Talk:Francisco Franco

Objectivity Improvements

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

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

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

Conservative/Right-Wing Bias

I think it is somewhat misleading to pretend that Franco is not generally considered a Fascist by most people and organisations, whether they be leftist, centrist or even centre-right. Generally, only conservative apologists for America and Britain who want to portray Fascism as a left-wing ideology and deny that their countries ever worked with Fascists contest that figures like Franco and Pinochet were Fascist. Realistically speaking, most people when asked would agree that Franco was a Fascist. The ideological similarities between Franco, Hitler and Mussolini's dictatorships should be evidence enough of this. 82.5.76.181 (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Franco's post-war regime (and Franco ruled for thirty years after the end of the war) cannot be described as fascist. It was an authoritarian and conservative regime with several modern additions. The statement contained in your second sentence is problematic too: in Italy, for example, Renzo de Felice, the most important historian of fascism, does not consider Francoism in its definitive form as a fascist regime. The mere fact that a pillar of the regime was the Catholic Church prevents it from doing so. Alex2006 (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Alessandro57: Do you mean that the Catholic Church did not represent a pillar of Mussolini's regime? A regime that, since 1929, established catholicism as the only official cult of the State, the only religion that should be taught in schools, the only rite of marriage officially valid, etc.? By the way, just like in Franco's Spain. So this is definitely not a valid argument. PedroAcero76 (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Italian Fascism was always anti Catholic, and the Catholic church was never associated with power in Italy as it was by Franco in Spain. Catholics in Italy had no part either in Fascism's seizure of power or in the administration of the state, as was the case in Spain (needless to remind you of the role of the Opus Dei under Franco). The Conciliazione, which in any case was already "ripe" before Mussolini, was made because through it Mussolini hoped to gain the benevolence of the church toward the regime and to increase its prestige toward the Catholic part of the population, and the church hoped to rescue from Fascism its structures on the territory, especially the Azione Cattolica, which was seen as the only competitor of fascism in the education of youth. From this point of view the Conciliazione was in the long run a success for the church, because it enabled it to raise a ruling class that was precisely the one that took power in 1948, but it was always seen by Mussolini as a rival power, as evidenced by the clash over the Azione Cattolica that occurred only two years later, in 1931, when Mussolini ordered the dissolution of all Catholic youth organizations and the incompatibility between membership in the PNF and the youth catholic organization. This meant in practice exclusion from almost all employment, public and private. Pius XI reacted to then with the encyclical "Non abbiamo bisogno" which reaffirmed the primacy of Catholic education over Fascist education. The final crisis was averted at the last moment, but the tension between the two powers remained and grew after 1938 and the racial laws. If you are interested in the relations between Italian fascism and the Catholics I can recommend the corresponding chapters in De Felice's work on Mussolini: in the second tome of the second volume is described the Conciliazione, while in the first tome of the third volume you find the crisis with the church in 1931 which I described above. Alex2006 (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

We had an RfC about this less than a year ago. You can read it here. The consensus is that we include Franco in lists of fascist leaders and describe the scholarly controversy over whether and to what extent he was a fascist in the article. Anyone who tells you that the answer is "clearly, unequivocally fascist" or ""clearly, unequivocally not fascist" isn't apprised of the state of scholarship on the topic. Cheers y'all. Generalrelative (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks GeneralRelative, I missed it! Alles klar :-) Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2023

I just want to remove flags and icons from military person infobox per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. 112.205.163.46 (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done Lightoil (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Distinction between conservatism and fascism

Franco was a staunch conservative and is identified as such in the introduction. I readded the conservatism template, in which he had been included for a long time. Strictly speaking, the fascism template ought to be removed altogether since Franco was a conservative Christian monarchist and not a fascist falangist, but I moved it to the section under which any potentially fascist elements of his government are discussed. Trakking (talk) 08:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

