Talk:Francisco Franco

"the [Spanish Civil] war, which claimed half a million lives"

This is a gross mistake. The most recent and serious figure is a total of roughly 300,000 deaths all along the war; half of them in direct war actions and the other half in political repressions in both sides.

Please, fix it.

87.125.218.89 (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The death toll for Spanish Civil war is still a highly controversial topic, and the estimates varies greatly. ~300,000 deaths is just one of the estimates Hervegirod (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok. So, reflect that anyhow in the article.

"The [Spanish Civil] war, which claimed half a million lives" is just as wrong (or accurate) as any other figure. Isn`t it?

Therefore this sentence must be rewritten in a different way. Do you agree? --47.62.217.18 (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Claim that Franco was not a fascist

The header says that: "Although often identified as fascist, very few scholars of the matter consider Franco's Spain such, usually recognizing it as conservative and authoritarian", but it seems that none of the sources which should support this claim say that, often saying the contrary. For example, Payne says the the process of defascistization in spain began after the death of Mussolini. The paragraph sentence itself seems to come from the Guardian article[1], but this article writes "It tells us of a Spanish right wing that has been able to embrace democracy but still rejects its memory, preferring that of a fascist regime responsible for a horrible war and years of repression.". The sentence is wrong IMO. Hervegirod (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

DarthKurgan (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)It seems to me that Franco would be better categorized as a "Monarchist" than a "Fascist". He stood for the ancient regime, the counter-revolution of the Throne and Altar you could say, whilst Mussolini or Hitler while we're at it were populist nationalists (It's the main reason you got guys like Julius Evola and Oswald Spengler being critical of them for instance) who did not much care for either of those institutions to put it lightly. The Falange were going for that and worked with Franco to in their minds protect their national sovereignty, but he wound up simply co-opting and then undermining them by the end. I'd make pretty much the same argument for Phillipe Petain and Hideki Tojo who also get classified as Fascists on Wikipedia. I'd list Miklos Horthy as well who is often put in the same boat like those the other guys, but he seems to have avoided the label here on Wikipedia. Lol.

The sentence has 4 references: 1) Payne's book titled Fascism in Spain, 1923–1977 (ahem), 2) the 2011 Guardian Op-Ed decrying revisionism, 3) Franco and the Spanish Civil War (p87 not available via Googlebooks, but "authoritarian" is applied to communists as well as "nationalists", the term slightly outnumbering "fascist" "authoritarian" and "conservative" in search results), 4) The transformation of Spain: from Franco to the constitutional monarchy which uses "quasi-fascism" and may be the only of the 4 to use the phrase "authoritarian and conservative". This is not 'most' by my counting and anyway doesn't belong in the lede. If revisionist estimations are to be included they ought to first have a paragraph in the body of the article. Sparafucil (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Let's look at some RS: 1) Payne, Fascism in Spain, 1923–1977 (1999) - Page 476 "This does not mean that Franco was ever a generic fascist sensu strictu [in the strict sense]. More than 20 years after his death, Franco has still eluded precise definition save in the general categories of 'dictator' and 'authoritarian.' Thus scarcely any of the serious historians and analysts of Franco consider the Generalissimo to been a core fascist" p 476 2) Franco and the Spanish Civil War - Page 87 https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0415239249 by Filipe Ribeiro De Meneses, ‎de Men Ribeiro - 2001 - ‎"Franco was not a fascist. There is an element of revolutionary politics in fascism, of wanting to provoke a dramatic change in society. That was not Franco's intention: on the contrary, he wanted to preserve Spain from change, or even to return it." Rjensen (talk) 10:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

It's true that Franco, Pétain and Horthy were not fascists, just conservative/reactionary Catholic nationalists. However, I'd argue that Tojo, really, was a fascist. What do you think? Ricardolindo2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

History has already decided Franco was a fascist, and that is backed up by hundreds of Reliable Source history books.50.111.3.59 (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Nationalist Front?

How can I say that no one in Spain, from the Franco regime or from the Republican-leftist side, ever used the term: 'National Front' for those who participated in the July 18, 1936 uprising? I am a witness of most of these days, content of newspapers and other information sources is easily available on the web, I won't cite comments from my relatives that were alive before and during 1934-39 revolution; so, it's those who invented this coarse propaganda, perhaps attempting to link the XX and XXI century French 'National Front', with the Spanish Civil war events, who must provide evidence for their statement, no reference for this is cited in the article, this is a wrong, fake statement or term. Have a look at Francisco Franco article in Spanish Wikipedia, you'll see that the date of Oct 1, 1936 for general Franco being designed, not self designed, head of army, government and state, is accurate. In emitting libels, you must be careful differentiating truth from your own propaganda, not believing in your own lies. Sorry, the text that was preserved by General Ization, against all evidence, contains judgments, not facts, and judgments from one side of conflict, it's propaganda, not history. I guess that 80 years after conflict in Spain concluded, and 44 after Franco ceased any political activity, is enough to accept what reality is, was. Once again, Wikipedia has a hard wing censorship system, that militates against truth. Please correct! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hijuecutivo (talk • contribs) 14:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Hijuecutivo: What is your relationship to the account Jgrosay? General Ization ^Talk 14:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

En el día de hoy, cautivo y desarmado el Ejército Rojo, han alcanzado las tropas nacionales sus últimos objetivos militares. La guerra ha terminado. El Generalísimo Franco Burgos, 1° de abril de 1939. Signed by Franco himself.

