Talk:Francoist Spain/Archive 1

Archive 1

flag

Anyone got a free version of the "Una Grande y Libre" flag of spain during that era? I think it is required, as the Second Republic has its flag there. If anyone has it, please add it to the article. [Zespris - 14/6/05]

The statement that Spain was "the second most backward country in Europe" in the Spanish miracle section is a major value judgment. Something statistical like that it had the second lowest literacy rate, or the second lowest GDP in Europe should be provided, if either of those is true. "Backward" is a thin and insupportable description. Dave 19:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposal of an article about francoist repression

Note: This thread has been copied from talk:Catalan negationism. As the article was requested for delete on Dec,16 2005 WP:AfD, but the thread was deemed interesant and more suited for this article, is has been brought here. Comments are welcomed--Wllacer 12:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

<start of original thread>

I agree that this article should be highly improved. I think that creating an article about Catalan repression under Francoism would be more interesting and suitable. This could also be a complement to current Spain under Franco. The different revisionist ideas could also be included in that article and also their legacy nowadays. There is much bibliography and info about that topic on Internet, but of course, it's also an amazing huge task. Toniher 13:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't recommend an specific article for Catalonia for three reasons:

• Unless some specifity (there are cases) is needed it's a worthless and decremental effort trying to separate catalan and spanish entries.
• I'm requesting for help on the case of repression during and after the civil war, from both parties (see talk:Francisco Franco#Request for Help) as only the global study of political violence during and after the war (and even before) makes sense. From the info I have now, the only thing "special" about Catalonia is that francoist repression seems to have been relatively mild.
• A separate article would be in theory nice. But due to the lack of consensus (or better said the extreme polarization) of the sources, its objectivity value (we are working on an encyclopedia) would be nil, so a few well measured sentences and references to the main scholary contestants, would be of more educational caracter. That's what i intend to do in Franco's article, and propagate them later on other relevant places. I find the topic extremely disgusting, and much more how it is treated nowadays in Spain. Is not a good moment to try to write cooly --Wllacer

Hi Wllacer. I agree with contributing in a more "general" way, in this case, in a Spanish context, when possible. I have recently found Language politics in Francoist Spain and this would also be an interesting place to add Catalan-related info. However, if there is relevant and enough quality information to make a specific Catalan related article, I see no problem doing this. I know polarization makes things difficult (let's say, vandalism, it's tiresome, etc.) but it may also enrich the NPOV of the article if properly managed. If we avoided some subjects because of that, we would end up ignoring too many things.

Well, all this above has been a little off topic. I would simply urge those who may have enough background on these topics, to help in all this Franco-related articles, as Wllacer is asking for. Toniher 17:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, basically we agree

The Language politics in Francoist Spain, a User:Error's idea will be a good sample of how such things can be done with a global view. Perhaps then an specific catalan article may then prove interesting (or not)

In case we were dealing with repression, and we decide to go the hard way (an article) i'd make it fuller (including not only francoist but also republican repression) and longer in time (eg. 1931-1947)

I believe Franco's repression after the war can not be fully, -but not only- understood without reference to the same during the war, and in turn it's imposible to understand how we went blood-crazy, without showing how the action-reaction spiral grew. The upper limit would coincide with the end of the "maquis", the last offshot of the civil war. Also i'd make it rather more general (incluiding state violence, terrorism, street violence, uprisings, repression, religious persecution ...) and call it Political Violence in Spain (1931-1947).

The problem with it is that this plan fits the so-called revisionist agenda ... I need rather more thinking and discussion

As this article seems to be doomed, and i consider this thread most interesting, if you give me permision, I'll move it from your first entry downward, somewhere else, Spain under Franco suits you ? I'll also excise , if you don't mind, the "It's to late ..." paragraph.

--Wllacer 07:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, if you think this may be useful, go ahead. Toniher 00:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

<end of original thread>

I think much more can be said on this article, but expanding it risks taking losing NPOV 195.57.80.67 22:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Questionable link

Should we really have the link for the documentary When Franco died we were 30? As far as I can see, the linked site has vey little information unless you are paying to view the film. - Jmabel | Talk 05:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but isn't there a policy about linking to sites that you have to pay to use? Murderbike 20:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger With Spanish State

I think that Spain under Franco needs to be merged with the Spanish State article. One of the Spanish series links to the Spanish State article, while the History of Spain series links to Spain under Franco. Are these two articles not about the same thing? I would do the merger myself, but I don't really know how to do it. Suggestions? Oscabat 21:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

In the strict sense of the word, they should be two different articles: Spanish State would be more concerned with constitutional issues and type of regime, whereas "Spain under Franco" covers also economical issues (the "Spanish miracle"), cultural events (repression of regionalism, etc.). You could, however, merge it (see WP:MERGE) but I think others opinions would be good. The main reason for a merge would be to avoid a fork & duplicate content, but again, I think the two article covers different things. Tazmaniacs 16:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea of a merger. Spanish state is covering the entire history of the spanish state. Spain under franco is an historic period that certainly deserves its independent article.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point Tazmaniacs. However, if that is the case, then there certainly needs to be a lot more work done on removing duplicate content, and enhancing the Spanish State article. I disagree with you, Maunus, however, because the "Spanish State" was a title referring to the period under which Franco ruled (it even explains it in the article). The second part of the article that discusses it's current day use is probably more for posterity and even has a different meaning.Oscabat 05:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems quite clear that Estado de España ("Spanish State," not "Spanish state") refers specifically to the regime that existed between 1939 and the Bourbon restoration (Reino de España), much as how l'État Français only ever signifies Marshal Pétain's Vichy-based regime, not the French "state" itself (la République Française). While our rote abhorrence of the Franco regime and ideology is quite understandable, the zeal with which we sometimes thunder away against any trace of Franco, pushing for bizarre piping and unnecessary disambiguation, is neither justified nor dignified. If anything, Spain under Franco should be merged into Spanish State, considering WikiProject Former countries's habit of using the autochthonous names of the period. Cheers, Albrecht 02:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct spanish denomination was Estado Español. Technically the merger is obvious. Both articles are refering to the same period (well there is an appendage in the "Estado" article not history but political lingo related not exactly matching). My only caveat is that the official denomination (Spanish State) is almost forgotten nowadays and its usage nowadays rather points to the "neospeak" term used by those for which the term Spain is taboo (as explained in the entry). Wllacer 19:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I bring some: what about the translation of the extracts after choosing (hey, native english speakers). I would like to know your opinion, may be other extracts, etc.:

• 1. ESTADO, NACIÓN Y PATRIA EN EL LENGUAJE POLÍTICO ESPAÑOL. DATOS LEXICOMÉTRICOS Y NOTAS PARA UNA HISTORIA CONCEPTUAL (Proyecto de investigación BFF 2002-01194, del Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología).