You can find the current community consensus about the inclusion of the fascism navigation template in this article here: Talk:Francisco Franco/Archive 6#RfC: "Fascist" categories and sidebar. It endorses the addition of the fascism sidebar in this article. As whether a plurality of additional sidebars (and whether they should be favoured in a heading location over the fascist one) should be added, please seek a new consensus here, opening a request for comment. What do you mean by being a "staunch conservative"? If your are implying that Fascism has nothing to do with a conservative and/or reactionary worldview from an intellectual point of view in a sort of oil and water dichotomy, that would read like a longstanding propaganda point of American Francoites, quite alien to scholar analysis. I would personally add no movement/ideology vertical navigation template to any biographical article (as I consider them a playground of ideology fanboys/fangirls and pov-pushers to gatekeep biographies, and push misinformed capricious and haphazard personal opinions and flimsy set-theory-based arguments devoid of any nuance, belonging to a namespace lacking sufficient source-based editorial oversight and well as generally wrecking the article layout), but that is not the current consensus in this article and I abide to it.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

+1 to each of these points. Very well put. Generalrelative (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Before we continue this debate, let's get one thing straight. Fascism was not a right-wing conservative movement. Traditional European right-wing politics throughout the 19th and 20th century meant Christianity, Aristocracy, Monarchy. It meant tradition, family life, subsidiarity, property rights. The fascists did not believe in any of that; they were enemies of the old traditional order. They believed in concepts like proletarian nation. Proletarians! Does not sound very right-wing, does it? Even the fascist godfather himself Mussolini started off as a socialist and had a proletarian anarchist as father.

I grew up on one of the most expensive streets in Sweden. I have kin that is one of the wealthiest families in Switzerland. I have family in Austria, family in Norway, family in the United States—very right-wing countries. Do you think there are any fascist sympathies among any of these people? The answer is no. Proletarian, revolutionary, secular fascists are indistinguishable from communists. Their main goal is the same: a totalitarian one-party state with egalitarianism and "progressivism". A recommendable read on the topic is the 400 page long work The Menace of the Herd (1943) by Austrian aristocrat and polymath Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, who traces fascism/national socialism to left-wing people like the Jacobins and Marxists. The most fascist nation today is North Korea—that communist hellhole.

Also—I am a teacher in History and specialize in political philosophy, which gives me authority. I will invite a few persons who might contribute with additional expertise on the topic: @Gondolabúrguer, @Alejandro Basombrio, @Kanclerz K-Tech, @LongLivePortugal. Trakking (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

You most certainly do not have authority here. I might very well be an academic professional with a PhD and peer-reviewed publications on this topic, but it wouldn't mean I outrank you either. I could be a sentient potato and my contributions would be just as valid so long as they're based on reliable sources. Seriously, you need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before editing further. Start with WP:VERIFY. See also WP:CANVASS. Oh, and don't skip Talk:Fascism/FAQ. Once you've read all that, we can indeed "continue the debate". Generalrelative (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I do have great authority in the sense of "knowledge," not in the sense of "power," which very few people on Wikipedia exert. You and your comrade try to exert power, but you have no authority, no exhaustive knowledge, behind your actions. This is the difference. Trakking (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello.

I believe that Francisco Franco was an authoritarian Conservative, like ROC's Chiang Kai-shek. And unlike USA's Ronald Reagan.

Definitely, F. Franco and C. Kai-shek were not Fascists. They were Christians, not Deists, not materialists, not Gnostic, not millenarians. And definitely they were authoritarians - Ronald Reagan was not. However, F. Franco and C. Kai-shek were authoritarians many degrees below the level of Fascists, who themselves were authoritarians many degrees below the level of Socialists - Socialists are totalitarians, almost always.

(Sometimes, Socialists are simply dumb enough to have only a short-term vision, therefore losing power in the long term. In these cases, they have the wrath of psychopaths usually associated with Socialists, but only aim at the following day. Then, a non-Socialist leader comes in the next future election.)

In conclusion: F. Franco was not a Fascist. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Trakking, if the response to a proposal to open a request for comment is 1) summoning a seemingly partisan audience, 2) claiming yourself to be an intellectual authority on the field (of "egalitarian" [sic] fascism?), 3) addressing sets of editors perceived as opposed to you as "[opposing] comrades" [sic] (in the socialist or the falangist tradition?), you have a long way to make useful contributions to Wikipedia or, at least, to this article, as you may have already breached behavioural and content guidelines such as WP:CANVASSING, WP:RS, and WP:CIVIL, to begin with. Please become familiar with them before editing.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@Gondolabúrguer: Excellent parallel between Franco and Chiang Kai-shek—arguably the two most prominent counter-revolutionaries of the last century. And all counter-revolutionaries must necessarily be anti-fascists, since the palingenetic idea of revolution was one of the quintessential characteristics of the fascist ideology.

