Talk:Francisco Franco/Archive 1

message: I removed the following two statements: the first because it violates the neutral point of view and the second because its factually inaccurate.
 Franco soon gained a reputation as a meticulous and fearless officer 
What is the source of this statement, the official Franco biography? Unless someone can give a source that pre-dates Franco's rise to power I don't see a reason to include it.
 Becoming the youngest general in any European army in 1926, 
Tukhachevsky was leading 100,000 soldiers into war at the age of 27 in 1920! In 1926, although he was a year younger than Franco, he was serving as chief of staff of the Red Army. --145.94.41.95 14:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  points of view and facts 

message: I had added the NPOV tag because I consider that the article does not comply with the Wikipedia NPOV policy. As I understand it, it means that all points of view must be fairly described and that a particular point of view cannot be treated as if it were a proven fact. I want to make clear that I do not oppose the information included in the article (excluding some passages I consider are mistakes) but I consider it must be completed to be 100% valid.
The specific parts I believe are not neutral are the following:
* "When miners in Asturias started a full scale rebellion a year later, it was Franco who ensured that colonial troops were sent to crush the uprising." I believe that the rebellion was intended to take place in all of Spain in order to overthrow the existing "democratic" government. A lot of important politicians took part in the plot and were arrested after it failed. Besides, in Catalonia there were also some incidents (although the rebels were defeated in 24 hours). It was not only the miners and not only in Asturias. 
* "Franco's government actively promoted this division between "victors" and "vanquished" while its incompetence did little to improve the economic situation." As you can imagine, there are a lot of alternative theories. 
I believe the following is a mistake: "Franco is buried at Santa Cruz del Valle de los Caídos, [...]. Later, the Spanish Government of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero decided (2005) to convert the site in an homage to democracy." I believe the decision has not been made yet .
::While I am sure you know what you're talking about, my first impression when I browsed by this page and saw the NPOV tag was that the page must have been hijacked by neo-Fascists or something. According to what you write, the problem is of a much less serious nature. Why not use some weaker version, such as factual inaccuracy? Jørgen 28 June 2005 20:25 (UTC)
:First of all, thank you for your interests. I believe the NPOV tag is the most suitable here as the points I talked about in my previous edit are really existing theories to explain the History of Spain and Franco's life. I believed the article is not neutral because they are presented like proven facts not like theories. My aim including the tag was simply to warn other users of that. In fact, in my opinion the information included in the article (excluding some mistakes) must be preserved in future versions. 
:Unfortunately, I'm not an expert user so perhaps you are right as I do not know all the differences between the meaning of the NPOV tag and those used to identify factual inaccuracies. Hagiographer 29 June 2005 16:38 (UTC)
::I am not an expert user either, not at all, I just wanted to mention my first impression as I dropped by this article while intending to learn more about the Spanish Civil War. I suggest that you remove the tag if you do not intend to improve the page soon, however, if you disagree, that's fine with me. Jørgen 29 June 2005 19:44 (UTC)
::Indeed, the NPOV tag is overkill in this case. We're talking about pretty minor issues I think. Either do the changes yourself or remove the tag. Why does every political article in the Wikipedia have to have the NPOV tag? Javier 6 July 2005
:::Removed NPOV tag. Interestingly, the book that lead me to this subject (The Blind Man in Sevilla) is about a guy called Javier. OK, that was probably not interesting. Jørgen 11:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: I removed Franco from :Category:Fascists since he did not consider himself as such and people who call him that use it mostly as an insult. He was more of a conservative-authoritarian military leader, in the same way as Augusto Pinochet (who is also frequently accused of being fascist on loose grounds). /Jebur 3 July 2005 03:02 (UTC)
It is ironic that although Franco is considered to be a typical fascist and the fight against him to be an anti-fascist struggle, he wasn't a Fascist. NYCity Expat 01:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franco and fascism 

message: Removed since it is not very related to Franco or Spain under Franco.
Besides, some Brigadists defended Stalinism.
--Error 23:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed picture 

message: I have added:
:The historian Ricardo de la Cierva says that on the 19th around 6 pm he was told that Franco had already died.
As a reference, I watched De la Cierva himself say so on Informe Semanal.
--Error 00:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  19-N 

message: The following was removed:
:(Hitler remarked that he'd rather "have two or three teeth pulled out" before trying to negotiate Franco's entry into the war again).
Is the quotation false?
I have heard it elsewhere.
--Error 00:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, [Error] The sentence appears also on S.G Payne's article about Franco in the "Britannica" (15th edition). If not real, seems widespread.--Wllacer 17:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I got some more info. The primary source seems to be Count Ciano's memories--Wllacer 18:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitler on Franco 

message: His full name was Francisco Franco Bahamonde. That's it. That's what appears in all legal documents and that is how he was referred to by everybody. Never in his life did he use any other names. The rest of the Christian names *may* appear in his baptism but have no legal validity and were never used. Consult all legal documents, press citations, etc. and what you see is Francisco Franco Bahamonde and, therefore, that is what his name was for all intents and purposes. Not his abbreviated name but his full name. Any references to other ancestral family names or christian names should be relegated to a footnote as they are of little interest or relevancy. Citing it like it is now just serves to foster the mistaken stereotype that Spanish people use really long (many) names.
During his rule he was called as "El Caudillo de la Última Cruzada y de la Hispanidad, El Caudillo de la Guerra de Liberación contra el Comunismo y sus Cómplices" --  He was called this by who? This is nonsense and it ought to be removed. (alf - Madrid)
Franco was also referred to as "Miss Canary Islands, 1936" due to his "girlish" reluntance to involve himself in earlier rebellious plots.  This was by fellow right-wing plotters.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.37.162.25 (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro names and titles 

