Lesgles (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Francisco Franco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110623064912/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/07/28/international/i100712D03.DTL to http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/07/28/international/i100712D03.DTL

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Did not work. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Crichton & Texas?
The following, currently in the article just after the photo of Ike & Franco, appears irrelevant and I suggest should be deleted:

"In 1952 a syndicate from Dallas, Texas, including Jack Crichton, Everette Lee DeGolyer, and Clint Murchison sought drilling rights to petroleum in Spain. The operation was handled by Delta Drilling Company."

Kessler (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

World War II
Franco said he would enter the war if the Axis took Malta. (213.122.144.70 (talk) 11:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC))

New external link
Please, let me to advice you evalue to include a new link: Franco and the racist doctrine of Vallejo-Nájera

This page is part of a restricted wiki (only approved users can write) that belongs to the digital media Vilaweb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.159.24 (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikis are not generally reliable sources. You will need to show that this one does not fail WP:ELNO, particularly point 12. "one should generally avoid providing external links to: ... Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. " I note that this particular page has only had two editors. Meters (talk) 09:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Upon Meters advice, herein I copy/paste the discussion we had in their talk page. Of course, I do not pretend to continue loosing my time with this non-sense discussion instead to keep it here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.119.199 (talk • contribs) 11:46, December 15, 2016 (UTC)


 * I did not tell you to copy the entire thread here. I told you that the article's talk page was the place to discuss the issue so that other editors could see it and comment. It is not appropriate to copy my comments from my talk page including my signature. Copying the thread is also a problem since you are using a different IP almost every time you post. I'm removing the copied material. The thread in question is here: User_talk:Meters. Meters (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * There is not point in adding a link to a partisan pseudo-wiki. Being a locked wiki edited by two loonies does not make its case particularly better, despite you might think the contrary. As far as I am concerned you can remove the other link.--Asqueladd (talk) 11:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to also removing the second external link. Meters (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Francisco Franco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150205083046/http://www.lacuarta.com:80/diario/2007/01/12/12.14.4a.VUE.VIUDOS.html to http://www.lacuarta.com/diario/2007/01/12/12.14.4a.VUE.VIUDOS.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Date of death
Franco actually died on 19 November 1975, but his death wasn't announced until the next day. (2A00:23C4:6392:3C00:EC0F:9A11:BEA3:EC53 (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC))

Wasn't Franco a fascist? Are you kidding?
I read here several times that Franco is not a fascist! I think that his atrocities are so clear that the doubt on if he wasn't a fascist needs to be corrected otherwise this article will be biased and serve as praise to fascism! 2A02:587:D4A:8E00:D157:1CD8:BBAE:832B (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * this article cites leading RS. what are your sources?  Rjensen (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Franco was definitely a fascist during the 1930s. His regime became somewhat more progressive after World War II. (86.158.36.12 (talk) 11:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Francisco Franco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080626065607/http://search.boe.es/datos/imagenes/BOE/1954/198/A04862.tif to http://search.boe.es/datos/imagenes/BOE/1954/198/A04862.tif

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Francisco Franco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012090326/http://search.boe.es/g/es/bases_datos/tifs.php?coleccion=gazeta&anyo=1933&nbo=217&lim=A&pub=BOE&pco=874&pfi=877 to http://search.boe.es/g/es/bases_datos/tifs.php?coleccion=gazeta&anyo=1933&nbo=217&lim=A&pub=BOE&pco=874&pfi=877

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Franco's memoirs?
According to Franco's own autobiography, he also met privately with Mussolini in Bordighera, Italy on February 12, 1941...
 * Do we have any reference of Franco's autobiography? Or is it discredited? Valetude (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Valetude, the meeting between Mussolini and Franco on 12 February 1941 is dealt by several reliable sources (see f.e.: es:Entrevista de Bordighera) different from a really obscure "autobiography". I don't know of any, there is a novel under the name of Autobiografía del general Franco (by Manuel Vázquez Montalbán) and the closest to an autobiography (very loosely speaking, it really isn't) might the novel Raza.--Asqueladd (talk) 11:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Francisco Franco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090205040436/http://www.eumed.net/entelequia/pdf/2008/e07a19.pdf to http://www.eumed.net/entelequia/pdf/2008/e07a19.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes
I've made two small yet vital changes to the lead just now: 1. He is not just called a fascist by communists and "left-wing critics" (really, critics?). The claim uses a Guardian article as one of its sources, but that article actually says how ridiculous it is that in Spain you can't call him a fascist. 2. He is not a "divisive figure in Europe and abroad". I don't think any modern non-Spanish historian would describe him positively. He is a divisive figure in Spain though. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Francoist Spain and regional languages (Catalan, Basque, etc)?
In the article, it states:

