Talk:Francoist Spain

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)[1].--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)[2], 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