message: Am including a small reference, plus link to the BBC original, to the following news item:
Franco guaranteed the maintenance of traditional values in Europe and we lack such statesmen today
Maciej Giertych, MEP, said: "Thanks to the Spanish army and Franco the communist attack on Catholic Spain was thwarted. The presence of such people in European politics as Franco guaranteed the maintenance of traditional values in Europe and we lack such statesmen today. Christian Europe is losing against atheistic socialists today and this has to change."
----
If he said that he knew nothing. It was the catholic church who has always attacked the people. The reaction of the people was just the natural consequence against the system. Anyway these words are just the fruit of his ignorance, they have no relevance for the article; it's just political propaganda.
Onofre Bouvila 04:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The controversy continues 

message: There is a request for a citation about López Ochoa's head being cut off & stuck on a pole in '36. I haven't readily found anything citable, but I have no reason to doubt . It may be suggestive of research directions for anyone who wants to follow this up. - Jmabel | Talk 03:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  López Ochoa 

message: The following was cut some time in the last few months:
Since Franco's death, almost all the placenames named after him (most Spanish towns had a calle del Generalísimo) have been changed. This holds particularly true in the regions ruled by parties heir to the Republican side, while in other regions of central Spain rulers have preferred not to change such placenames, arguing they would rather “not stir the past”. Most statues or monuments of him have also been removed; in the capital, Madrid, the last one standing was removed in March 2005.
It was vague and uncited, so I'm not restoring it, but if someone can write something solid on the topic, I think it would make a good addition to the article. - Jmabel | Talk 03:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need some text to anchor  plaque images from Commons. --Error 16:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cult of personality 

message: I've rewritten the section Rise to Power. The entire section was vaguely cited to the French translation of Hugh Thomas's The Spanish Civil War; no page citations were given, and there was quite a bit in the section that is not citable to Thomas (and quite a bit relevant in Thomas that was not in the section). I've rewritten with clear citations. There are several claims relative to Mola that I am sure are nowhere in Thomas, but that seemed important enough that if they are citable from elsewhere should certainly remain; I've marked them with . If no one can cite for these, they should probably be removed.
In general, a lot of the rest of this article has similar problems, but I only felt like working on the one section right now. There would be a lot of fertile ground for anyone who wants to do similar work. - Jmabel | Talk 06:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the reference to most people believing that Mola was assassinated, which, as far as I know, is not accurate. Perhaps he was killed, but that doesn't appear to be the belief of most historians. Aussiesta (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rise to Power 

message: In the section "rise to power" is quoted that JA Primo de Rivera was in prison in Madrid, but actually he was being held in a prison in Alicante. --Don severo 18:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About José Antonio Primo de rivera 

message: His name is given in the article as, "Franco Bahamonde": but was the correct form not, "Franco y Bahamonde"?
Flonto 15:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about his name 

message: This article's quality is crippled with POVed subtle messages that labels Franco as 'right-wing' and/or that fascism is a right-wing ideology. Although this may perhaps be a popular understanding, these are highly challengeable statements, and the kind usually used by the left to discredit the right. In fact, authoritarianism and anarchism are antipodes where anarchism (absolute freedom) represents the far right. Franco did not believe much in anarchism... --Childhood's End 18:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe you are right in this at all. In fact I think you are completely reversing the terms. I also personally believe that if the article is biased it is biased in favor of Franco and not against him.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 20:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Childhoodsend, it is important to note that Franco himself was not a fascist, nor was his regime. Franco certainly sympathised with fascism, but he lacked the ideological base that would define his regime as one. Defining Franco as a fascist would be incorrect. 'Extreme-right' is probaby more accurate in this case. 163.1.117.202 15:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a total misrepresentation and does not warrant an NPOV marker at all. By all accounts, anarchism is commonly classified as left wing (with the exception of so-called anarcho-capitalists, which are rejected by most anarchists) Historically, anarchists have often identified themselves as "libertarian socialists". And there cannot be a serious dispute about whether or not Franco's government is labeled "right-wing" on common political scales. It undoubtedly is. What else? --Johannes Rohr 03:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If this is a definition of Fascism, ... what's the difference between Louis XIV of France, Alexander the Great and Hitler. Please, let's be serious --Wllacer (User talk:Wllacer|talk]]) 00:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

text: A more formal answer would be, this definition would encompass the governments of Horthy, Pildusky,  Primo, Oliveria, Dollfuss, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco (speaking only of people of the 20's and 30's). Only a very infantil usage of the term Fascism would suit all of them. Look in the archives, here and in other relevant artices, the issue has been discussed more than onceWllacer (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One argument against Franco being a fascist, requiring that to be defined as one, fascists must have a following. Two ad hominem arguments: "Please, let's be serious", "infantil"(sic) and one is additionally self-referencing "this definition would encompass the governments of Horthy, Pildusky,  Primo, Oliveria, Dollfuss, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco" (your definition of fascism is not correct because according to your definition, my definition of your definition indicates a flaw). I am not convinced. Anarchangel (talk) 08:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major POV problem 

