Talk:Francisco Franco/Archive 2

message: Spain during ww2? Connections with hitler? I wish i knew more of this to write about.. all i know is that hitler once came to visit franco in spain, where franco arranged it so that hitler had to wait two hours on the train station, later franco asked what will you do if you loose the war or start to loose, hitler replied i whould rather have all my teeth pulled out than that to happen. and that it probably was neutral? spain. but franco did supply axis with arms didnt he? Foant Why didnt spain enter the war to help turn the tide. What would have happened if they did. Why was Franco having a meeting with Hitler. Its obvious that they might have turn the tide faster to end the war. Spain should have went to war because Russia did the same. The made a treaty and the Germans broke that treaty, not just the Germans but Hitler. The reason that the Germans didnt attack Spain was because of the following: Stalingard was won by the Russians and Germany lost their position and figured they wouldnt be able to do battle with Spain as well, also that America entered the war and would have to set up a defence.
Joshua Deleon
613mainstreet 
Cromwell CT
:
: Afaik, hitler didn't have to wait that long for franco when the hendaya interview, probably franco arrived at the station as many as twenty minutes after hitler, take into account that the spanish convoy departed from San Sebastián, which is half an hour's journey time. 
Franco decided to not join WW2 on the axis side because despite help from the Germans and Italians during the Civil War he felt that the country was not yet prepared. He did, however, offer to send a volunteer troop, La División Azul,  (translated as Blue Division) to help fight the Russians.
What would've happened had he joined? Most probably the Axis powers would've still lost and Spain would've been invaded too. That could've lead to Franco's exile or destitution and reconstruction of Spain, POSSIBLY accelerating the onset of democracy in Spain. Ah, and Franco was officially neutral, though he did change the posture to "non-belligerent".
:Germany, Austria and Italy lost some land after WWII so if Spain had joined the war then they too would have lost some land possibly to France. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.79.70.90 (talk • contribs) 8 July 2006.
:What Hitler said is " I prefer to take out four of my teeth but not to see Franco again". Teutons and Galicians dont mix very well —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kim FOR sure (talk • contribs) 26 July 2006.
Consider that if Germany had access to Spanish territory, Gibraltar would have been German territory in weeks. That said, Germany would have had complete control of the Mediterranean, which means that Allied forces would not have been able to prevent fuel shipments to Rommel in Africa. And without Africa, Allied forces had no ground from which to invade Europe: Normandy was only possible after Axis forces were weakend in Italy. Also, the intention of sending the Blue Division to the Russian Front was to kill communists and not so much to aid Nazis. Also, another reason Hitler didn't invade Spain is because Spain itself would have required a significant allocation of men and resources. Also Franco told Hitler that the Spanish people would continue fighting and would not stop even after the army surrendered.
:See Spain in World War II --Error 23:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franco during ww2? 

message: I would very much like to see a serious reference to this fact (I quote): "... who would later in life become known in Spain for her officially sanctioned kleptomania...". Because I very much doubt that there are records of it being "officially sanctioned." (though I have heard also the rumor as being general knowledge - and of her nickname). In the absence of such referrences, such sentence should be removed. Cheers.--Anagnorisis 00:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Officially sanctioned kleptomania? 

message: I agree with a previous contributor that this statement should be erased. First because i think, as i have stated elsewhere
gossip shouldn't come into the main body of a wikipedia article, and second because of the "officially sanctioned..." part, which borders
libel. 
FWIW, and for the sake of non spaniards or too young people, the story with "Doña Carmen" went this way. She was very fond of jewerly -specially pearls-
and used to go shopping (specially in San Sebastian). As she never had money with her, she told the jeweller to send the bill to "El Pardo" (the official 
home of the Franco's) It seems that noone ever dared to do it ;-). It might be true (probably) or an urban legend, and the motivation of all involved
might be discussed, but to elevate it to "her officially sanctioned kleptomania" ...
:Hence, she was nicknamed La Collares. --Error 01:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From the recent Arte documentary, Oliveira Salazar was more austere. --Error 01:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The story about the Carmen Franco's deep attachment to jewellery and antiques is common parlance. Another story (remembered from Preston's biography, perhaps?) was that only her dentist dared to submit his bill to El Pardo, which was duly paid, but he had to endure later a visit of the Spanish Inland Revenue Inspectors. Also, it is link to the rumoured unofficial agreement between Madrid and Oviedo jewellers to collaborate on covering their losses after a visit by "la Senora." 
Regarding corruption, he might not have been personally that corrupted, but his family was and he never had any trouble on helping to hush their profitable deals. An explanation for that desinterest could be that he had absolute control over Spain's resources, meaning that the whole country could it be considered his kitty. Asturs 14:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ''kleptomania'' statement 