"Franco abolished the official statute and recognition of the Basque, Galician, and Catalan languages that the Second Spanish Republic had granted for the first time in the history of Spain. He returned to Castilian as the only official language of the State and education. The Franco era corresponded with the popularisation of the compulsory national educational system and the development of modern mass media, both controlled by the State and in the Castilian language, and heavily reduced the number of speakers of Basque, Catalan and Galician, as happened during the second half of the 20th century with other European minority languages which were not officially protected, such as Scottish Gaelic or French Breton."

Yet on many other Wikipedia articles it makes out that is was a criminal offense to speak or publish in Catalan or Basque, what is the truth of the matter? For example, there were specific laws criminalising being a member of a leftist political party or freemasonry in Spain, but were there any actual laws against Catalan/Basque, etc culture and language, or was this more a case of heavy handed promotion of Castilian language/culture, in the same way that under supposedly "liberal" regimes, English is pushed in the United Kingdom and French is pushed in the French Republic? Claíomh Solais (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

IP edits to lead
IP user 199.227.97.254 has several times now removed sourced information that was critical of Franco or made references to fascism from the lead and body (for example, here and again here and here). He also inserted material of dubious relevance and origin. Edit summaries justifying this removal of sourced content (as well as deletions of those sources) are usually along the lines of "no evidence for this" and "historians agree". If the IP wants to discuss these changes, that's fine, but they have been challenged several times and edit warring is not an appropriate reaction. Prinsgezinde (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Groundhog day
199.227.97.254 (and also User:Mamalujo in the past) seem to have a recurring problem (...) with the following statement wording, present in the lead (they really, I mean really abhore it):

""Franco merged the fascist and traditionalist political parties in the rebel zone, as well as other conservative and monarchist elements, into FET y de las JONS, outlawing the rest of political parties and thus Spain became a one-party state.""

199.227.97.254 actually brings the name of Stanley G. Payne as argument (telling Prinsgezinde: "And, I will be shocked to learn if you have never heard of Stanley Payne?" [sic]). I'll be damned, but I think 199.227.97.254 has not read Payne either. I don't know what history are they reading but not even staunchly revisionist historians deny the fascist character of the FE de las JONS project. To sum it up (where the real historiographc matter of discussion lies), I bring the words of a quality author (Alejandro Quiroga):

""To date studies on the Spanish extreme right in the 1920s and 1930s show two main currents of interpretation. On the one hand, historians such as Shlomo Ben-Ami, Paul Preston and Raul Morodo have portrayed Alfonsine Monarchists as close to radical right and fascist European ideologies. This approach takes a comprehensive view of the fascist phenomenon, in which the Alfonsine Monarchists are presented as a particular variety of Spanish Catholic fascists. Some other scholars have argued, on the other hand, that the Alfonsine Monarchists were not fascist because their Catholic traditionalist ideology impeded a complete shift into a radical modem and revolutionary doctrine. This interpretation, defended by historians such as Stanley Payne, Javier Tusell and Pedro Gonzalez Cuevas, relies on a less flexible explanation of Fascism, stresses the links of Prime’s ideologues with Spanish Catholic traditionalist thought, and considers the Falange and the J.O.N.S. as the only real fascist groups in 1930s Spain ""

- Alejandro Quiroga Sánchez de Soto (2004) p.15

See? No historiographic group (not even right-wing revisionists) shares the ludicrous idea that FE de las JONS (result of the merging of Falange Española and the Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista) wasn't Fascist. The matter of debate is not there. Some historians could disagree on the importance of Fascist falangists within FET y de las JONS, the reach of the totalitarian momentum between 1936 and 1943, etc, etc... But not this. Let's see if once and for all, we stop this nonsense based in (apparently) a tragic misunderstatement of history.