message: The introduction mentions that one of the controversies surrounding Franco's regime is whether the 2nd Republic constituted a legitimate democracy. I am deleting this. There is no doubt about the democratic legitimacy of the 2nd Republic, insofar as the government had been legitimately elected. This is not open to argument. I am leaving the rest of the sentence (regarding extremism and anti-clerical violence), as that may have a more solid base. I have also deleted the suggestion that the 2nd Republic had become a communist regime. That is also out of question-- no communist regime has ever been in power in Spain. The most one could say is that the 2nd Republic had adopted an extreme-left position 163.1.117.207 17:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tut tut. You come in here as an anonymous editor and make categoric statements and deletions of the work of others with no source materiéls to support your actions. The 2nd Republic, for instance, sent all of Spain's gold reserves to the Soviet Union, from whence they have never returned. The so-called "International Brigades" were co-ordinated by a Moscow-based organisation and consisted mostly of communists from numerous countries. Might I suggest you read The Revolt of the Masses by Jose Ortega y Gasset (English edition 1932), for starters. He was sometime a government minister and had much to say about the types of people attracted to the Republican cause in Spain. You might also get hold of a copy of Spanish Rehearsal by Sir Arnold Lunn (1937) which deals with the Civil War and its combatants, including details on the 2nd Republic's personnel. David Lauder 20:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tut tut. How is that any indication that the government was communist? I am not expressing opinions, I am adhering to FACTS. The 2nd Republic 1. was decmocratically elected (there is little doubt about that), 2. was not a communist regime (there has never been a communist regime in Spain). As I said before, one could say the 2nd Republic adopted extremist positions and communist-sympathising policies, but that does not make the 2nd Republic communist. That is misleading and inaccurate, and needs to be addressed (regardless of personal creeds). By the way, I have read Ortega y Gasset's Revolt of the Masses (in Spanish, as I am a Spanish speaker). I found it a bit too reactionary and class-conscious for my taste. Anyway, back to the text, I have reverted the changes. I would be happy to reach consensus (e.g. by emphasising there was turmoil, religious violence, and assassinations). However, I would not be happy with leaving any suggestions that the 2nd Republic was a communist regime or that it was not a legitimately and democratically elected government, as that is simply inaccurate. 129.67.88.118 12:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a closer look at The Revolt of the Masses Ortega y Gasset was writing about the kinds of people that tend to support totalitarianism--both fascist and communist. He was not writing about the Second Republic. The Revolt of the Masses was published in Spain in 1930 and the Second Republic didn't even begin until the next year. Moreover, Ortega y Gasset was actually a member of the Second Republic: a member of parliament and civil governor of Madrid.--Bkwillwm 19:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legitimacy of the 2nd Republic 

message: Some statements seem to use Pio Moa's books as source. This writer has admitted to be biased, in the spanish media, and has been discredited by the Principal of "Real Academia de la Historia" []
::Pio Moa has been supported by some english speaking reputed historians , therefore Pio Moa is a legit source. Please sign your comments. Thank you. Randroide (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: :Copied from WP:RD/H for processing. --Ghirla-трёп- 22:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The nobility of Franco's motivations can be seen even earlier, in 1936, when he accepted the Luftwaffe's kind offer to drop bombs on the country he was intending to rule. Obviously a practical man, also, as seen by his decision to tarmac over all the cobbled streets in Seville so that the tanks could roll through more easily. But seriously, fraud by marxists? pious, not a mad pagan? Personally, I am dubious of the convention of naming governments after another government, namely, Mussolini's. While that convention exists, however, Franco adheres firmly to the definition of Fascism:
*Nationalism
*Third position (autarky)
*Totalitarianism
*Militarism 
Anarchangel (talk) 08:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franco and WWII 

message: The article mentions Opus Dei as Franco's ideology. There is no citation. If there is no evidence for this then it should be deleted. In fact Franco was not a member of Opus Dei and some members actually opposed Franco and were imprisoned while others did serve in the government. Overall a poor article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.48.56 (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opus Dei? 

message: This article is a mess, from the unqualified use of the term "fascist" on.  It needs substantial rewriting. Jaimehy (talk) 11:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A mess 

message: This article is deporable. So many words for such a poor result.
 
"Francoism" lasted for almost forty years. From its start to its end, Spain, Spaniards, and Spanish society as a whole changed dramatically in any respect (demographics, education, religion, economy, culture, external relationships, class dynamics,...). And Franco's regime did so; even in its politics (... yes, politics).
Therefore characterize Spain under the 40 years of Franco dictatorship just by some (mostly anecdotal and/or irrelevant) of its features from the early forties is a real mess, indeed.
Just a little sample: Most towns were patrolled by pairs of Guardia Civil, a military police for civilians. As every Spaniard more than 40 years old know, this is a pure, and rather stupid, fable. And so on ...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buron444 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A real mess indeed 

message: I want what English Wikipedia has two articles in Castilian Wikipedia (Spanish Wikipedia) considered feature articles there. 
*Franquism mottos Lemas del franquismo (es)
*Franquism symbols (or simbology...) Simbología del franquismo (es)
Thanks for all! and excuse me for my english. Thor8 (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles requires 

message: I find totally inapropiate to delete comments in the talk page unless you are the author or there are objective, read legal, grounds (with no exception after discussion)
I disagree with the comment just deleted (and undeleted by me) but for the title and a few details. ATM I'm in no mood to refute it (but interested search for my signature in the archives and here). But I feel the user has ALL the right to expose its points
--Wllacer (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Un)Deletion in talk page December 14 

