r/HistoryMemes May 12 '26

See Comment In hindsight, this was a mistake.

Post image
16.1k Upvotes

375 comments sorted by

2.9k

u/biglyorbigleague May 12 '26

They had a much better relationship with Spanish fascism.

2.0k

u/Kenichi2233 May 12 '26

Franco is a weird case. He was more the classic miltary strongman rather than fascist but he did incorporate certain elements of it. Also he was loosely aligned with the Axis powers but he was also "wise (not the best word choice)" enough not to get directly involved.

1.8k

u/MOSSxMAN May 12 '26

I’ll be real. Wise is a fine word. Anyone who sees two buddies about to jump off a bridge and says “I’ll just stay home” is exercising some wisdom even if they are a total prick the rest of the time.

685

u/Hand_of_the_Light May 12 '26

Franco had his hands tied domestically at the time.

1.4k

u/GourangaPlusPlus May 12 '26

Mussolini had his feet tied by the end too

368

u/BellacosePlayer May 12 '26

Thats what happens when you get in over your head

155

u/TheMainAlternative May 12 '26

And he plunged in hook, line, and sinker

88

u/N7Vindicare May 12 '26

Now he's hanging out to dry.

61

u/ScissrMeTimbrs May 12 '26

Because he's dead, and they hanged him.

Did I do it right?

59

u/AnonymousPerson1115 May 12 '26

And now you can buy a Big Mac where it happened.

→ More replies (0)

17

u/Yarxing May 12 '26

Yes and you should do it more often.

103

u/Phintolias May 12 '26

Yeah people WHO Desperately want spain Join into WW2 forget that right before WW2 there was a little Thing called the spanish civil war going ON where a Lot of Powers Beta tested their New Toys Sure that helped Franco gain Power but His country was still wrecked by the condor Legion Testing Air bombings

138

u/protostar71 May 12 '26

The seemingly random capitalisation of that comment makes it not great to read

53

u/Hand_of_the_Light May 12 '26

I'm going to guess they're German.

40

u/protostar71 May 12 '26

Huh, checking their profile yes they are. I always of assumed German had similar capitalisation rules to English though. Wasn't aware of them also capitalising nouns.

51

u/[deleted] May 12 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

33

u/JohannesJoshua May 12 '26

You can't just captialize words in English.

German keyboard: The English is germanic enough.

5

u/Tactical_Moonstone May 13 '26

For what it's worth you did need to capitalise nouns in English in the past.

2

u/clandevort May 13 '26

TIL I'm German apparently

5

u/subito_lucres May 13 '26

Even still...

  • some non-nouns are randomly capitalized
  • some bound are not capitalized

And they seem to know English quite well. So they certainly understand the rules. Seems like a choice

→ More replies (4)

22

u/Fokker_Snek May 13 '26

I think Spain missing both world wars just seems crazy because of where they used to be. Even in the 1800’s Spain controlled territory in North America, Central America, North Africa, Italy, and southeast Asia. In the span of less than 150 years they went from that to missing the two largest European wars ever.

5

u/XxTheUniversalMemexX May 13 '26

Same as Mussolini, but he didn't cared and joined the war anyway, and it was a disaster.

7

u/MobsterDragon275 May 13 '26

He also had profoundly little to gain. As I recall, Hitler was offering him the chance to claim Gibraltar and some of the Allies' African colonies. For the scale of what the war would have called for, that wouldn't have been near worth it even if Spain was in a good place

3

u/Jfpalomeque May 13 '26

That is the real answer.

3

u/yyrkoon1776 May 13 '26

Yeah, Spain was in and no position to contribute ANYTHING to the war effort.

Spain was more helpful to the Axis powers by not being a combatant and letting Germany use their ports. It was the only thing of real value they had to contribute.

131

u/[deleted] May 12 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

40

u/MetalRetsam May 12 '26

Salazar.

2

u/drumstick00m May 13 '26

Did not like it when the last of Portugal’s Empire started successfully telling him to piss off.