Javier Fernández Sebastian, Catedrático de Historia del Pensamiento Político en la Universidad del País Vasco.

"Lo cierto es que, como consecuencia de factores sociopolíticos y culturales muy diversos –desde la expansión de los organismos del Estado y de su influjo en la vida económica, hasta el empleo muy frecuente del eufemismo “Estado español” en lugar de España por parte de los nacionalistas catalanes y vascos, e incluso por un sector de la izquierda española–, también durante la transición y en la democracia Estado sería uno de los términos políticos más utilizados". [2]

• 2. ¿Y TÚ DE QUIÉN ERES? Identidad europea y lealtad a la nación

Antonia María Ruiz Jiménez. Dpto. de Ciencia Política y de la Administración UNED; CEACS, Fundación Juan March; EURONAT.

"Esto ha resultado también en un discurso público por parte de las élites políticas y los medios de comunicación social en el que la idea o el concepto de “nación española” está vedado. Alternativamente, las élites tienden a usar términos políticamente más correctos como “este país”, el “estado español” y utilizar símbolos inclusivos como la constitución, en detrimento de la bandera, el himno, el ejército etc. (Jáuregui 2002, Ruiz Jiménez 2002), todo lo cual viene a reforzar la importancia de éstos elementos en la identificación nacional de los españoles". [3]

• 3. For a new political party in Catalonia. Ciutadans manifesto: [4]

• 4. The recent Joan Ferran affair: "Cal arrencar de Catalunya Ràdio i TV-3 la crosta nacionalista (nationalistic discourse-language on catalan public mass media: imagine non public). "A les emissores de la Generalitat no existeix Espanya. La paraula Espanya, un concepte real, vigent i que tothom entén, és exclosa i substituïda sempre per Estat o qualsevol eufemisme o el·lipsi. Les emissores públiques no poden reduir el seu llenguatge al de la cosmovisió nacionalista. Han de fer servir el llenguatge útil dels ciutadans, de tots els ciutadans. Això per no parlar del mapa del temps, en què és senzill saber si plourà a Alacant, cosa que trobo perfecte, però difícil saber si lluirà el sol a Fraga, a 30 quilòmetres de Lleida, o a Madrid, a una hora de vol de Barcelona. ¿I les tertúlies? És inacceptable que en una taula de cinc tertulians, tres o quatre siguin sobiranistes. És un reduccionisme endogàmic intolerable. El país és molt més que això. TV-3 no pot ser com la televisió de Flandes, dirigida exclusivament als flamencs". [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], blackmail

• 5. Inspirational source: Wikipedia in Catalan [11]

• 6. Los batasunnis. It looks silly as source, but this gag from the public-basque TV extracts elements from reality, exaggerating the stereotypes as humoristic recourse orientated to the basque audience. [12]

I would change those sentences (per començar), that's about it:

• "...the term has been picked up by nationalists and even left-wing circles"
• "...for whom the word "Spain" (and all its national symbols) is the taboo, while Spanish State is the euphemism"
• "...since they do not recognize Spain as a nation, as the Spanish Constitution says, but rather as a no-nation state comprised of several nations"

--Call me Elmo ^{Sesame Street} 00:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Owdki. The sources above prove the first of your proposals, which I don't oppose. You might add it. The third is also true, but I think it needs context, especially on the "as the constitution says" phrase (which will be explained below). The second one, I oppose on two grounds:

• "Spain is the taboo" is not encyclopedical. Try rephrasing to a less controversial and more appropriate description, but take into account that:
• "Spanish State" is not a euphemism. First, it is, what the constitution says: "La forma política del Estado Español es la Monarquía parlamentaria" (First article, third section), continued at the third article first section: "El castellano es la lengua española oficial del Estado", and the fifth article: "La capital del Estado es la villa de Madrid., and again, in the 11th, 20th, 42nd, 56th (the King being the "máxima representación del Estado Español), 65th, 97th, 102nd, 103rd, 105th,107th, 109th (distinguishing between the Estado and the comunidades autónomas), 116th, 121st, 134th, 137th (about the organización del Estado'), 138th, 139th, 141st, 142nd, 147th, 148th, 149th,... etc. [13].

As to why using a constitutional term, "Estado Español" implies a nationalistic (not of the Spanish nation, but of the other purported "nations")? I don't fully understand. After all, it is also a constitutional term. So, no, I don't agree with the second point. --the Dúnadan 04:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Decolonization

The chronological presentation makes it difficult to mention the gradual decolonization of Francoist Spain, contrasting it with the stubbornness of Portugal. --Error (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Several fixes needed in section "Franco's regime"

In the section "Franco's regime", I've added a number of tags to statements that are vague, un-cited, or weasel-ish. I did not do this simply to be troublesome -- I honestly believe that these need to be addressed. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 06:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This is wrong

The official name of 1936/1975 Spain always was the Kingdom of Spain (Reino de España).General Francisco Franco Bahamonde was a monarquic party (His Majesty Alfonso XIII was his nupcial´s testify) but he was his diferences with the spanish princes and princess . Also it is the modern name. But the spanish king, Juan Carlos I, is "Constitutional King of Spain" or "Rey Constitucional de España".