message: Regarding to the section Franco's death and funerals, I replaced "the new title of Prince of Spain" by "the new title of King of Spain". It is important to remark that although the position of Juan Carlos de Borbón before Franco's decision was of "Prince", Franco designated him as "King" of Spain. 
Regarding to the section Franco's legacy, I changed the currency in which the family's estimated wealth was expressed. Since that fortune is currently existent, it is pointless to express it in Pesetas, currency that is not used anymore in Spain. I changed it to its equivalent in Euros. The next economic data, regarding to the pension to Franco's widow, was left as Pesetas because that pension was strictly at that time, when Pesetas were being used.
These are small details; however, the structure of the article needs a complete different shape. For instance, Juan Carlos's designation is mentioned in "Franco's Death and Funerals", when it has actually nothing to do with his death, and not even at the time of it.
Finally, the vocabulary of the article needs a strong cleanup. For example, in the section "The first months", the expression "Despite Franco having no money" appears to be more like a novel than an encyclopedic article. 
--Antonio.bustamante (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small details corrected, structure and vocabulary need cleanup 

message: An official portrait (like the one on the cover of Preston's biography) should be uploaded and placed in the infobox. Currently it contains a blurry 1969 photo cut from a newspaper just because Spanish Wiki has it readily available. A photo from civil war period wouldn't make harm either. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portrait for the infobox 

message: Franco appeared listed in the "Righteous Among the Nations category" and in the list by country. As I didn't find an official list from Yed Vashem, the organism that regulates the award, I emailed them about this (I hope) good faith mistake, and I got this response from its Director, Irena Steinfeldt:
It is indeed a mistake. Francisco Franco was never recognized as Righteous Among the Nations. 
We are presentely working on an upgraded website, where we will also put all the names of the Righteous recognized by Yad Vashem. Hopefully the site will be up within a couple of months. 
Thank you for informing us and for your interest. 
Irena Steinfeldt
Director, Righteous Among the Nations Department
Yad Vashem
P.O.B. 3477 
91034 Jerusalem
Tel: 972-2-6443 521
Fax: 972-2-6443 743
email: irena.steinfeldt@yadvashem.org.il
www.yadvashem.org
So I'll delete him from the category.JorgeGT (talk) 12:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Righteous Among the Nations?! 

message: I've excised following sentence from the last contri 
It was built by Republican prisoners of war under forced labour.
 
While it is a common propaganda topic that it was build by political prisoners, the reality has been thorougly studied and it wasn't ... almost. Perhaps some 1000 political prisoners worked there for the 20 years of building, and all of them in administrative posts and, in relative terms, exceptionaly good conditions. The rest was free labor (f.i. the father of late actor Paco Rabal). 
For a quick review of the question, see an article of 2006 by noted journalist Victoria Prego here. (sadly in Spanish) Only a martian would ever accuse her of being a francoist, so don't expect such a bias.
Anyhow, for the doubtful ones, the Valle is carved out of a granit mountain, so it was built primarily by blasting. Would anyone use -if only for security reasons- for this task presumed untrustful convicts , with dynamite or the like within easy reach ? I wouldn't, for sure. Wllacer (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political prisoners and the ''Valle de los Caidos'' 

message: I removed the following:
:===Current Relations===
:Francisco Franco's currently living distant relations are not sure of, but could be Mexican-American. There have been a few vague records of--although not known to be totally true-- a few families with the name of Franco moving to Mexico from Spain, and later to the USA during World War II.
It is vague, unreferenced and not very interesting.
There are already unmentioned living descendants of Franco who at least appear in gossip magazines.
--Error (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current relations 

message: The obelisk at Las Raíces is "cited" by linking the words Las Raíces to a photo of the (heavily grafittied) obelisk. For one thing, linking this way is not how we normally link references. For another, it's really hard to know that the photo is what it ostends to be. There isn't much online about this, in any case. Can anyone suggest a source for a good print citation? - Jmabel | Talk 06:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unorthodox citation 