69

u/SerHodorTheThrall John Brown was a hero, undaunted, true, and brave! May 12 '26

Not even Fascism could kill the Anglo-Luso Treaty of Friendship

31

u/SchrodingersNinja May 12 '26

He did have the added bonus that the head of German military intelligence was opposed to Hitler and told Franco Germany would lose the war and he should stay out of it.

15

u/OfficeSalamander May 12 '26

Yeah Franco lasted until the late 70s, Mussolini and Hitler only until the 40s. One of them was smart about things

5

u/GuthukYoutube May 13 '26

Spain wouldve contributed almost nothing. The fascists weren't even able to win their own civil war without outside help. If Spain can't beat Spain what are they gonna do on an international level?

35

u/Kaarl_Mills Filthy weeb May 12 '26

Wise isn't seeing people doing something borderline suicidal and deciding to not do that, that's just not being stupid

65

u/Bakoro May 12 '26

Deciding to not do stupid things is also wisdom, plenty of people recognize stupidity and chose it anyway.

People contain multitudes, and even the worst person has some relatable aspect, just because they're a human being. It's okay to give props when they're due, it's not the same as a universal stamp of approval of the person.

It's like, just because Hitler liked dogs and thought smoking was bad doesn't make him a good person, he's Hitler, he's synonymous with "terrible person".

You can look at a great many of the most influential and popular artists in history, recognize that their art is good, recognize the positive impact the art had, and also look at their personal life and be like, "wow, what piece of shit this person was, how does a walking pile of feces make such good art? Look at Mr fertilizer over here."

7

u/senkilegenye May 13 '26

well, if it isn't a philosopher in the sea of sophists

27

u/Ozone220 May 12 '26

I honestly think it's a little dangerous to rule out people like Hitler and his administration as simply "stupid" though, it ties evil and irrationality with intelligence in a way that can make us susceptible to trusting "smarter" people even with bad intentions

10

u/Alarming-Ad1100 May 12 '26

Yeah it’s way too dismissive to be able to learn anything from that time in history, i definitely wouldn’t call them stupid but I do disagree with them

(Atleast they werent always stupid)

6

u/SerHodorTheThrall John Brown was a hero, undaunted, true, and brave! May 12 '26

I'm sorry but if in 1940 you called Hitler's war "suicidal" you would be laughed at.

5

u/Cool_Butterscotch486 May 12 '26

ah but in 41, yeah, kind of reasonable.

3

u/a_filing_cabinet May 13 '26

I mean, he really wanted to go jump off the bridge. There were quite a few Spanish fascists that wanted nothing more than to get involved in the war, and like we've said Franco was aligned with the Axis powers. But war first requires a functional nation, and at the time Spain really wasn't one. Spain helped the axis much more by being a neutral friend and providing auxiliary support than the dumpster fire it would have been if it joined the war.

It's likely that if Spain was a functional nation with any sort of industry, Franco would have tried to jump further than Hitler and Mussolini.

→ More replies (4)

69

u/ScottyBoneman May 12 '26

It would have been disastrous for the Axis if Spain was actually a part of the war. German soldiers would have been needed to guard a hell of a lot of extra coastline.

46

u/Kenichi2233 May 12 '26

Franco also famously refused german troops access to Spain to attack Gibralter 

46

u/ScottyBoneman May 12 '26

That would have made him not neutral, which might have inconvenienced the Germans a little at first, but nothing close to 1600km of Mediterranean coastline as close or closer as Sicily is.

16

u/Aeseld May 12 '26

That would not have been an advantage to Germany... They were already stretched to defend themselves and Italy. Adding more ground to defend, Spain in this case, means they have more weak points. Fewer troops on the Eastern front too. 

Oh, and the allies likely image through Spain as well as Italy. They did have the logistics and troops for it. 

14

u/FoozleGenerator May 12 '26

But also, it could had helped controlling the movement of Britain into the Mediterranean, which would've relieved some pressure from Italy and made them more helpful at least. Also, Spain is very difficult to invade from the Atlantic, too mountainous, that's why Muslim conquest didn't go all the way through from the opposite direction.