message: The first paragraph is full of statements of intention which should be cleaned. 
It's well known that Franco's family was (to be mild) a disaster, but again, i don't get why it should be noted for no reason.
Admision into the Navy Academy was closed from 1906 to 1913 , which is not clear
from the context. Thus the comment about his short stature is off place.
Franco entered the Infantry Academy in 1907
Franco has an older brother Nicolás (1891/1977), navy engineer and officer, latter diplomat [stupidly blacklisted link http://www DOT guerracivil1936 DOT galeon DOT com SLASH bionac2 DOT htm].
and a sister Pilar
:I write down that this Nicolás was the ambassador (1938 - 1957) to Salazarist Portugal --Error 01:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early years 

message: For the english reader i'll suggest both Preston's "Franco: a biography" or S.G.Payne's "The Phoenix.Franco Regime".
Both historians hold very different views, so it is worth to balance. If I can add a personal comment, i view with extreme caution
Preston's thesis of Franco as a case of extreme and prolonged serenpidity.
For a short introduction (in spanish) of different historian's view see 
:Good points above
:I think user Wllacer makes some very good and valid comments. Perhaps he (?) or someone else with real good knowledge (not me) can carry on the suggestions he makes. I can only make a couple or two (the things I know about). --Anagnorisis 18:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested biblography 

message: User:Jmabel has put a reference to spanish anarchism regarding the October 1934 revolution. I have to check my sources, but IIRC, one of the reasons why it failed so miserably (except in Asturias) was the lack of support from the CNT (the spanish anarchist union). And I don't know by hand how the relative strenght of socialst and anarchist unions where in Asturias, or the later's degree of integration during the revolt. ¿Anyone can provide more data?
BTW. I think a separate article on the topic would be worth (taking the spanish one for a start)
--Wllacer 09:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Separate article on which topic? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *I'm pretty certain that the Asturian miners were rather predominantly anarchist, but I don't have  citation at hand.  -- Jmabel | Talk 19:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry. the article should deal with the October 1934 revolution in Spain aka Asturias Uprising --Wllacer 21:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. All we have so far that I'm aware of is Anarchism in Spain#Asturias. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Jmabel, I disagree with your statement; I think that the asturian miners were affiliated mainly to the socialist SOMA. Mind you, it is possible that Gijon was an anarchist strong point. Anyway, I would suggest Adrian Schubert's PhD thesis published under the title "The Road to Revolution in Spain: The Coal Miners of Asturias, 1860-1934" (Asturs 14:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not something on which I am expert. Does someone have something citable? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asturias Uprising and anarchism 

message: Following my plan to rehaul the article, i've arrived to the worst part of it, to deal with the repression during and after the civil war. My idea is to ponder repression on both sides and somehow 
reflect it on the article. I confess it's a much disgusting task (the difference of meanness on both sides was just of a matter of degree, time and style). The numbers vary so wildly (from 30.000 to 70.000 killed by republicans, from 60.000 to 150.000 killed by the nationals, of which about 20.000 to 80.000 were executions after the war, ...) that it's really difficult to trust anything.
I know i should read at least Santos Julia's book (Victimas de la guerra civil) and Martin Rubio's (Los mitos de la Represion..) but i'm not in the correct mood ...
I got an online source , but, for many reasons (some of them evident) it shows a honest but clear bias. Despite of this, and for reasons not related to wikipedia, I've tried to make some sense of the data , and i have ended even with more doubts.
Can anyone of you provide me with new series of data? Or at least a, as little biased if possible,
resume ?. Thanks in advance.--Wllacer 17:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Help 

message: 5 January 2006 - removed vandalism 159.53.78.141 16:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, bringing these together & contextualizing would give it context and make it worth describing. The SNL thing without that context comes off as trivia. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: IMO the "Saturday Night Live" reference is relevant and not trivial. 1975 was a long time ago, and the first thing I remember about SNL is the running Franco gag. I believe the reference to be culturally significant. Joeylawn 23:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I put it back in there, with context. - Jmabel | Talk 03:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SNL, etc. 