message: I recently made an edit indicating, correctly, that contrary to a sometimes popular misconception Franco and Franco's Spain were not fascist.  It was reverted and suggested that it is POV to say Franco's not fascist.  To state that Franco was not a fascist is not POV.  It is a fact of history and political science.  It is the overwhelming consensus of scholars on the subject; Payne, the leading scholar on Spain and fascism, says as much.  I provided two reliable sources to support this, Payne and Laqueur.  The fact that he may have borrowed the trappings of Fascism is beside the point.  Many interwar governments had policies and trappings in common with fascism, including the New Deal.  It is fair to say Franco was authoritarian and a dictator, that he borrowed some of the trappings of fascism and that some of his supporters early on were fascist but going beyond that is not accurate.  One distinction, is that he lacked in particular the revolutionary nature of fascism.
In support of this point, please see the following:  “Twentieth century dictatorships may be detestable, but the are not necessarily fascist.  Japan in the 1930s was not a Fascist country…nor was Spain under Franco.”  Laqueur, Walter Fascism: Past, Present, Future p. 13 1996 Oxford University Press  “Franco was not a fascist.  There is an element of revolutionary politics in Fascism, of wanting to provoke dramatic change in society.  That was not Franco’s intention…” De Menses, Filipe Ribeiro Franco and the Spanish Civil War, p. 87 Routledge  “Whatever else he was, Franco was not a fascist. He was a devout, conservative, military man with a small and basic stock of highly reactionary ideas…” Gilmour, David, The Transformation of Spain: From Franco to the Constitutional Monarchy, p. 7 1985 Quartet Books  “The aftermath of the civil war made it clear that the new regime was not so much a revolutionary fascist state as a rightist authoritarian system flavored with fascist rhetoric.” Payne, Stanley Fascism in Spain, 1923-1977, p. 347 1999 Univ. of Wisconsin Press “This does not mean that Franco was ever a generic fascist sensu strictu. … scarcely any of the serious historians and analysts of Franco consider the generalissimo to have been a core fascist.” Payne, Stanley Fascism in Spain, 1923-1977, p. 476 1999 Univ. of Wisconsin Press 
I think this plainly and clearly supports the point, I am going to reinsert the edit with the additional, multiple citations. Mamalujo (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As to the edit to the effect that scholar debate the extent to which he was a fascist, it is not accurate nor sourced.  I don't believe any substantial number of reliable scholars say he was fascist.  The overwhelming view is that he lacked certain essential elements. Mamalujo (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really agree here--as I see it, when Payne says he is "not a core fascist" this means is is to a considerable extent a fascist, though not entirely orthodox.I tink that is the meaning otherwise--he was not a literal follower of Mussolini, but he fits within the general umbrella. DGG (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I think we're getting there. I read some of what I could find by Payne online and Griffiths, who seems well regarded as a fascism expert.  It looks like there is some consensus that Franco's Spain differed from Italian Fascism and Nazism since it lacked the idea of establishing a revolutionary new order. I think it's important that mention this as the primary reason why Franco is not lumped with Italian Fascism and Nazism.  Franco still adopted many other aspects of fascism including nationalism, militarism, authoritarianism, anti-liberalism, single party rule, and fascist symbolism and rhetoric.  Also, Griffiths (101-105) discuses how, while he thinks Franco was definitely not fascist in his later years, in the 30s and 40s his categorization was not as clear. Griffiths cites several of Franco's speeches and interviews in this time period were Franco accepts the label "fascist," albeit hesitantly. I think these sections (I can provide more thorough cites.. doing more research) show that Franco obviously had some ties to fascism, both the movement and the ideology, but wasn't a "core fascist," focused on ideology.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Wllacer, I think we're pretty much in agreement. From what I've read, Franco wasn't much for ideology. However, he had clear connections and associations with fascism, most notably associating himself with Spain's fascist movement and allying with Nazis and Italian Fascists.  The article shouldn't say that Franco was or wasn't fascist, the argument is mainly semantic anyway, but it should reflect his association with fascism. And it should discuss the post-WWII move of Franco's regime away from fascism.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I just dropped by here for the first time in a while. I largely agree with Wllacer on the facts, though we may view those facts differently. Franco is in no small part called "fascist" because of who his allies were in the Spanish Civil War, because he took over the shell of the Falange and many of its trappings, and because many of his policies early on were rather fascistic, though less so as time went on. I personally have no doubt that if the Axis had won WWII he would have fit happily into a fascist Europe, and would gladly have become more fascistic rather than heading the direction he did, but whether through conviction or expedience, he ultimately moved toward a type of authoritarianism that was not specifically fascist. Still, anyone who looks at the Valle de los Caídos and doesn't see fascist tendencies is blind. -  Jmabel | Talk 20:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a fascist 

message: It should be noted that the 18th of July coup d'état had to be delayed to the pointed date, because of several reasons, but the conspiration had been forged since at least 4 months in anticipation. In addition, fascist militias had already started to hit on worker movement leaders as well as on left wing politicians through murder and violence. I think it would be partial to cite only the left wing antichlericalism as the reason for Mola, Sanjurjo and Franco to rise in arms. Moreover, the profound changes promoted from the left wing during their ruling periods within the II Republic were the main reason for the conspiration, supported economically by several wealthy families and factic powers (such as the Catholic Church and others conservative groups). And that had been forged long before Calvo Sotelo's murder.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.0.13.51 (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only Left Wing antichlerical actions mentioned in previous facts to 18th of July 

message: Franco wasn´t  Regent of the Kingdom. Franco was only the Head of State and "Caudillo"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.48.32 (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regent of the Kingdom 

message: I'm spaniard, and I've always been told that Franco died on 20 november; But lately someone (Mirandamir) is telling us that it happened on 19 November... What should I do?Javitomad (...tell me...) 17:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mirandamir is a banned sockpuppet of a notorious Wiki vandal who has in the past gone by the names of Boxingwear/Vesa/Projects/Francos22/etc. You are safe to ignore him and his ramblings.MKil (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, point is not who is who or i doubt above user is mixed with others, question deals with time of franco's death.
Material deleted by 64.24.59.120 ; restored by Anarchangel (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

text: The article talks about real/true time and death of francisco franco at 6 pm on November 19th 1975 as Randroide indicated! It's also possible he was removed from life support! But november 20th was important day to franco's government! 
Material by 64.24.59.120 ; signature added by Anarchangel (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ¿When did Franco die? 