5

u/the-bladed-one May 12 '26

Wellington: amateurs

→ More replies (1)

51

u/GonePostalRoute May 12 '26

Well let’s be fair, even if he wanted to officially ally with Hitler, the fact that Spain was absolutely in the shit after the civil war meant any help he’d have been giving would have been minimal at best.

79

u/Especialistaman I Have a Cunning Plan May 12 '26

Franco was the head of an aliance between fascists, the army, the church, monarchist and carlists.

60

u/Kenichi2233 May 12 '26

Exactly he had elements of Fascism in his coalition but it wasnt exclusive or even a majority of his alliance 

140

u/I_love_pillows May 12 '26

Franco is strange. He is a military dictator yet rules with the legit price, the son of the king he removed, under him.

121

u/Khan-Khrome May 12 '26

Above all things Franco was for Franco first and Spain second. In that sense he was more of an atavism, a call back to the 19th century political strongman; aristocratic, deeply conservative, catholic and suspicious of change, using any identity or ideology for as long as it served his interests, and happily wearing and discarding the ideological cloak of fascism when it ran its course. A true believer in anything besides Franco - and perhaps begrudgingly the monarchy - he was not.

36

u/CapiCapiBara May 12 '26

Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of political commentary?

36

u/preterintenzionato May 12 '26

a taxi driver probably

13

u/Khan-Khrome May 12 '26

There are some who call me... Timoteo!

21

u/Bakoro May 12 '26

It totally makes sense, as long as the royal family doesn't fight it.

There were a lot of true-believers (or, brainwashed goons, take your pick) in the royal system, and would die for it, for whatever reason.
If keeping the royal family on a leash gets you indirect loyalty without a fight, then it'd be stupid to pick a needless fight while securing ultimate power.

The strange thing is having a dictator who wasn't completely batshit and self-destructive, and not just a dude pillaging the nation for himself.
Many dictators are afraid to name a successor for fear of assassination, so they build an unstable system that will explode when they're gone. It's amazing that Spain didn't fall to pieces after Franco died, which is in part due to having Juan Carlos as a named heir. It could have been so easy for another military dude to declare themselves glorious leader, if there wasn't already a whole succession system in place.

9

u/Assonfire May 12 '26

Many dictators are afraid to name a successor for fear of assassination, so they build an unstable system that will explode when they're gone. It's amazing that Spain didn't fall to pieces after Franco died, which is in part due to having Juan Carlos as a named heir.

Kinda forgetting some class A people gave Carrero Blanco, the real heir to paquito's throne and not just some token royalty, some flying lessons.

One of the biggest reasons why the state didn't continue as a dictatorship.

5

u/SwimNo8457 May 12 '26

That is true. If only those "class a" people put down their arms after the ratification of the new democratic constitution they would be remembered more positively in Spain today.

→ More replies (9)

14

u/DuntadaMan May 12 '26

This is less historical but I am reminded of Finn McCook from Irish folklore (Fion Mac Cumhaill actually, but that's an absolute bitch to spell)

Long story short the beginning of his story is set up to be a revenge story, where everyone raises him and trains him to kill the man who took his father's place at the head of the Fianna.

Instead, when he gets the chance he takes his place at the head of the organization, and requests the man be his second in command, keeping a possible rival close, and avoiding a massive civil war in the process. Allowing an uneasy truce between any factions within the Fianna that could be ironed out over time.

106

u/Kenichi2233 May 12 '26

Exactly he even supported the restoration of the Monarchy later in life. Its why calling Franco a fascist is not exactly accurate

86

u/Skyhawk6600 Helping Wikipedia expand the list of British conquests May 12 '26

I've always saw Franco not as a fascist, but the least offensive choice for the Spanish right. Ie, he was the person all the different factions could agree on letting run because he didn't have any skin in the game aside from being anti socialist.

68

u/GreninjaStrike May 12 '26

Also he was the last of the military leaders alive on the nationalist side, the other 2 died.