Umm. Wikisource:es:Fuero de los españoles has no mention of reino, but wikisource:es:Ley de Sucesión en la Jefatura del Estado talks about el Reino but not el Reino de España. Can somebody find some international document about say, Spain joining the UN? --Error 01:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure about the fact that it was called officially "Spanish State" during the Franco period. Anyway, this name is the name given to Spain when talking about the official institutions, about the state, and this name is used nowadays, and it was used too in the times of the Second Spanish Republic. So it's wrong to monopolize it for its usage under the Franco regime. This article should be mixed with Spain under Franco, or at least it should go into a different article called Spanish State (under Franco), because, as I said, Spain has always been a state: it was the Spanish State under the republic (read its constitution), and it is a Spanish State by now.

That's it. It should be fixed.. Onofre Bouvila 23:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. What sense does it make to call the Period under Franco Spanish State. Is not Spain a state right now. Or was before?

I think everybody in this discussion pages agrees. I am going to change it. (Vbroto (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC))

Spanish State not the official denomination?

I think this sentence needs a citation, as I believe it is not accurate: "With the death of Franco and the dismantling of the Francoist regime, the denomination of "Spanish State" ceased to be official, being replaced by "Kingdom of Spain", in that the country was reconstituted as a democratic parliamentary monarchy, where the head of state reigns, but does not rule.".

The current Spanish constitution does not use the term Reino de España (Kingdom of Spain) in any of the articles nor in the addenda.[14]. Surprisingly the term Estado Español (Spanish State) is used in several articles, and the country is referred to, all throughout the constitution as el Estado and not el Reino (please refer to the list of articles mentioned in the above section).

While it is obvious that Spain is a kingdom (in that a king is the head of State), "Kingdom of Spain" is not -at least- a de jure constitutional denomination to refer to the country. As such, I think it is incorrect to say that: (1) the denomination Estado Español has been replaced, since it is still a de jure constitutional denomination (2) that it is a term used primarily by "nationalists"because it is rather a constitutional term. (For those users unaware of the nuances of Spanish politics, the term "nationalistic" is contradictorily not used to refer to those who defend the Spanish nation, but to the separatist regional movements of those regions that claim to be nations themselves).

I think the introduction needs to change accordingly. --the Dúnadan 23:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I still think this issue has not been addressed. The current Spanish constitution uses the term "Spanish State" (Estado español) extensively, and the term "Kingdom of Spain" is not used in the constitution. I am not arguing in favor or against the use of each term, but simply stating a constitutional fact. The article claims that "Spanish State" was the name of Spain, that it is in not official anymore, and that it is used "specially" [citation needed] by nationalists [i.e. separatists]. This needs to be revised. --the Dúnadan 23:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Languages of Spain in Infobox

This has been changed twice from the version I preferred. For non-Spanish languages spoken in Spain, I prefer "unofficial;" some IP addresses prefer "prohibited from public use." See this diff

First off, it's an infobox, brevity is preferred. Second of all, "prohibited from public use" is unclear. Does it mean "public" in the sense of "in any public space?" I don't believe it was illegal to hold a conversation in non-Spanish in the street. If it means the "prohibited from government use" sense of public, well, "unofficial" gets that point across just as well. I mean, sure, there's "suppressed" as well, which would be accurate but perhaps a bit overdramatic for the infobox.

I definitely prefer "Unofficial," or even just nothing at all - an official note on Spanish, and then list the rest. Franco's language policy can be discussed more fully in the article. SnowFire (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what is best for an info box, as I rarely edit those, and am unsure as to what would be appropriate there, however "suppressed" at least for Basque would be an accurate discription, at least, if memory serves. according to Compton's encyclopeida from 1960. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.184.48.237 (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Misnomer

This article is named incorrectly. This is an article about a historical period of Spain. I think this article has been created to manipulate information on the Kingdom of Spain, for propaganda purposes, because the main article is locked. ..Joe.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.67.143 (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

REDIRECT ERROR!

The redirect http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_state&redirect=no links to Spain article and is very explicitly and clearly wrong!

This page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_State relates to The Spanish State (Estado Español) was the formal or legal name of Spain from 1939 to 1975 under the authoritarian dictatorship of Francisco Franco. This can now only be reached by searching something like "franco spain"

The redirect page should be renamed The State of Spain or Spanish Nation, since Spain (target article) may relate to various kingdoms (including the current 'democratic kingdom' of Juan Carlos I of Spain) plus a couple of dictatorships: Primo de Rivera (1923 to 1930) Franco (1939 - 1975) or either of the two republican governments (1873-1874) or (1931-1939)Timpo (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

A move?

Given that between 1947 and 1978 (31 years) Spain was a kingdom known as the Kingdom of Spain, and that before from 1939-1947 (8 years) it was known as the Spanish State, it would seem more proper and notable for the article not to be named Spanish State but Kingdom of Spain. The best way of doing so would seem to have it be "Kingdom of Spain (Francoist)". Is there anyone who would be opposed to this move? Lt.Specht (talk) 08:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong information about spanish traditional culture under Franco

"Franco's Spanish nationalism promoted a unitary national identity by repressing Spain's cultural diversity. Bullfighting and flamenco[17] were promoted as national traditions while those traditions not considered "Spanish" were suppressed. Franco's view of Spanish tradition was somewhat artificial and arbitrary: while some regional traditions were suppressed, Flamenco, an Andalusian tradition, was considered part of a larger, national identity." The whole paragraph is utterly false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.146.149.53 (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 09:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Spanish State → Francoist Spain — The Spanish State was the formal name of Spain from 1936/9 to 1947 (eleven/eight years depending on whether the Spanish Civil War era is counted), whereas this article also covers the period 1947 to 1975 (twenty-eight years) during which Spain was formally called the Kingdom of Spain.