Because, I mean the thing is rather clear:

""During the Civil War, the FE de las JONS sided with Franco’s Nationalists. On April 20th, 1937, the Nationalist government in Burgos published Decree 255. This decree dissolved all political parties in Nationalist–controlled territory, merging the existing fascist FE de las JONS, the monarchist, Carlist Comunión Tradicionalista, and the various Catholic parties into a “sole political entity.” This new party was dubbed the Falange Española Tradicionalista y de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional Sindicalista."" —Jacob Fox Watkins (2014) p.58

I mean, some like to summon Payne, but have they even cared to read him? "Franco formed by fiat his new state party, Falange Española Tradicionalista de las JONS (FET) in April 1937, merging the fascist Falange with the Carlist Traditionalists." —Stanley G. Payne (2011) p.165 Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 199.227.97.254 is still going about it the wrong way. For some reason he said in his last edit that I didn't respond to him, despite me having already answered his questions on my talk page (where the discussion was started). It would really help if the IP joined the discussions here before reverting. Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

In the other hand, Prinsgezinde, the "His regime has frequently been identified as fascist, but Spanish history books typically categorize it as conservative and authoritarian" bit could use some tuning and less editorialization from the Grauniad. Here two comprehensive historiographical assessments of the debate on the nature of the regime in Spanish and in English, as well as the developed assesment of the counterpart to Payne (Preston) in case someone wants to work on improving it.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the following text encompasses this conceptualization of the debate (Sanz Hoya, pp. 35-36). Since the famous rethorical description of the Francoist dictatorship as a "authoritatian regime of limited pluralism" by Juan José Linz, the matter of the nature of the regime has confronted historians describing it as a "authoritarian dictatorship", essentially clerical and reactionary, and other historians who have defined it as a "Fascist dictatorship".--Asqueladd (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, really, I don't think all the IP's edits were necessarily bad. He just tried to enforce them in a really bad way. About that specific sentence though, many Spanish sources do still differ from the more widespread international view historians have of him. While I agree that there is no universal view of him as a fascist, the difference should probably be highlighted. Political scientists from all around may question his ideology, but it appears the main difference between Spanish and international sources has long been how (much) his massacres and persecutions are described and mentioned. That Guardian article mentions another in which a scandal is brought to light about an official state-funded biography praising him and not mentioning massacres. But as with any not so simple issue, the good news is that it's not for us to find the truth. We just mention what experts consider to be the truth. Prinsgezinde (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Asqueladd: I thought it was Attic Salt who reverted my change from "fascists" to "Falange Espanola" for the sentence, "In April 1937, Franco merged the fascist and traditionalist political parties in the rebel zone, as well as other conservative and monarchist elements, into FET y de las JONS, outlawing the rest of political parties and thus Spain became a one-party state."

My problem is with using the generic word "fascist" rather than the party's correct name, "Falange Espanola." Manalojo may have the same objection. To conflate FE with Hitler's National Socialist German Workers' Party or Mussolini's Partito Nazionale Fascista creates only confusion. My suggestion is instead, since FE was uniquely Spanish, for greater precision to use the party's name in the sentence instead of the charged word "fascist," and of course link FE to its page so the reader can see for himself how different this party was from in particular the National Socialist German Workers' Party. All historians agree FE represented a unique brand of "Spanish Catholic authoritarianism," to conflate, even inadvertently, FE with Hitler's neo-paganism and racism is a disservice to the reader.

I also added for my original revision "thus Spain became a nominally one-party state." Manuel Fraga claimed even Franco at times treated El Movimiento as a joke. But, if you really object to "nominally" I have no problem with its removal.