Military

The entry currently opens with a "was a Spanish general who ruled over Spain as a military dictator." I think military may be dropped as it is a moot point (the current reference does not back up anything, in any case). To the extent military dictatorship may just simply mean rule enforced by a dictator who happens to come from the military emphasizing a "military" bit is somewhat redundant as the fact that he was a General is included in the same statement. In the other hand, late Francoism featured less military personnel than early Francoism, which also got to feature Fascists and Catholic elements other than military personnel anyways to be unmistakably called a "military junta". Straight "dictator" is just fine, more succint, and "dictator" is way more used by scholars than "military dictator". Conversely, that scholars argue the regime was a Fascist, Para-Fascist or fascistized dictatorship at least at some point, may muddle up (more) "military dictatorship" and the straightforward description of the dictatorship's leader as military. Opinions?--Asqueladd (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Asqueladd:, Mnmh, I don't know. It's a knotty question; Franco's in a grey area, along with Cromwell and I guess Mao and so on. At one end of the spectrum you have a manifestly party dictator like Hitler... Lenin too, and Mussolini. Civilians. At the other end you when some generals take over with a coup... Miguel Primo de Rivera and etc etc. So, Franco was a top general, he did end up in charge because of that. He wasn't really much of an ideological thinker I don't believe. The Falange and the Church and the landowners were along for the ride, but it was all done because of the soldiers. Sure there was more ideology than "I like running things and I have soldiers", but I think most military dictatorships have some kind of ideological window-dressing -- "National Renewal" or whatever. The Argentine generals called their regime the "National Reorganization Process".

Franco did remain in power for forty years. I guess over that forty years he developed more levers of power than just having his soldiers shoot people. But isn't that pretty much true of any junta that stays in power that long, maybe? The Greek military junta of 1967–1974, if it was still somehow in place... would we still call it a "military dictatorship"? Possibly not. There's a certain point where it's no longer a "military government" but just "the government", maybe. Is this kind of what you're saying?

Anyway, of course the main decider is what notable sources say. You said that "dictator" is way more used by scholars than "military dictator", and if that really is true (but how do you know?), that is game set and match I would think. Herostratus (talk) 06:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Herostratus. It probably is a knotty question as partially falls into the grey area of the evidence we can gather from academic sources and to what extent we Wikipedians we interpretate from it. He is casually mentioned just as dictator in an overwhelming way when adressed by academic sources in opposition of military dictator. That's obviously not necessarily enough evidence to be a direct refutal to military dictator (as the later is a subclass of the former), but, albeit entailing an interpretation, it is an indirect evidence and the first hint. I'd say it happens the same in the scope of presentation of the topic (him or the regime) by scholars. The third point would be the (mentioned above) variable understanding of the nature of the regime in historiography (this can be explicitly sourced, which mainly deals with the level of fascistization of the dictatorship, but that may have direct and indirect implications to the military label). By the way, Francoist Spain's infobox in regards of government type would need a reworking too, as it's over-the top, and in that case going the other way than here, emphasizing the totalitarian one-party facet of the dictatorship ("totalitarian dictatorship with party supremacy" of sorts) rather than the military aspect of it (let's say "dictadura castrense"). With no rush, I will try to look for some scholar sources dealing explicitly with the military nature bit, rather than the fascistization of the dictatorship (although the "historiographic discussion juice" falls mainly in the later, so I am somewhat sceptical). Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2018 (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:

• Meeting at Hendaye.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

title and honorary prefixis in lede before name and above photo

I thionk there is no need, and it makes no senseintroducing him with his Spanish military title and honorary prefixis. This can be mentioned in the main body, among other details. This is an encyclopedic, not a honorific article. Not even the pope has this, and most politicians which happened to have a military rank, either:MOS:HON Gabel1960 (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• Franco photo 2.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Header typo

"Upon his rise to power, Franco implemented policies that repressed political opponents and dissenters, were as many as between 60,000[6][7][8] and 400,000 died[9][10][11][12][13] through the use of forced labor and executions in the concentration camps his regime operated."

Instead of "were" (where), how about "under which", to indicate the concurrence of these fascist policies and his political murders?

- Schuylerl (talk) 02:39, 8 May 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:

• Meeting at Hendaye.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• Image is PD in US. Re-uploaded to en.wiki with new name, replaced in article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)