Francoist Spain is the much more widely used terminology used by both contemporaries and historians alike to describe Spain through the entire dictatorship of Francisco Franco. Compare this with Vichy France, which was formally called the French State throughout its entire existence but is likewise known much more widely by an alternative name. East Germany, or the German Democratic Republic, is another example. The Celestial City (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• An issue to consider is that the current article performs two functions. It is a description of a state, i.e., the Spanish State, and it is a subset of the History of Spain about Francoist Spain along the lines of History of Spain (1975–present). Other countries split these functions into two articles, e.g, History of Czechoslovakia (1918–1938) and First Czechoslovak Republic about the state of the same period. — AjaxSmack 17:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be possible to create two seperate articles covering solely the Spanish State (1936/9–1947) and the Kingdom of Spain (Francoist) (1947–1975). However, I'm not sure there would be much point in doing that as in practice the Francoist regime remained essentially the same before and after 1947. The Celestial City (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Support This article appears in practice to be already about the whole Franoist period, not when it formally changed its name, which is not a marked divide in practice. To complicate matters, some people use the term "Spanish state" in a current political context. PatGallacher (talk) 11:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support. We should prefer the common name over the official name and this will solve the problem of Franco presiding over the kingdom and the non-kingdom state. The comparison with Vichy France is a good one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

1975 -> 1977

As far as my knowledge of Spanish history is concerned, the actual end of the authoritarian regime in Spain should be considered to take place in 1977. At any rate, in 1976 Spain was still roughly the same state it had been for the previous forty years. Franco's death occured in November 1975 but it's not that it restored democracy just like that. The referendum on political reforms was held no sooner than at the end of 1976. Anyway, it was not until 1977 that the PSOE was allowed to return to the country and thus a multiparty system was restored. But till that, the country was still under complete control of the Francoist party. --Jaro7788 (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Spanish State

Spanish State currently redirects into this article. Spanish state (lowercase state) redirects into Spain. AFAIK, I have never heard anyone the modern country of "Spain" as the "Spanish state". it's always "Spain". Someone reconcile the two redirects, please. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Right wing or anticommunist

I don't see any evidence of "right wing" or anti-communist politics in the article, although in half a dozen places Franco is called (strongly) anti-communist. What did he do? Ban the Communist Party? (He banned all other parties.)

While we're at it, are we calling him "fascist" as a synonym for "anti-communist" (which is how leftists use the term facscist) or because his government met some or all of the aspects of fascism as typically defined?

• exalts nation and often race above the individual
• stands for
  1. a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader,
  2. severe economic and social regimentation, and
  3. forcible suppression of opposition

In other words, a police state like the "left-wing" USSR?

Try not to use words that mislead. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Never have I seen, in a reputable source, that the USSR was a fascist state. But I have seen, in many a reputable source, Franco's regime defined as fascist. Let's try to use the proper words, used by reputable authors, that do not mislead. -- dúnadan : let's talk 04:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Orwell pointed out how right wing the Stalinist influence in Spain was- 'Communism is now a counter revolutionary force' - 'the people in prison are not Fascists but revolutionaries; they are there not because their opinions are too much to the Right, but because they are too much to the Left. and the people responsible for putting thm there are - the Communists.' (read 'spilling the Spanish beans')I thought people like you mister ed were happy to call Stalin left wing- to say thats what the left meant - Stalinism - anyway ,franco was aided by Mussolini and Hitler - Guernica , Condor legion, the fascist bonaccorsi on majorca - do you think he wasn't right wing? - the conservapedia morons say Orwell was on the right so who knows what you think , could be any old thing. Sayerslle (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't really understand that mish mosh, and there were some personal remarks and other distractions. Perhaps we need an article on Fascism and communism so we can tell the difference between the two things, as well as what they have in common.

But my real question was not WHO called Francoist Spain fascist or right wing but rather WHY. Which elements of Fascism did his regime exhibit or support?

Or if "fascist" in this context only meant anti-Communist then how did Franco oppose communism?

• Suppress Communist Party?
• Condemn communism's enforced atheism?
• Decry the socialistic central planning of Communism that starved millions of Ukrainian farmers?

I just want a bit more detail. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You could read books about what interests you for detail couldnt you. Heres a title looks at the ideology playing out in Francoism - Michael Richards : A Time of Silence:Civil War and the Culture of Repression in Franco's Spain 1936-1945. I haven't read it myself but it seems to cover some of what you want to learn about and Paul Preston called it 'a richly textured study'. ..8 chapters eg. chapter 2 'purifying Spain:the elimination of dissent' - you'll love it by the sound of it. Also : Carlos Jerez Farran Unearthing Franco's Legacy:Mass Graves and the Recovery of Historical Memory in Spain  ; University of Notre Dame Press 2010. These titles could be unreliable of course - why not read the article on Franco in the trustworthy encyclopedia , Conservapedia, for trustworthy detail on FrancoSayerslle (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Truman

It is true that Truman was opposed to Catholic Spain. In the article it says that he was a Baptist and a Freemason. It is not noted that he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, an organisation noted for its anti-Catholicism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.57.228 (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

See Ku Klux Klan members in United States politics.

Ireland and Portugal benefited to a small extent from the Marshall Plan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.57.228 (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Was Franco's regime fascist?

Please, don't cite anymore negationism authors like Payne. Aren't there any other experts in the Spanish history you can cite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.224.130.5 (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Spain under Franco was indisputably fascist, in spite of what the article states, so I requested citation stating that Spain under Franco was not a fascist state and why it was not.--LTsereteli (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a Wall Street Journal article that frequently references Franco as a "fascist." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123594813501604681.html?mod=rss_topics_davos

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. 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." The consistent points in Franco's long rule included above all authoritarianism, nationalism and anti-Freemasonry; some authors also quote integralism. All in all, Franco's regime showed a frontal rejection of Communism, Socialism and Anarchism.