message: Summary of edit Dec 18: "It would be incorrect to say the Franquist regime, with its theocratic aspect, look at women for "reproduction" but rather motherhood. The former is far too clinical to convey the cultural differences"</br>
Setting aside its merits, you have made the best case against your argument. 'Motherhood' in fact smoothes over potential "cultural differences". Although as I say, the case has some merits, among them is not that 'motherhood' would make a better distinction. Perhaps there is a 3rd alternative? I certainly hope so. Anarchangel (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reproduction / Motherhood 

message: Bassett's theory that Franco was bribed by Churchill to be neutral is not consistent with the claims in the article that Franco was in some degree pro-German before 1943.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.223.218 (talk) 11:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency 

message: No one pointed out in the article that during WWII Franco massively gave Spanish citizenship to the Jews who escaped from Nazi regime. Franco favored the most Sephardi Jews, in 1941 Spanish Ministry of Education even established Jewish magazine called Sepharad. --DumnyPolak (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jews under Franco's rule 

message: Know Gen.Franco abolished the Faligist OParty in 1940s. But what became of this party and its role in supportting Franco?Thanks1Andreisme (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Know Franco abolished the Falange in 40s But what happened then? 

message: I added this info in his "Early Life" Section. Here is the link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8055329.stm (Gomes89 (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franco's Testicle 

message: Franco is portrayed in an unreasonably benevolent light, particularly in the introductory paragraph. There is no mention of several key aspects of his regime, such as the constant violations of human rights, the lack of freedom of press, the use of concentration camps in the early years of the regime, the implementation of forced labor in prisons throughout the country, the use of death penalty as a deterrent for his ideological enemies, etc. Currently the article seems to portray the character as "a strong right-wing leader who fought against communism" -- there is a lot that is being brushed under the carpet here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.148.78 (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have incorporated the info above to the intro paragraph and removed the unbalanced tag. 79.79.148.78 (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted by the tag above, this is not a debate forum, but just for the record it certainly isn't illegal to talk about Franco in Spain (far from it -- there is currently a huge debate in Spain about what to do with people in mass graves, whether to modify certain aspects of the amnesty that was applied during the transition to democracy, etc.). What is illegal is to brand pro-fascist and anti-democratic symbols in public.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.153.211 (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced article 

message: Why the ridiculuos gloryfying painting of Franco and not a regular Photography?  Nunamiut (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The photo is of very poor quality and the subject is barely visable (old age, hidden behind glasses and a hat), what is your evidence that it is "glorified"? If Mao can have a clear painting which is a higher quality, then so can Franco. - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The painting is not ideal as the lead image, which is primarily for purposes of identifying the subject, but I think it is useful for us to use it elsewhere in the article. It is an interesting example of propaganda art and it tells us a lot about how Franco wanted to be seen. We include images of Nazi and Soviet propaganda art in the appropriate articles for similar reasons. The readers are not idiots. They know that these things are to be studied and interpreted rather than taken at face value. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the painting and not a regular photo? 

message: "Today, pre-constitutional symbols from the Franco regime (such as the national flag with the Imperial Eagle) are banned by law in Spain."
All those symbols ARE NOT banned in Spain, theyre easy to see in many official places, shops, and people use all Franco's simbols in far right demostrations. 
Eagle IS NOT an imperial eagle. Its from the Reyes Catolicos, St. Jhon Eagle.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.0.102.118 (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the simbols 

message: It states in the article that Franco was fighting the Communists and that is a very slanted way of looking at the conflict.  Franco was fighting DEMOCRACY.  Against a legally-elected government by and for the people.  The fact that the Communists, Socialists, and even Anarchists joined in the fight to keep the elected government in power does not make that fight against them.  Yes, they fought Franco too, but it was the people of Spain, who wanted to live in a democracy who were the real enemy of Franco.  Indeed, if Franco had not enlisted the Catholic Church with threats that a democracy would redistribute Church money and give it to the people, he could not have won that war.  He used the threat of Communism to further his own right-wing agenda, but that does not mean he was actually fighting Communism.  Make no mistake, he was fighting Democracy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marisagallego (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  NONESENSE.  The Nationalists were fighting to stop the Catholic genocide that was being commited by the "progressives" who had violently seized power. Catholics from all over the world including the US went to Spain to overthrow its genocidal Stalinist government.  "Free Spain", like every other "progressive" government also butchered its own leftist supporters.  Read Orwell's "Homage To Catalonia" to find out the truth about the mass murderers who ran "Free Spain".68.224.206.168 (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

text: The article says clearly that Franco's government was an authoritarian one and he gained power by fighting against liberal republicans (whom according to Franco, were freemasons) as well as the communists and the anarchists. Clearly not all people of Spain wanted to live in an anti-clerical "liberal" "democracy" (similar to Plutarco Elías Calles ran Mexico) but with the addition of fifth columnist Bolsheviks and anarchists as part of a coallition government. Otherwise there would not have been so many Spaniards who were willing to take up arms and fight for the nationalist Crusade in the Civil War. Wikipedia is not bias in favour of liberal democracy, its already very clear that Franco was against that system—the Spanish patriots took up arms and defeated communism and democracy in the same blow. Its for the reader to judge whether it was a good thing or bad. - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

text: You could find out about the Catholic genocide by the dictatorship of "Free Spain" very easily.  Also the intermural murders that always seem to plaque a society taken over by these creatures. See Orwell who returned from "Free Spain" disgusted and wrote Animal Farm. 68.224.206.168 (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I would like to remind everybody that this is not a general forum for discussing Franco. Please focus on discussing improvements to the article. Please avoid personal viewpoints and suggest reliable sources that we can use in the article. Unsourced hyperbolic assertions (e.g. "Catholic genocide") do not help. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who Franco was fighting. 