I would like to work with for an agreed amended version for the sentence in question. 199.227.97.254 (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 199.227.97.254 I think this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't know where did you get the crackpot idea that "Falange" were "catholic authoritarian conservatives" in opposition to being "Fascists", at odds with the entire body of academia. I don't agree at all with dropping the "Fascist" bit (that can be easily sourced as you can see above) from that part of the lead. FE de las JONS was a Fascist party as in Griffin's "palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism which seeks the rebirth of the nation through a radical social, moral and political revolution"" or whatever definition you could come up with... And that's what sources do in the context of the April 1937 decree of unification: label FE de las JONS as fascist (even right wing revisionists like Stanley G. Payne). Every authorative scholar recognizes FE de las JONS in the scope of Fascist momentum of the 1930s, not limited by the way to Germany and Italy (see Romania, f.e. for a particularly religious one). Additionally you can re-read the several definitions of Fascism: "neo-paganism" is not a core feature of Fascism in any of them. Despite being casually called simply "Falange", party real name wasn't "Falange Española" back then. That party merged in March 1934 with the Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional Sindicalista to form the "Falange Española de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista" (FE de las JONS). We are not even entering the issue of the fascistization of the rest of the right wing parties (particularly Renovación Española, and the youth wing of the CEDA)... That's were there are juicy contrasting interpretations depending on the author. But not here. Really. The Fascist character of FE de las JONS, is cut and dried as far as the entire corpus of sources go. You can stick to your personal views if that makes you feel better of course, but please don't distort the entry with them.--Asqueladd (talk) 05:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Asqueladd: For good reason nowhere in academic works is FE simply referred to as “the fascists.” For its flag the FE adopted the Yoke and Arrows, the symbol of the Catholic Monarchs; to state "fascists" rather than the party's name is to make simple something very complex and create confusion as to how different for many of its core and religious beliefs the FE was from the National Socialist German Workers' Party or Mussolini's Partito Nazionale Fascista. Also, you seem to argue CEDA was fascist and Stanley Payne is merely a “right-wing revisionist” of Spanish history?

This dispute is more than just stylistic. "Fascist" is one of the most charged words of our time evoking mostly the horrors of Hitler's Germany and his ideology of racism. It is unfair to the reader for one of the first paragraphs of the page to conflate in his mind the FE with the National Socialist German Workers' Party or Mussolini's Partito Nazionale Fascista. FE was the party merged with other right-wing groups to form FET y de las JONS, and not "the fascists" or "fascist party." Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia, not a "polemic." As a good faith compromise I propose the following revision for the sentence in question:

"On April 19, 1937, Franco by decree merged the Falange Española, the Monarchist, Carlist Comunión Tradicionalista and other right wing factions into Falange Española Tradicionalista y de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista, outlawing all other political parties and thus Spain became a one-party state." text 199.227.97.254 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia exists to summarize the best published sources. Your goal appears to be that we should represent Franco's one-party state in a manner that does not match the published sources. The answer to your request must be 'no' unless you can show that significant sources represent Franco's junta party as having little to do with fascism. Binksternet (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually Binksternet, Falange Espanola was founded by Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, not Franco and as his “junta party.”  Do you now argue the entire El Movimiento (FET y JONS) should be referred to as “the fascists”? In your view are the Monarchist Party and Carlist Comunión Tradicionalista also "fascist"? My suggested changes relate only to the FE being referenced by its name and not simply as the "fascists." 199.227.97.254 (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is not so much a fascist element in the Falange, but whether or not it was powerful or just played a relatively minor role as Franco made all the decisions, not the party central committee. Payne says it was very weak. Preston says, "Attempts to define Spanish fascism have been bedevilled by the fact that the one undisputably fascist party in the 1930s, the Falange, was numerically weak ... Although merely a part of a wider whole, FET y de las JONS was to give a fascist veneer to the wider Francoist coalition."  Both Payne and Preston see Franco as in full control of both the military and the party.  see https://books.google.com/books?id=yqGIAgAAQBAJ&pg=PR11 pp xii and xiii. and also p 5 of Preston--he says the JONS lost out to the military for power, and that Franco controlled the military. Rjensen (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * FE was fascist, according to all the sources, for instance Payne. FET y JONS had fascist sympathies, working over time to hide these, despite the clear and continued connection, with some of the falangists taking positions in government. Binksternet (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with almost all of what you say for your last post, but still think the sentence should be modified as I have shown above. FE was uniquely Spanish and stating Falange Espanola in place of "fascist party," with a link to FE, will disabuse the reader for reflexively think its ideology closely modeled that of the National Socialist German Workers' Party or Mussolini's Partito Nazionale Fascista. 199.227.97.254 (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Payne doesn't appear to be worried about the notion of reflexive (wrong) thinking in the reader. Fascism is a large topic, not just about Germany or Italy. This article should not be whitewashed to cater to those readers who conflate the various strains of fascism. Binksternet (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * this article is about Franco. the fascists never controlled him or his regime, though they did have a strong voice in the party.  The party did not rule Spain says the RS.  Preston says:  FET y de las JONS was to give a fascist veneer to the wider Francoist coalition."  the dictionary states: "veneer" = " something felt to resemble or functioning in the manner of a veneer of wood especially in forming a superficial layer: as  a : a superficial or meretricious show : GLOSS" [Webster's 3rd dictionary] Rjensen (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So what would that have to do with the sentence? This sentence is about what was merged by Franco into an only party in 1937 (war time): the two biggest sources of cannon fodder volunteer militia: Fascist FE de las JONS and Traditionalist Carlists, as well as adding elements from other groups. Whitewashing the Fascist character of the former, disregarding what sources do, just to please the feeling of a particular editor is ludicrous.--Asqueladd (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Changing the sentence to correctly state the party’s name as Falange Española will “white wash” nothing and instead make the article more precise. The same is true for naming as well the Monarchists and Carlist Comunión Tradicionalista as the other principal parties merged together with the Falange Española to form FET y JONS. This article for its present form is properly rated by Wikipedia as C-Class.199.227.97.254 (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I may be willing to compromise on this phrasing: On April 19, 1937, Franco merged by decree the Fascist and Carlist political parties in the rebel zone (respectively, Falange Española de las JONS and Comunión Tradicionalista) as well as other prewar right-wing groups, into the Falange Española Tradicionalista y de las JONS (FET-JONS), outlawing all other political parties and thus Spain became a one-party state.--Asqueladd (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * good compromise. Rjensen (talk) 12:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

How about this for compromise language:

On April 19, 1937, Franco merged by decree the fascist Falange Española and Carlist political parties in the rebel zone as well as other prewar right-wing groups, into the Falange Española Tradicionalista y de las JONS (FET-JONS), outlawing all other political parties and thus Spain became a one-party state.--199.227.97.254 (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Franco Ordered Guernica?
In paragraph 2 someone has written, “Franco personally requested of the Germans and Italians the aerial bombing of Guernica in 1937, which opened the way to the capture of Bilbao and his victory in northern Spain.” There is no cited authority for this sentence and it should be deleted.

Hugh Thomas absolved the Spaniards of responsibility for Guernica and Stanley Payne in his 2014 book Franco: A Personal and Political Biography at p. 182 writes, “ Franco had no prior knowledge of the attack, since daily operational details of the northern campaign did not necessarily come to him, though Mola’s headquarters would have known about it.” 199.227.97.254 (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * M. Alpert writes in the Springer volume A New International History of the Spanish Civil War, page 125 that a request for the bombing of Guernica came from Franco's headquarters, and possibly a direct order. Herbert Rutledge Southworth writes in Guernica! Guernica! on page 373 that the idea of Franco being unaware of the bombing, and being angry upon first learning of the bombing, is a "Neo-Franquista" invention, unsupported by evidence. He says George Hills gave this version without proof, as did La Cierva, Talon, and Martinez Bande. Southworth says that the May 7 telegram from Franco to Sperrle with instructions to lie to Berlin shows that Franco was responsible for the bombing. Southworth says that there were two organizations which were responsible for the bombing: the Spanish Nationalist command, and the Condor Legion officers. Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I read both Alpert & Southworth. They argue that a request (But not the precise orders) to bomb the town probably came from Franco's headquarters.  They are both careful not to say that Franco ordered it himself, so Wiki should not say it either.  Alperts writes p 125 "Franco spokesman began to admit the facts and to try to lay the blame on the Condor Legion rather than on Franco's headquarters, from where the request, if not the precise orders, for the bombing had come."Rjensen (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Mola ran the Northern Campaign, not Franco. At least we should say it is disputed whether Franco requested or ordered the attack upon Guernica; yet the best scholarship - Thomas, Payne & Preston show he had no knowledge of the attack. 199.227.97.254 (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hugh Thomas for his work The Spanish Civil War: 2001 Revised Edition at p. 609 writes: The diary of Von Richthofen also makes clear that Colonel Juan Vigon, Mola’s chief of staff, knew of the raid beforehand: the two are said to have conferred on both 25 and 26 April 'without reference to higher authority'.