So Franco used some aspects of fascism, but used traditional conservative authoritarianism more. Plumber (talk) 01:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting, however, the assertion that, "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," is incorrect. Franco overthrew the Second Spanish Republic that ruled Spain for half a decade largely due to the fact that the right-wing coalition he supported lost the general elections of 1936. That's certainly a "revolutionary aim to transform society." He transformed Spanish society from a Republic into a dictatorship by way of an extended and very bloody civil war instigated by Franco's attempted coup to overthrow the democratically elected government of Spain.

Furthermore, Franco's Falange party was indisputably quite fascist. How Franco can be a member of a fascist party and not be a fascist is very perplexing.

I think that the reason it is important to get this right is because there are still a lot of apologists for Franco's regime in Spain and elsewhere, and a lot of rabidly anti-communist far right-wingers who are supportive of Franco's historical legacy. You did provide a citation, but the reasons given for Spain not being a fascist state under Franco are simply counter-factual. Franco led a revolution against a democratically elected government to transform Spanish society and impose a Falangist ideology on the whole of Spain. If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck, no?--LTsereteli (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that "fascism" has many meanings, ranging from movements and regimes self-identifying as such to simply ultra-conservatist regimes. The Falange was undoubtedly fascist, but after José Antonio Primo de Rivera died it was merged in the Falange Española Tradicionalista y de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista (later Movimiento Nacional). If Primo de Rivera jr, and not Franco, had taken power, there would be no ambiguity, but what I always learned and read was that Franco himself was not, ideologically speaking, a fascist : he was more of an arch-conservative who used the spanish fascist party for his own means while not really caring himself. His regime is, IMHO and according to all the teachings I received at school and college, best described as an authoritatian, conservative and militaristic regime with some fascist undertones. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This article dramatically underplays the fascistic nature of the Franco dictatorship and appears to show the influence of right-wing revisionists. --Bcnviajero (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Again an editor has deleted language saying that the Spanish State was not fascist. The editor then claimed that the cited sources supported his position that it was fascist. This is incorrect. All the cited sources say either or both of the following: Franquist Spain was not fascist, Franco was not fascist. A sampling of the sources verbatim: Laqueur - “Twentieth-century didctatorships may be detestable but they are not necessarily fascist. Japan in the 1930s was not a fascist country…nor Spain under Franco.” Payne: “scarcely any of the serious historians and analysts of Franco consider the generalissimo to be a core fascist” at p. 476 and “the new regime was not so much a revolutionary fascist state as a rightist authoritarian system flavored with fascist rhetoric.” at p. 347. I am reverting to restore the language saying that the state was not fascist. Mamalujo (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The edit NEVER said that Francoist Spain was Fascist. My position was not that it was fascist. The comment did, however, state that it was fascist until 1943. Should we list all the other forms of government that Francoist Spain wasn't? Should it read "Spanish state was not a fascist state, nor was it Direct democracy, nor was it Representative democracy, nor was it a Theocracy, nor was it Communist state etc."? People read an encyclopaedia article to find out what something was, not what it wasn't. If the article had been changed to stay "Spanish state was fascist" then the revert would have been justified as for much of its history, Spanish state was Francoist (a sui juris), not fascist. However, that still doesn't mean the article should say "Spanish state was not fascist", as that doesn't add any information to the article. Instead it should state what the state was "authoritarian, right-wing". Later on in the article it states are "not generally considered to be fascist" stating that it differs from fascism due to Francoism social conservatism vs fascism's social revolutionist aims. This is a more appropriate location for the "Francoism vs fascism" discussion as deeper into the article were more detail can be given to the discussion. To simply state that "Spanish state was not fascist" in the introduction does not do justice to the nuanced ideological details of the Spanish state under Franco.

In my opinion, it all depends on what you qualify as Fascism. If you want to use strictly official terms, only Musollini's regime should be considered fascist (or Nationalsyndicalist). In that case, it would be inappropriate to talk about the rise of "fascisms" in Europe and Franco's regime should be labelled as falangist (or Nationalsyndicalist aswell). Any further extension of the term "Fascism" should certainly include Franco's dictatorship.--John Caves Goldenbear (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement about "criminal" activities

A statement reads "From 1954 onwards, homosexuality, pedophilia, and prostitution were criminal offenses,[37]" Why from 1954? They were criminal offenses nearly everyplace else in the world. Only sodomy is legal today. Why is this relevant to the article? Student7 (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC) I completely agree with you. I think that it would be good to include your point.--John Caves Goldenbear (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

White Legend

I think this article portrays Franco's dictatorship in a very good light. Executions (with and without trial), tortures, depurations, disappearences, ethnical repression, state-terrorism and fear pocicies are severely downplayed. Moreover, the extreme political corruption isn't even mentioned. The social inequality and the conditions of extreme poverty of a highly significant part of the population is nearly ignored, so is the extreme militarism of the ditatorship.--John Caves Goldenbear (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Were the WWII volunteers fighting against communsim?

Under the WWII section, it says ...Franco did send volunteer troops to fight communism joining the Axis armies on the Eastern Front against the Soviet Union.... For someone to make this statement, which I highly doubt is true, they should cite it at least. I feel that this wasnt the case, since communism wasn't a big thing during the second world war and this phrase compromises the neutrality of the article. I suggest changing the word communism into Russian Army or something in that sense. Also, there should be a comma before the word "joining". JasonDomination (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Communism was "a big thing" during the Second World War. The Soviet Union was around since 1922, and much of the Nazi's rise to power can be credited to the Nazi party's anti-communist stance (along with its anti-Semitism), which allowed them to gain some support from German conservatives fearful of the communist revolution in the Weimar Republic. Furthermore, the fact that the USSR was a communist state meant that it was not friendly with the US or UK or other western powers until after Operation Barbarossa (Nazi invasion of Soviet Russia). (Furthermore, in Asia, the Chinese civil war had started before the Japanese invasion, meaning that Chinese forces were split in different factions (though, mostly during the invasion, there factions were (mostly) at a truce until after the war). As for Franco allowing people to volunteer to fight communism under the command of the Nazis, this is well documented. See the article on División Azul (Blue Division) for more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.184.48.237 (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that the statement sayin that the Blue Division was sente to "fight against communism" sounds toomuch like the post-war Francoist propaganda and its attempts to hide an undeniable, objective and solid fact. The Blue Division was sent by the Spanish government to fight along the Axis in WW II. Consequently, Spain was not only not-neutral, bu also belligerent.John Caves Goldenbear (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Help