Also—the contrast and conflict between fascism and authoritarian conservatism is very important; indeed, a whole section in the article for Conservatism is dedicated to this distinction. Political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset is cited as an authority:

Conservative or rightist extremist movements have arisen at different periods in modern history, ranging from the Horthyites in Hungary, the Christian Social Party of Dollfuss in Austria, Der Stahlhelm and other nationalists in pre-Hitler Germany, and Salazar in Portugal, to the pre-1966 Gaullist movements and the monarchists in contemporary France and Italy. The right extremists are conservative, not revolutionary. They seek to change political institutions in order to preserve or restore cultural and economic ones, while extremists of the centre and left seek to use political means for cultural and social revolution. The ideal of the right extremist is not a totalitarian ruler, but a monarch, or a traditionalist who acts like one. Many such movements in Spain, Austria, Hungary, Germany, and Italy-have been explicitly monarchist... The supporters of these movements differ from those of the centrists, tending to be wealthier, and more religious, which is more important in terms of a potential for mass support.

Trakking (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can see, all points raised by the OP have been addressed. We are certainly not going to relitigate the consensus on fascism being right-wing or on whether Franco belongs in the category. Any uninvolved editor should feel free to close this. Generalrelative (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no "consensus" among serious scholars that fascism and in particular national socialism were right-wing ideologies. Most of the scholars identify them as syncretic—combining different elements from across the spectrum. Some view them as centrist extremist [e.g. Seymour Martin Lipset, as quoted above], some view them as left-wing [e.g. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, as mentioned above], and lastly, some view them as right-wing. "Consensus" would mean that everyone agrees.

This is another thing that needs to be corrected on English Wikipedia—and I say English, because in many other languages, the writers are humble enough to admit that there is no consensus on the topic and so they refuse to label the ideology right-wing in articles concerning the topic.

In the olden golden days, right-wing meant the Crown, the Church, the Nobility. In modern times it has often meant capitalism and classical liberalism. Never has it meant violent revolution and a totalitarian one-party state—which is basically the same thing as communism. Trakking (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

There can be authoritarian Conservatives.

One example: the Republic of China (Taiwan) had only one party, the Kuomintang. But they did not persecute religions - they did persecute opposition members who had ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

The Kuomintang was not Fascist. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not an expert on Franco, but I recall that in his book "Interview on fascism", to the historian Michael Ledeen who states that in his opinion Francoism cannot be considered a fascist regime, Renzo De Felice (Italy's foremost expert on fascism) responds: "It certainly is not [fascist] now, and there would be some debate as to whether it ever was. More likely it is a classic authoritarian regime with modern additions, but nothing more than that". Alex2006 (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Gondolabúrguer: True. Even the most authoritarian conservative regimes never become truly totalitarian, which fascism and socialism are by necessity. In fact, the old monarchical empires of Europe always maintained a great diversity—the prime example being Austria-Hungary, which was a mosaic of eleven different nationalities living together in peace along with a large Jewish population in Vienna etc.

@Alessandro57: That commentary is very authoritative. We could incorporate it into the article and readd the Conservatism template. I consider the Fascism template insidiously misleading and suggest removing it. In any case: if the latter is included, the former ought to be as well. Trakking (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Political scientist Jeffrey Nyquist (US-CA) mentions the support Francisco Franco had: https://jrnyquist.blog/2021/02/04/the-road-to-civil-war-a-spanish-analogy/

He never says that Franco was a Fascist, but a Conservative. I stand with him. He is an essential writer.

(My original answer was censored.) Gondolabúrguer (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Paul Preston, an historian specialized in Franco, and one who hates Franco, once said that “If people are looking for a quick and easy insult to those on the right, then fascist, is your go-to term,” and “If you’re asking an academic political theorist what constitutes a fascist then you’d have to say Franco isn’t". Unfortunately this discussion in this talk page has always been polluted by a bunch of editors that dont want to understand what Preston said, dont want Wikipedia to be sourced on good academic sources, but rather seek the easy insult. J Pratas (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

We are not going to redefine fascism as not-conservative just to satisfy Trakking's personal viewpoint. Past discussion about Franco and Fascism settled the matter: Franco was pro-Fascist even if he didn't push Fascist ideas himself. His government had fascist tendencies. The Fascism sidebar must stay. Binksternet (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Carlstak (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)