message: General Francisco Bahamonde Franco was not the most popular leader in Spain during the early 1930s. A man of humble origins, he had worked his way up the military ladder fighting colonial wars in Africa. He was hardly charismatic; Hitler once described meeting him as "Iess pleasurable than having four or five teeth pulled." But Franco, a staunch  conservative, was infuriated when a Republican alliance of socialists, Marxists, and liberals won Spain's first free elections in 1936. So the General decided to "restore order" by force.
Franco's Nationalists were losing the civil war, but military support from Hitler, Mussolini, and the U. S. corporations that backed Hitler turned the tide in his favor. Italy and Germany sent 6,000 trucks to Franco's fascists, but 12,000 were supplied by Ford, General Motors and Studebaker. The U.S. claimed neutrality but didn't stop these companies from aiding Franco. The failure of the U.S. and other democratic nations to assist Spain's democratic government was ultimately responsible for Franco's victory in 1939, and, sadly, American volunteers who had fought for the Republic were branded "premature anti-fascists" and relentlessly persecuted during the U.S. anti-communist hysteria of the 1950s.
Under Franco, all political parties and labor unions were banned, books were burned, and dissenters were tortured and executed. Spain was ostracized by the international community, but the U.S. considered Franco a Cold War ally and sank millions into the country. After Franco's death in 1975, Spain became a democratic republic once again.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.43.102 (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  additional info on Franco 

message: To the people who removed the POV tag. read the top tags on this page. "This is a controversial historical topic that may be disputed. Please read the talk page and discuss substantial changes there before making them. Please also consider the particular importance of using proper citations when adding information to highly controversial articles."Nunamiut (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Such rubbish.  Franco was a Catholic not a fascist.  The fascists were a small part of his (winning) coaltion.  The Communist led government imposed a dictatorship and murdered all its opponents it could get its hands on.  It crucified, burned or buried alive every nun, priest or monk it could get its hands on, closing every church in the country.  They even turned on their fellow marxists and butchered them by the tens of thousands as Orwell elequently discusses in "Homage To Catalonia".  The people of Spain rose up and threw out their Soviet-style  masters, ending the Catholic genocide.  La Passionaria put her red tail between her legs and ran off to Moscow, leaving behind thousand of poor peasant boys who bought into her Stalinist "paradise" and died on the battlefield.  Also, someone keeps posting that today Spain is a "democratic republic" when it is really a MONARCHY imposed by Franco and the winners very much against the wishes of La Passionaria and her murderous crew. 68.224.206.168 (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that. It is always nice to hear from people with strong opinions and a powerful writing style. Unfortunately, we are trying to write an encyclopaedia here and we are more interested in facts, proven by their inclusion in reliable sources, than hyperbolic assertions. What you say has no bearing on whether Franco was actually a true Fascist or merely a pro-Fascist ultra-conservative. This is a matter of genuine historical controversy with respectable historians on both sides. Our job as Wikipedians is to present an accurate overview of thinking on this subject. Not to argue the points among ourselves. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  the POV tag 

message: The genealogie are deductive.--Giacomuzzo (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last edit 

message: It's much too long now and much too detailed - it's longer that most WP articles. I imagine random readers have inserted their tuppence at the start. It needs whittling. Spanglej (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: I know i am just a anonymous peasant here, so I apologize if this is the wrong section, but I noticed some vandalism about goat testes and removed it, I hope this was correct protocol. 71.185.186.75 (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism fixed 

message: Removed three CN tags that were both stale and of dubious value as they were attached to things like "Spain now only lags slightly behind the economies of Britain, Ireland,[citation needed] France and Germany, and has now overtaken Italy in some respects.[citation needed]"  I'd be the first to say that the areas thus tagged may have had some NPOV issues but the arbitrary nature of the CN placement led to a distraction in what narrative existed and added no value.  That said, I think the whole section is muddy so I added the section-cleanup tag in its place to hopefully attract the sort of useful attention CN so often does not.  gloin (talk) 10:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic policy section re-tagged 

message: This article tends to oscillate between POVs of Franco.  I made an edit to the intro because it seemed generally seemed slanted to an apologist's perspective.  My edit had four parts.  The first, and most needed, concerned the causes of the civil war.  Before the edit, the section only mentioned anti-clerical violence and the assassination of Calvo as events leading up to the civil war. While both were part of the run up to the war, they were part of a larger cycle of violence between both the right and left, and my edit was intended to more accurately and impartially reflect that. Yorkshirian undid this part of the edit.  Yorkshirian seemed particularly concerned about reinserting the specific reference to anti-clerical violence apparently cited by Blinkhorn.  Obviously anti-clerical violence occurred in the run up to (and during) the war, but it is POV to focus on it as an implied cause of the war, especially to the exclusion of references to right wing violence. I don't have a problem including anti-clerical violence, but it needs to be couched better both in terms of POV policy and English.  It would also be good to know what exactly we're citing in Blinkhorn.
The second section of my edit involved the Blue Division.  The article had stated that Franco "allowed" the Blue Division to fight for the Axis, but I think it's pretty clear in the historical record that Franco actively support the Blue Division. So far no one has contested this part of the edit.
The third section, on the Cold War and a quote from Nixon, was removed by Glorian.  This section was inaccurate because it over represented the relationship between the US and Spain during the Cold War.  They did provide assistance to one another but they were not formal or close allies.  Second, I don't see the need for Nixon's quote to be in the introduction.  Introduction's are supposed to be high level overviews and generally should not include quotations, especially one's that are not particularly consequential.  Franco is not particularly well known for his relationship to the United States and there are already several sentences discussing this relationship in the intro.  Basically, it is undue weight.  I don't have problem moving the quote down to the Cold War or Death section, but I don't think it helps the introduction at all.
Finally, I added a section on Franco's current legacy status in Spain. This section reflects what already was in the article, and I think it's appropriate to mention the Law on Historical Memory in intro section. Glorian removed the section but did not give a reason why.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV in the Intro 