I've added some minor details to the article. However, I don't take back what I've said above. I think this article should be labelled as not-neutral (with that icon of a set of scales, you probably know what I mean). As I'm new to Wikipedia, I don't know how to do it. Thanks in advance.John Caves Goldenbear (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC) My changes have been reverted due to informatical and technical problems, but I don't take back what I said. This article needs to be labelled as partial.John Caves Goldenbear (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I have since solved the technical problem and restored the edits referred to above. --Technopat (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!!!John Caves Goldenbear (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Franco's legacy

The Legacy section starts with the sentence "In Spain and abroad, the legacy of Franco remains controversial". There is severe POV concern with this sentence, and trying to justify the numerous human rights violations carried out during Franco's regime. Neo-Nazis admire Hitler, and not all of them are fringes, in this way we can continue to add this kind of structure in all articles about mass-murderers. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I personally believe that ityis uncontroversial to say that Francos legacy is controversial in Spain. However Otolemur apparently believes that one of the views (I guess the pro-Franco view) is too fringy to constitute actual controversy. He compares pro-franquism to German neonazism. In my experience Pro-Franquism is quite common in the Spain of today, especially among conservatives and catholics, and some opposition parties even vote against the current left governments motions to remove pro-franco monuments. I think it is quite fair to say that his legacy is controversial and not weaselish at all - as long as we say who holds the different views of Francos legacy. Can we discuss this please?·Maunus·ƛ· 17:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way I agree that there are som Pro-Franco POv problems with the articles on Franco - mostly constituted by the fact that the negative view of Franco as a dictator and anti democrat is severely underrepresented. But to deny that there is a somewhat broad movement in favour of Franco in Spain of today is falsifying history as well.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The word "controversial" is unsourced. My point is that this sentence is trying to justify the mass-murder carried out by Franco. Do you know that the American neoconservative even do not view him as fascist? Yes, it is true. They firmly believe he was not fascist and a democratic ruler, the prove is here [15]. But the view of some right-wingers and American neoconservatives is not going to alter what is truth. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about the truth. It is about balance, neutrality and verifiability. In my understanding the word "controversial" simply means that there are differing opinions about something. You are obviously aware that there are different viewpoints - What you call "the truth" does not coincide with what is "the truth" to many spanish conservatives and apparently also some American ones. This means that wikipedia needs to show that both "truthes" (meaning of course viewpoints) exist and that there are indeed differing opinions about the nature of Franco's legacy. One word to show that there are different views is to describe his legacy as controversial. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I am agree with the different viewpoints. I am also agree wikipedia is not about truth, and this is why many information in wikipedia is blatant lie because the sources it use are lies or the viewpoints it included are best to avoid for ethical purpose. But again wikipedia is not truth site, not about truth. But the word "controversial" is both unsourced and weasel wording. I will rather propose to rewrite the first sentence in this way - "he is considered to be a fascist dictator who formed a repressive regime, however there are positive views on Franco among right wing politicians". It will be much more neutral. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That much more weasely in my opinion - because it doesn't state who considers him a fascist dictator. I don't know what controversial means to you - but to me it only means that there are different opinions. So I don't understand how we can disagree about his legacy being called controversial when you acknowledge that there is more than one viewpoint. The fascist dictator part needs to be sourced and attributed to someone important - I am nearly certain that there is be some kind of statement to that effect made by the current leader of the Spanish government. That would be a good source for that view point. A good source for the opposing viewpoint would be if a pro-Franco opinion has been voiced by some of the leaders of the Spanish conservative opposition. Also it would be great to refer to some of the recent political debates in Spain such as the wording on the Fraco monument etc, and regulations about paying homage to the dead falangists.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Another problem is that, epithets and popular culture notwithstanding, Franco, although authoritarian, was not a fascist. Read the article...almost no scholars consider him such. He does remain controversial. Although he was a repressive dictator, many consider that he was preferable to alternative , a Stalinist style state that appeared to be emerging from the Republic when the civil war began. I think the sentance as it was was NPOV and acceptable.Mamalujo (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

WORLD WAR II

If I well remember, Franco besides sending soldiers to fight against Soviets, sent also soldiers to fight against Japan in the Philippines. Is it true? If it is the case, it should be mentioned as well. Thanks Arnaldo Mauri. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnaldo Mauri (talk • contribs) 06:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC) I had never heard of that before and, as far as I know it isn't true. However, he is believed to have offered some aid for the Korean war in 1953. Maybe that was what you meant. Hope it helped. RegardsJohn Caves Goldenbear (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 28 February 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Strong consensus. Andrewa (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

---

Francoist Spain → Falangist Spain – Is the title of the Nazi Germany article "Hitlerist Germany"? 67.166.194.80 (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• A couple of points: 1) according to the intro of the Falangism article, "Francoism" might exist independently from Falangism although this possibility does not seem to be further explored. 2) This article was formerly titled Spanish State until this RM discussion and another Spain under Franco article had been merged into it prior to the move. —  AjaxSmack  06:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Aside from not providing an accurate description (the dictatorship was hardly "falangist" in essence during most of the Franco rule), Falangist Spain is not a widely used term in historiography when encompassing the full 1936/1939-1975 period. See this--Asqueladd (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • But is "Francoist" used all that much either? Mightn't "Spain under Franco" be a better title? —  AjaxSmack  07:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