message: :A great general he was not. As a junior officer in Morocco, he had acquired a name for bravery and resourcefulness. And later as Head of State, he survived for an incredible thirty-six years through a gift for secrecy and guile that might be called soldierlike. But as a commanding general in wartime, he was notably plodding and unimaginative, almost asking to be wrong-footed by a more nimble tactician on the other side. Yet none was forthcoming.
:For the regular army had been in a hopeless state for years, a top-heavy gaggle with hardly a battalion fit for action. In fact, it had become little more than a dining club for suave socialites who looked good in uniform (‘drawing-room officers’), much in the style of the charming but ineffectual King Alfonso.
It's too POV and unreferenced and was badly placed. --Error 02:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed paragraph from [[User:195.93.21.102]] 

message: I have minor-edited some occurrences of a misspelling of Franco's title ("generalissimo" isn't even spanish, the correct title being "Generalísimo"). I've left unchanged the wrong spelling when it's in the context of the "generalissimo is still dead" joke, as it seems to me that "generalissimo" is probably a common misspelling in english, and was probably used by the original joke. If somebody knows better, these "generalissimos" could also be corrected, or a "[sic]" added if the misspelling of the original joke is confirmed. - Algamarga 16:59, 13 May 2006 (CEST)
:It's not a "misspelling", it's an Italian spelling, which somehow found its way into English as the most common, probably because the most common borrowed words with this ending in English are "fortissimo" and "pianissimo". - Jmabel | Talk 05:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Generalísimo", not "Generalissimo" 

message: In this paragraph "That last year, Lieutenant Colonel José Millán Astray, a histrionic but charismatic officer, founded the Legión Extranjera, along similar lines to the French Foreign Legion." is mentioned the "Legion Extranjera" as the armed unit in Africa's spanish colonies similiar to the French Foreing Legion, however Legion Extranjera is the spanish translation for Foreing Legion, the correct name for this unit was only (and remains) LA LEGION or The Legion.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skull13 (talk • contribs) 16 May 2006. (Foreing ==> Foreign)
:What about Tercio de Extranjeros? --Error 22:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Spanish Legion 

message: Can anyone explain to me the relevance of this piece of trivia? It is not even true, because by 1933 Francisco Franco's name was not known outside Spain. Could the person who inserted it on the entry to double check it, please? Otherwise, I will delete it within the next week. --Asturs 21:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had heard this story, too, with different, more plausible dates and details, but now I think it's wrong. (Our article on Frederick & Nelson says they were Frangos from the outset and HistoryLink.org, usually a very good source on Seattle history concurs .)  The mints were initially from Frederick and Nelson Company, a Seattle-based department store, which Marshall Fields bought in 1929 (not the best year to buy a department store). I'm sure I've seen somewhere a claim that the name originally came from Frederick and Nelson Co, but the quite citable HistoryLink says it was "Frango" from the outset. If the name was changed to avoid matching the Caudillo, I'm sure it was some time after the start of the Spanish Civil War. F&N closed their last store in 1992. Fields' Frangos aren't identical to the West Coast variety; the Seattle-based Bon Marché (later Bon Macy's and still later simply Macy's) took over the West Coast Frangos, but I think they are now made by an independent company, but that is getting a bit far afield. Anyway, I've removed it, pending citation. - Jmabel | Talk 21:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franco & Frango 