message: "During his almost forty year reign, Franco's governance went through various phases, although the most common ideological features present throughout included fascism, a strong sense of Spanish nationalism and protection of the country's territorial integrity, Catholicism, anti-communism, anti-masonry and traditional values" was allegedly sourced to A History of Us: War, Peace and all that Jazz. I've not seen the 1995 edition but I doubt it's any different to the third edition which is viewable online and only contains the following sentence about Franco - "In Spain, a strongman named Francisco Franco muscled his way to power, although many Spaniards (and other Europeans, and some Americans too) fought against him". The content of the sentence is very similar to the POV pushing by banned editor  who is well known for fabricating sources and who I see has been editing this article, although it has been in there for quite a long time so it may have been added by one of his block evasing socks during his one year ban by ArbCom, which has since been replaced by a permanent community ban. 2 lines of K303 13:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence removed from lead 

message: After periods of rapid growth during the late 1980s and late 1990s, Spain now only lags slightly behind the economies of Britain, Ireland, France and Germany, and is now close to that of Italy's.
I would have said that the Spanish economy does not lag behind that or Ireland, on the contrary I would say it is someway ahead.  Also Ireland's economic troubles have to some degree mirrored Spain's, with troughs often being at similar times, the exception perhaps being the economic stagnation in Spain in the 1940s which was matched by an improved time in Ireland as many Irish men went to work in British munitions factories and returned money home.Mtaylor848 (talk) 07:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion is ridiculous. The state of the Spanish economy of the 1980s and 1990s  has no place in an article about about a regime that ended in 1975.  How the Spanish economy of the 1980s and 90s might have been affected by earlier policies belongs in the "Economic History of Spain", not here! (Economists will be arguing about it forever anyway: for all they know...)Provocateur (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious claim 

message: I realise someone has already marked it as needing a citation, but this sentence should not remain without a citation and some work:
 "The relative economic success of this period created a considerable group of grateful citizens, who found the increase in everyday standard of living more significant than any human rights abuses"
Apart from anything else, "considerable" is a weasel word. At first glance, and in the context of a fairly positive paragraph about the effects of Franco's rule, the sentence could suggest a majority of Spaniards approved of Franco. On the other hand, 500 people might also be  considered "considerable". It's a word that means nothing without clarification, yet it is given enornous weight as it is used in summing up the first paragraph on Franco's legacy. Hobson (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grateful citizens 

message: I think we should have a better picture of him in the infobox. What do you think? Spongie555 (talk) 06:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: This article is terrible, a biased apology for a bloody dictator.
* The lack of clearly defining Franco as a dictator, as mentioned by an earlier poster.
*  The repeated, unsourced, justification of Franco's illegal coup of an elected government (under the heading "Nature of government overthrown by Franco").   The author is a blatant apologist.  I would be interested to read the rational of the mentality which says: democracy is good, unless people elect someone too left-wing in which case it's fine to have a bloody coup and a dictator (ala Pinochet in Chile, backed by the CIA).
* The repeated mention of anti-clericalism without referring to the fact that the Catholic Church assisted and worked with fascists in Europe before, during, and after WWII.
* "The shooting of thousands of opponents during the civil war and in the early years after is a source of controversy".  It's controversial because people in Spain are still finding their relatives buried in mass graves with bullet holes in the back of the skull.  "a notable negative point on Franco's record" - makes it sound like he got a D- in math at school.
* "From early 1937, every death sentence had to be signed (or acknowledged) by Franco. However, this does not mean that he had intimate or complete knowledge of every official execution.". Oh, so that's ok then.
If this author were to write about Hitler, I'd imagine they'd write something like "Bit of a bad egg, but he was nice to children and animals."
This article needs to be totally rewritten, by someone who can be objective as possible, using proper sources and analysis.
87.185.195.178 09:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason Franco has not been condemned as a horrible semi-human being, is because he fought communists (the ultimate evil that lives under your bed [AKA Cuba]).  I demand a little bit of respect for my slain political sympathizers.  I feel that I must also add, that a dictator is not an autocrat (one who rules alone with absolute power) A dictator is only someone who has absolute power.  This means that, although he has advisers, he could say any day that he wants- "kill this man," and it would be done.  If we wish to go by a dictator being someone who rules alone, we can certainly say that Hitler was not the dictator of Nazi Germany, but his preferred title of Father of Germany. (If you wish to say that Hitler ruled without advisers you are an idiot, I'm sorry to say).- Comrade B.
I think whether you decide if he's a dictator or not is to ask the following question. "Would You Have Liked To Live In Franco's Spain?" YES or NO. The question takes on special signifigance if you are a woman. The same question could be asked about the guy running North Korea now, Kim Jong Ill or whatever his name is. The question would be the same, "Would you like to live in North Korea now, under the present government? YES or NO. I believe if you circled the "no" answer, then the guy for all practicle purposes, is a dictator. Most people choose not to live underneath dictators when given a choice. Witness loads of people coming to the U.S. illegally.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.233.247.5 (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible Article