At least like an order of magnitude (10¹) more used. More options1975 onwards--Asqueladd (talk) 08:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point. And "Spanish State" (with caps), the former title of the article is even more common (plus another option). —  AjaxSmack  15:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Wikipedia should not innovate; it should follow usage. "Franco's Spain", "Spain under Franco" and "Spain, the Franco era" are acceptable titles that follow English-language usage.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, the fact that Nazi Germany is used over Hitlerist Germany does not automatically mean that this is better known as Falangist Spain.--67.68.30.108 (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per the aboves. Franco's Spain might be better (and matching the commonly found terms "Hitler's Germany", "Mussolini's Italy", "Stalin's Russia", etc) -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - people know who the Nazis were. I have no idea who Falangists are. But I would support Spain under Franco instead. Red Slash 00:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - no point un moving to a term not in common use. I would support Spain under FrancoE.M.Gregory (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
• Snow oppose – I've never heard of Francoist Spain ever being called "Falangist Spain". I'd posit that the only possible move that would result in a more common name than currently used for the article would be "Franco-era Spain". // coldacid (talk|contrib) 01:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC) (Comment from uninvolved editor)
• Oppose. I'm Spanish (don't known other voters) and here, in Spain, 80% of times it is called "La España Franquista" (Francoist Spain); if not, it is referred just as "La España de la Dictadura" (The Spain of the Dictatorship). Until now I had never heard before the term "España Falangista" (Falangist Spain); furthermore, as someone already said, Franco's dictatorship was not falangist much beyond than having the term present on the name of the "single political party". I would support Spain under Franco, Franco dictatorship of Spain (similar to the Spanish wikipedia) or Military dictatorship of Spain (1939-75). Oscar-HaP (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: "Francoist Spain" is significantly more common in relevant, modern literature (see ngrams). Moreover, "Francoism" and "Falangism"—albeit closely related and linked—are not totally synonymous. Franco was not an original Falangist and some historians claim that his dictatorship had little genuinely Falangist traits. As an alternative title I would also accept Franco dictatorship. --RJFF (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"brothers"

Reading the sentence "A woman was to be loving to her parents and brothers", I can't help wondering whether the omission of "and sisters" is deliberate, or simply due to the fact that the Spanish word "hermanos" can refer to siblings of either sex ("hermanos = hermanos y hermanas, herman@s") whereas the English word "brothers" cannot - a difference the writer of this article may not have been aware of. It might be more in keeping with Franco's other misogynistic policies that women were only to be loving towards their brothers (their sisters didn't matter), but in that case why both their parents and not just their fathers?213.127.210.95 (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Francoist Spain. 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
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060213230928/http://www.wienerzeitung.at/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4399&Alias=Dossiers&cob=189475&DosCob=164869 to http://www.wienerzeitung.at/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4399&Alias=Dossiers&cob=189475&DosCob=164869
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12304721

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

MI6 bribe claims

I find the sentence "During the Second World War, its entry into the war on the Axis side was prevented largely by British Secret Intelligence Service (MI-6) efforts that included up to $200 million in bribes for Spanish officials." in the first paragraph a little misleading. The MI6 bribes might've played a role, but surely Spain's dire economic and military situation at the time, as well as disagreements between Hitler and Franco, contributed to it in a higher degree. A more comprehensive explanation is given in Spain during World War II. I feel like it would be better to reflect a more global vision, if Franco's entry into the war is to be mentioned in the first paragraph - the whole MI6 thing seems a little anglo-centric. 87.125.111.2 (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Franco and The Philippines/Japan

In answer to a query above, I reckon this matter needs a new section. Not sure if Spain did actually break off diplomatic relations with Japan following the Manila massacre but they certainly toyed with the idea of doing so and contemporary press reports mention it. As usual, however, it was a typical Franco propaganda bluff (No-Do had claimed the highly unlikely number of 50 Spanish consulate staff killed) and was clearly part of a strategy to be invited to attend the San Francisco Conference. Florentino Rodao, an expert in contemporary history at Universidad Complutenese, and author ofFranco y el imperio japonés (Plaza Janés, 2002), states the following: "Cuando Japón irritó a Franco" "According to a report by the OSS, based on the declarations of a high-ranking ministry official, Spain had offered to send two division of "volunteers", led by generals Agustín Muñoz Grandes and Antonio Aranda, to the Phillipines to fight againt the Japanese." Another version refers to a División Azul Marina. In either case, MacArthur obviously wasn't interested/impressed. Hope that helps. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

United States [and Japan] signed the peace treaty with 49 nations in 1952 and concluded 54 bilateral agreements that included those with [...] Spain ($5.5 million 1957). In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations#World_War_II_Japan

--46.27.119.30 (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Totalitarian?

Francisco Franco established a totalitarian military dictatorship.

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

See also Authoritarianism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Hitler and Franco at Hendaye.jpg

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

Infobox

Labelling Francoism a "constitutional monarchy", is frankly, bluntly speaking, oxymoronic. The notion of 1947 (in terms of form of "government" as the infobox implies) being a breaking point is also somewhat dubious (the notion of being "totalitarian" before 1947 and "not totalitarian" after 1947 doubtlessly looks like the opinion of some Wikipedia user). It certainly brought no "constitution", ffs! For the rest of descriptors other than dictatorship, while not all of them being exactly oxymoronic, they are haphazard, and condensing them in the infobox in two or three words is not an improvement (not the least the "Francoist regime" being a "Francoist regime", a rather circular statement if you ask me particularly as the Francoist regime does not seem to have developed into a class either). For an actual up-to date commentary on the elusive characterization of the dictatorship by commentators, see Gil Pecharromán (2019)[16].--Asqueladd (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

What's so ominous about simply leaving "dictatorship" rather than "one-party dictatorship", anyways (according to 179.176.20.110 "[leaving only dictatorship] is inappropriate, and doesn't happen with any other article about a former state" [sic])? The regime is best described as personal dictatorship as suggested by Gil Pecharromán (above) or as explicitly described as such in essence by Berman (2019)[17], putting the emphasis, not on the party, which to a large extent was a toy, but on the ruler.--Asqueladd (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Refs

definition

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

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

1. name (or similar)