message: I don't have time to really go through this one right now, but I'd like to suggest that someone closely review recent changes. Here's an example of what I noticed on not much more than a skim:
His army was supported by troops from Nazi Germany (the Condor Legion) and, above all, Fascist Italy (Corpo Truppe Volontarie), but the degree of influence of both powers on Franco's direction of war seems to have been very limited. António de Oliveira Salazar's Portugal also openly assisted the Fascists from the start.
Became:
Unable to receive support from any other nation, his army was supported by Nazi Germany in the form of the Condor Legion, ironically Franco only asked for weapons and tanks and never for the air services of the Condor Legion. Principle assistance was received from Fascist Italy (Corpo Truppe Volontarie), but the degree of influence of both powers on Franco's direction of war seems to have been very limited. Likewise, Franco's direction of the Nazi and Fascist forces was limited, particularly in the direction of the Condor Legion. António de Oliveira Salazar's Portugal also openly assisted the Nationalists from the start.
At the very least:
#"Unable to receive support from any other nation": basically true, but it seems to suggest that he would rather have found his support elsewhere. Is there any reason to think that Franco was unhappy with either the Italian regime? Or that he had any qualms about Nazi Germany prior to the Final Solution?
# Apparently, comparing the first and last sentence, Portugal is not a nation other than Germany. (And, taking the grammar of that first sentence literally, neither is Germany).
#"Ironically" in whose view?
# Is there a citation for "Franco only asked for weapons and tanks and never for the air services of the Condor Legion"?
#Presumably "Principle" ==> "Principal"?
Anyway, at a glance, there is more like this, someone should probably look closely.
- Jmabel | Talk 04:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC the original paragraph was mine. And I also feel that the current redaction is not good. I think can answer some of your questions:
# The rebels tried, from July 20, simultaneously to get military aid from Great Britain, Italy and Germany, although  only the last two finally agreed (I got this snippet of info from Pio Moa's "Mitos de la Guerra Civil", but in this sense, it is a tertiary source). It has to be remembered that the nationalist side was also a wide political "coalition", and that only started to get its fascist outward look, from 1937 onwards (with the rise of Ramón Serrano Suñer). So it was logical to demand aid from any non leftist Power.  In the spanish right Musolini's Italy was generally looked simpathetically, but opinions on the Nazis were sharply contrasting, and remained forever so.
# Gramatical errors -and acumulated editing- besides, the original redaction tried to single out the paper Portugal played on this "Big Game". It hasn't been as publisized as other powers', -my knowledge about is only rudimentary- but was critical, at least logistically, in the first phases of the war.
# Not only there is no irony, it's a false statement, see below
# What Franco needed from the start was air support, and this was his first and foremost demand (same source). The degree of autonomy of the  Condor Legion and the CTV from the main nationalist "chain of command" the intermediate contributor suposses, is, at least, controversial. Wllacer 08:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: There are  some parts of this article where two protogonists are relevant to the subject matter but the Authour has confused to names of the protagonists. i.e extending their protection of Sephardic Jews to include Ashkenazi Jews. The article implies that Franco was extending his protection to Sephardic Jews. Something which was already implied as the it is being Spanish in origin that makes them Sephardic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.10.12.179 (talk • contribs) 17 August 2006.
: I'm not sure I've understood that correctly (the English is rather unclear) but as I understand the actual treatment of Jews by Spain during the war:
:* Diplomatically, many places in Europe and especially in Southern Europe, Spanish diplomats attempted to intervene on behalf of Jews of Spanish descent, which is to say Sephardim.
:* In practice, many Ashkenazim—at least several thousand, by all accounts—made their way to Spain, usually by smugglers' routes over the Pyrenees, though sometimes with legitimate travel documents issued by third countries. There are many documented cases of Spain allowing such people to stay, leading to their ultimate survival. In fact, I've never heard of a case of someone who made it past the border zone and was then handed back to the Nazi or Vichy French authorities. 
:- Jmabel | Talk 04:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franco and the Jews 

message: "It was later said by Germans"? Citation needed. - Jmabel | Talk 18:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unique Weasel words 

message: I would like to expand the intro to include something about the fascist policies, execution, and repression under Franco, his relationships with Hitler and Mussolini, as well as Spain as a haven for Jews during WWII. But I cannot find hard facts in the article to summarize.  Could someone more familiar with the topic help? -Pgan002 13:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: Edit summary: Franco was fascist; see Fascism. This has been resolved there. Gave a lot of latitude to differences between his and Italian/German fascism.The whole matter should be expanded upon
Replaced:
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".
with:
Although Franco and Spain under his rule are considered fascist by mainstream political science, his regime was notably different from Nazism and Italian Fascism in many respects. These latter transformed their societies; Franco's Spain was considerably altered, but his focus was not on change; many aspects of his rule were conservative and even traditional.
Core fascist is a distinction whose explanation probably exceeds the weight it should be given in this article; I included a link to Fascism, where it can be seen/discussed in full.
Personally, I haven't seen a Stanley Payne cite yet that didn't treat the subject with the unshaken premise of Franco being a Fascist, with him then giving exceptions to that rule. To me, that means he was, Payne thinks he was, but Payne is at pains, sorry, to point out the differences. People who want to believe that Franco wasn't, all take this as proof that he wasn't. I personally think the whole concept is a little mad; cite one lot of people who call themselves something, draw parallels between them and other people...But that's the field. And the scholars in that field say, he was Fascist. Anarchangel (talk) 06:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you actually read what it says in the heavily sourced article fascism, instead of adding in unsourced assertions. It clearly states in the sourced article on fascism that Franco is not considered a fascist revolutionary by scholars, but instead a right wing authoritarian, his "ideology" if he even had one was National Catholicism not fascism. Please do not add in political motivated propaganda into the article. I know all are supposed to "assume good faith", but when an anarchist is trying to pin the word "fascist" to people such as Franco, Salazar and Pinochet the stench of bitter propaganda, reacting at these peoples thorough defeat of the far left is rife.- Autocralo (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franco was Fascist, see [[Fascism]]