Hugh Thomas was not a "crypto-fascist," he was instead a preeminent authority for Spanish Civil War history. 199.227.97.254 (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Franco Executed or "Worked to Death" 400,000?
For paragraph 3 someone has written, “Upon his rise to power, Franco implemented policies that were responsible for the repression and deaths of as many as 400,000 political opponents and dissenters through the use of forced labor and executions in the concentration camps his regime operated.”

This sentence is unintelligible. What does "Upon his rise to power” mean, from the outbreak of the Civil War on 18 July 1936 to his elevation as leader of the rebels on 1 October 1936, and during this period he executed or “worked to death” 400,000? Or, does the author instead attempt to state or imply there were together Civil War and Post-Civil War 400,000 executions or prisoners “worked to death” for forced labor in “his concentration camps”? Or, does the author attempt to say both the "repressed" and dead together total 400,000?  And, can we say Franco ever really operated "concentration camps" in Spain? Even Paul Preston would not agree to these numbers.  This confusing and poorly structured sentence is a disservice to the reader and should be deleted from the article.   This sentence is not even Class-D for Wikipedia.199.227.97.254 (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Any authority for the 400,000 number? And, without question Franco had prisoner of war camps but concentration camps? 199.227.97.254 (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes... Franco had concentration camps: Quick glance: es:Campos de concentración franquistas. Reliable sources: ... Stop with the whitewashing, please.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Where does the 400,000 number come from? And, no one is "whitewashing" anything, an encyclopedia should be fair and objection, not a "polemic." 199.227.97.254 (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but in 1939 there were around 300,000 republicans in more than 40 Francoist concentration camps "designed and operated as an  'Arendt-style purgatory'  concentration system, but with greater emphasis on repression and identity change". (Pinto, Raimundo; 2016; p. 108) I don't know if you do it in purpose but doubting in the existence of concentration camp is aproaching genocide denialism territory.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no authority for the contention that there were as many as 400,000 post-Civil War deaths by forced labor and executions. Even Paul Preston would refute this number, so why is this number stated in an article about Francisco Franco for an "encyclopedia" which should by definition be politically neutral to its subject? Or, is it you have an "agenda" and just don't care about the accuracy of the article? 199.227.97.254 (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I would like to delete the sentence, "Upon his rise to power, Franco implemented policies that were responsible for the repression and deaths of as many as 400,000 political opponents and dissenters through the use of forced labor and executions in the concentration camps his regime operated.” Does anyone object? The 400,000 number for deaths through forced work and executions is baseless.  Also, this topic is covered and addressed quite well under the section for the article entitled "From the Spanish Civil War to World War II" where are cited Preston, Payne, Beevor & Jackson for reasonable estimations for both Civil War and post Civil War deaths and executions.199.227.97.254 (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Tell me more about it. If the sentence above is dropped I propose to insert the sentence, in 1939 there were around 300,000 republicans imprisoned in more than 40 Francoist concentration camps designed and operated as an 'Arendt-style purgatory' concentration system, but with greater emphasis on repression and identity change ([) Because Francoist concentrations camps are pretty notable despite what you may think (or wish? or like to wash?).--[[User:Asqueladd|Asqueladd]] (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The above may be a fair compromise. Even the regime estimated political detainees after the Civil War at about 270,000. But, can we better define or use some other term than "Arendt-style purgatory," unless a link to a "Hannah Arendt-style purgatory" page is given, and of course, there is none? And, I know you are taking this verbiage directly from the book.199.227.97.254 (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I will delete "Upon his rise to power, Franco implemented policies that were responsible for the repression and deaths of as many as 400,000 political opponents and dissenters through the use of forced labor and executions in the concentration camps his regime operated” since the 400,000 dead number is baseless and look forward to working with Asgueladd and/or other editors if they feel some form of replacement sentence is desired. 199.227.97.254 (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * This sentence is still in the article. I actually reworked the wording a while ago to make it more cogent, on the assumption that the references - which are not online so I could not check them - were accurate. But if the 400,000 then is there any reason the sentence is still in the article? Cloudspert (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