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

2. state

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

3. government

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

4. regime

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

5. time interval

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

6. no definition or tautological definition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Form of Government

Why not mention on the infobox that Spain was de jure a monarchy from 1947 under a personalit totalitarian dictatorship, like Fascist Italy? The infobox does not describe Spain's government, but situtation. VevekVek (talk) 04:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

For starters, because it was not the case. Being a "de jure kingdom" is not exactly the same as being a "de jure monarchy". The devil is in the details and the infobox is arguably not the place to deal with such nuances addressing nothing about the form of government. I don't know why the comparison with Italy is brought here as, unlike Fascist Italy, Spain did not have a monarch until 22 November 1975 (that is, outside the scope of this article). I don't understand what you actually mean by your second assessment. If anything adding such details detracts from presenting the actual form of government.--Asqueladd (talk) 07:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

If anything, Spain 1947-1975 was more like Hungary 1920-1944/46, in that it was a monarchy, but one without a monarch, rather than Italy under Mussolini.

And surely 'Kingdom' is just one type of monarchy, along with 'principality' (eg Monaco, Liechtenstein, Andorra), 'Grand Duchy' (Luxembourg) or 'Empire' (Japan). Just referring to the title of the monarch.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

You will find no serious source splitting the dictatorship into a regency and whatnot regarding the "form of government". PS: or just like the Principality of Asturias (that is: meaningless).--Asqueladd (talk) 02:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Overuse of "citation needed" tag

The following section is currently in the article:

The consistent points in Francoism included above all authoritarianism,[citation needed] Anti-Communism,[citation needed] Spanish nationalism,[citation needed] national Catholicism,[citation needed] monarchism,[citation needed] militarism,[citation needed] national conservatism,[citation needed] anti-Masonry,[citation needed] anti-Catalanism,[citation needed] pan-Hispanism[citation needed] and anti-liberalism[citation needed]—some authors also include integralism.[27][28]

Is the high amount of the "citation needed" tag really necessary? It disrupts reading the article. I understand all these things need verification but maybe one tag at the end would be better. Heyoostorm (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Heyoostorm: I dunno. The thing is you are not really going to find a single source stating 11 different labels (!!!) as "consistent points" [sic] in Francoism. If you think you can ask for a single source verifying the whole sentence, you may as well abandon all hope. In any case, that paragraph, given random editing and reference hijacking, has become bonafide trash. In that sense, trashy content is more disruptive than templates warning about trashy content, me thinks. "Pan-Hispanism" Lol, someone wanted things that sound nice or something..--Asqueladd (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-sidenote: When I was editing this article lede etc before Im quite sure I remember seeing the reference for that sentence (although only with like 4-5 points) somewhere. When highlighting the reference [1] the bubble showed the source and also the quoted sentence but in Spanish. Ive tried looking for it since but I cant find it now lol. Maybe if you search the sentence in Spanish? --Havsjö (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Awkward tag

Hi @Asqueladd:

Could you further explain for us all why you introduced an awkward tag in the first sentence ? Your summary was quite strange.

If you doubt the status of the name, the Fundamental Laws of the Realm confirm that the country was legally called Estado español [18], Spanish State. Otherwise it is mentionned as Estado nacional, National State or simply Estado, State [19]. The word officially seems accurate for me.

Best regards, CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Read the lead. It's actually quite easy to understand, @CocoricoPolynesien:. From the reading of it, one gets the idea that a period of the history had an "official name". That's obviously not the case: no "period of the History of Spain" [sic] is (or was) "officially" [sic] known as anything. That's the problem of conflating different things together. That's an awkward phrasing if there's any, because you may get the idea of "time periods" having official names is silly.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Asqueladd: Ah, I get it, there is no problem at all in fact. You are missing something: while this article obviously talks about a period of history, it also encompases the regime in it that indeed had an official name, like the French State for instance. So while the period has no official name, the regime that spanned its entirety had one. CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is a problem. A problem of clumsy wording. I don't need you to lecture me about the French State or whatnot. You are welcome to provide a better wording. That is: a wording that avoids stating a period of history has a official name, that's what the template is for. Whether if the conflating of two or three ontologically different things (a "regime" and "a period of the history of Spain" but apparently also an "ideology" as well) in the same article is justified or not here.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Asqueladd: Oula, please keep your calm, I just exposed my point of view... I will not provide a better wording as I challenged in the first place the pertinence of such a thing. I still think there is a confusion between the period and the state. The ideology has clearly its own paragraph. As I read the article, the infobox and the rest of the introduction, it is clear for me that the article is about the regime and not about anything else. As such I don't see any problem with the wording. This is my position and I call for a consensus (WP:CON) or at least a larger discussion about this issue, as I see this now concerns dozens of articles on the entire English Wikipedia about periods and regimes ; this is about coherence. CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Francoist Spain, a period?

Hello Beyond My Ken, could you please explain to me how "Francoist Spain" can refer to a historical period? I find it really strange to define "Spain" as an interval of time and not a country. It does make sense to say that something happened during the Francoist Dictatorship, but how does it make sense to say "during the Francoist Spain"? While connected, those terms do not refer to the same thing. To me it seems clear that Francoist Spain describes Spain -the country- during a specific historical period and not the period itself. Even the article itself links to List of people executed by Francoist Spain, treating Francoist Spain as a country (how could a period execute anyone?). Oqwert (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It is both a period of time and a name for the country under Franco, just the same as "Nazi Germany". A sentence such as "During Nazi Germany, Jews and other ethnic groups were persecuted." makes perfect sense, as does the sentence "In Nazi Germany, Jews and other ethnic groups were persecuted." The same goes for Francoist Spain, Stalinist Russia, Revolutionary France, etc. etc. etc. English is a versatile language. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

So "Francoist dictatorship" can also refer to the country and not just the time period/form of government? Oqwert (talk) 05:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course. "During the time of the Francoist dictatorship" = "During the Francoist dictatorship". I'm sure a grammarian would be able to provide a word to describe this kind of fluidity in English usage. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)