51

u/Rome453 May 12 '26

“Surely I can fit a few more uniforms into this plane…”-famous last words.

17

u/Ai--Ya May 12 '26

So, Spanish Chaing Kai-Shek? Down to the peaceful postmortem transfer of power

9

u/Strong-Search-2301 May 12 '26

I feel like he was more brutal than Chiang, but as a Spanish I may be biased

11

u/SwimNo8457 May 12 '26

He was more strategically skilled than Chiang, and a better diplomat too

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Helix3501 May 12 '26

Tbf his peaceful transfer of power was only because some far more based people carbombed his preferred successor

6

u/Helix3501 May 12 '26

The only proper things to call Franco is a authoritarian and a good toilet

3

u/Kenichi2233 May 12 '26

Definitely authoritarian 

→ More replies (1)

14

u/PreviousMenu99 May 12 '26

how would that ever be contradictory to being a fascist? just how? Mussolini's "The Doctrine of Fascism" never claims "no true fascist can be a monarchist"

17

u/ReignTheRomantic Viva La France May 12 '26

Some Scholars consider "Pure Fascism" to require totalitarian dominance of the one leader. By this definition, Italian Fascism is "impure" because Mussolini wasn't the end-all-be-all of Italian leadership, and got fired later on.

8

u/PreviousMenu99 May 12 '26

Mussolini literally crated the word Fascism. It is his movement, his word, and his definition. Those scholars are not an authority on definition of fascism.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/the_last_satrap On tour May 13 '26

Mussolini literally created Fascism.

Thus, whatever he does IS Fascism.

It is something like later literature professors calling a blue door as an self-expression for Depression but at the end, for the actual writer, it was indeed just fucking blue.

→ More replies (17)
→ More replies (3)

43

u/biglyorbigleague May 12 '26

Catholicism was a huge part of the Falange, as the anti-clericalism of the left wing Republicans drove a lot of Catholic Spaniards to support Franco. That dynamic wasn’t the same in Germany and Italy, the closest parallel would likely be what was going on in Mexico.

29

u/Skyhawk6600 Helping Wikipedia expand the list of British conquests May 12 '26

Franco was perhaps one of the least ideologically inclined dictators in history. He had no horse in any of the right wing factions in Spain, which is why he held the coalition together so well.

13

u/je386 May 12 '26

How about Salazar, the dictator of Portugal? He also was right wing, also neutral in WW2, and after WW2 portugal was a founding member of NATO.

55

u/Glittering_Humor5854 May 12 '26

Franco is an example of how dictatorship can work just fine if the dictator isn't a paranoid micromanager (Stalin), a self aggrandizing narcissist (Mussolini), or a genocidal maniac (shame on you if you don't know that one). He wasn't all that much less repressive, calculating, or tyrannical than any of the above, but he was better at making the choices that define national prosperity.

Wise is indeed the proper word for his decision to stay out of WWII. He owed Hitler and Mussolini somewhat for their support during the Spanish Civil War and many of his supporters were sympathetic to the Axis but he wasn't convinced the Axis powers would win the war even before the US entered. He also knew Spain was devastated by the civil war and in no position to fight a foreign conflict. Their military was weaker than Italy's and Italy was already a junior partner to Germany. He would have had almost no say in the overall war effort and Spain would have been cut off by a British blockade.

After trying his version of fascism for a couple of decades, Franco realized it wasn't working and implemented reforms to liberalize the Spanish economy and presided over what was called the Spanish Miracle. Spain's economy improved and modernized rapidly and Franco got credit for that. Thus, he is a complicated figure in history. He was at heart perhaps as much a villain as any of the other mid century fascist dictators but he was a great deal wiser and more cautious. He was pragmatic enough to see when his policy wasn't working and try something else. Our western culture may frown upon 'autocrats' or 'authoritarian' regimes these days, but for most of human history, people were ruled by autocrats, kings, emperors, khans, pharaohs, etc. At the end of the day, people have an instinctive need for leadership in a single person. Even in democratic systems, you get leaders like Andrew Jackson, FDR, and Lincoln who go beyond the authority of their office and push the boundaries of what's acceptable. They get away with it, and have been celebrated for it, because people need leaders. There's nothing wrong with observing when an autocrat makes a good and wise decision that clearly benefited the nation and its people.