1941 "List of Jews" in Spain handed over to Himmler?

 * The article states that "Franco ordered his provincial governors to compile a list of Jews while he negotiated an alliance with the Axis powers". This is indeed historically verified.
 * However, the article then states that "Franco supplied Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler, architect of the Nazis' Final Solution, with a list of 6,000 Jews in Spain", with the reference coming from an article in "Haaretz".
 * https://www.haaretz.com/1.5137381
 * The article states that "Shortly before the list was prepared, Romani and Himmler attended a bullfight in Madrid together. After it was finalized, Romani was appointed Spain's ambassador to Germany, enabling him to deliver it personally to Himmler".
 * The source referenced by "Haaretz" is a 2010 article in the Spanish daily El Pais. Here is the article.
 * https://elpais.com/diario/2010/06/20/domingo/1277005953_850215.html
 * The relevant phrases in that article are as follows: "El censo, que incluía los nombres, datos laborales, ideológicos y personales de 6.000 judíos, fue, presumiblemente, entregado a Himmler."
 * "The census, which included the names, labor, ideological and personal data of 6,000 Jews, was, presumably, handed over to Himmler."
 * "Dentro de poco más de un mes, Finat va a ocupar su cargo de embajador en Berlín. Allí podrá entregar en persona a Himmler sus listas de judíos. Si España entra en la guerra, serán un buen regalo para los nazis."
 * "In a little over a month, Finat is going to occupy his position as ambassador in Berlin. There he will be able to deliver his lists of Jews to Himmler in person.  If Spain enters the war, they will be a good gift for the Nazis."
 * "El Archivo Judaico habría sido un hermoso regalo para Hitler. Su conservación, una repugnante prueba de lo que los falangistas de Ramón Serrano Suñer pretendían hacer con los judíos españoles."
 * "The Jewish Archive would have been a beautiful gift for Hitler. Its conservation, a repugnant proof of what the Falangists of Ramón Serrano Suñer intended to do with the Spanish Jews."
 * There is no evidence provided here that Finat actually took with him the Jewish Archive and personally handed it over to Himmler for Himmler's personal use. In point of fact, in October 1940, the negotiations between Franco and Hitler had broken down, and Spain did not enter the war on the side of Germany. One cannot presume that Franco felt subservient to Nazi Germany, even if some his officials were influenced by Nazi ideas. There is no question that Franco would have seen matters pertaining to Spanish Jewry in Spain as falling under the purview of Spanish sovereignty. The notion that he would have been willing to outsource an internal Spanish matter to Nazi German officials, after having resisted Hitler's demands for entry into the War, seems rather dubious.
 * The reference cited by the article in "El Pais" is a study done by Jacobo Israel Garzón and published in the magazine Raíces. Garzón's article can be found at the following link.
 * http://observatorioantisemitismo.fcje.org/wp-content/uploads/wpcf7_uploads//2009/11/El-Archivo-Judaico-del-Franquismo.pdf
 * Garzón's article publishes the order given by Finat to provincial governors to compile and supply information on Jews living in areas under their jursidiction.
 * But it does not, as far as I can tell, make any claim that the information thus obtained was handed over to Himmler or any other Nazi German official.
 * One can speculate that such documentation would have been handed over to the Nazis had Spain formally entered the War on the side of Germany.
 * But in the absence of hard evidence that documentation was indeed handed over to Germany, we cannot conclude that it was.
 * The allegation is serious.
 * Does such evidence exist? If not, this article needs to be modified.
 * Jacob D (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Jacob D
 * Jacob D (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Jacob D