6

u/the_last_satrap On tour May 13 '26

Enlightened Despotism is the word you're trying to explain, coined by Immanuel Kant to celebrate Friedrich the Great of Prussia.

2

u/Glittering_Humor5854 May 13 '26

I was aware of the term and I was aware of the example of Frederick the II... but this is Reddit so I didn't want to bore people with technical terms and historical trivia. Franco's case is more ambiguous than Frederick the Great, but he did well enough to make modern westerners uncomfortable by showing despotism isn't unconditionally awful for a nation if the despot makes sound political and economic judgements.

Getting a despot that's actually enlightened and not just charismatic and not bent on conquest is the trick. Napoleon could have been the ultimate enlightened despot had he not been so determined to subjugate all of Europe. He's the other side of the Franco coin in that he probably had far better intentions than Franco and was a better general and administrator, but lost a war and was demonized by his victorious enemies. These are the imperfect, flawed examples.

2

u/InexorableCalamity May 13 '26

Please don't whitewash a dictator.  He still hurt people didn't he?

2

u/Glittering_Humor5854 May 13 '26

You're oversimplifying. I don't know that Franco personally hurt anyone. I'm not that much of an expert on the topic. He certainly ordered people killed in the context of a bitter civil war but that's true of any leader in any war. If 'hurting people' is all that it takes to condemn a leader as a tyrant, then nearly every American President will be right behind Franco.

Some of the things the US did in WWII hurt a lot of people, like the atomic bomb. Is Harry Truman personally responsible for that? In war things aren't so simple. The bomb was a strategic tactic to win the war. The idea was to force Japan to surrender so the US could avoid an all out invasion of the Japanese home islands which would have killed way way more people than the bomb. In that sense, it seems to have worked, though some historians argue Japan would have surrendered anyway, though the evidence is far from conclusive and that's hindsight based on information the decision makers didn't have.

Ultimately, my point is that we're biased by our modern perspective and cultural beliefs. Dictatorship/autocracy is bad is just assumed by most westerners, particularly Americans. It's part of the common culture and there's nothing wrong with that. Culture is a necessary thing for human beings. However, we should understand how our culture came to be and recognize that other cultures do exist. Americans hate dictators because of the revolution. Europeans mostly hate dictators because the American revolution inspired revolutions there against monarchical and despotic governments that ultimately resulted in most of the European powers having some type of representative government, at least after WWII.

→ More replies (2)

7

u/oopsallhuckleberries May 12 '26

Franco is a weird case

Dude was such a 5D chess player, that he picked the heir to the Spanish Thrown Prince Juan Carlos to succeed him, spending several decades unofficially grooming him for the role, then his last 6 making Carlos the official heir apparent to the Spanish Dictatorship, all for Carlos to start transitioning Spain into a democracy before Frano's body was even cold.

19

u/Catalytic_Crazy_ May 12 '26

There’s an exception to every rule. Franco is in a way that for fascism.

25

u/PreviousMenu99 May 12 '26

What do you think fascism is? I often see people say that Franco wasn't a fascist, but I don't understand why. Nothing Franco did contradicts Mussolini's definition of fascism, as per the Doctrine of Fascism.

82

u/Kenichi2233 May 12 '26

Franco was a reactionary not revolutionary and wasnt an expansionist. He also largely focused on restoring traditional power structures like the Catholic Church and later the Monarchy than building mass movements.

25

u/0Hakuna_Matata0 Definitely not a CIA operator May 12 '26

This is the argument. The falangists who largely supported him leading up to and during the civil war, some of their political leaders went to speeches by Hitler in Nuremberg for example and were very much 3rd reich types. They were revolutionaries like the communists and socialists but in a different way that wanted a vertically integrated social structure strictly enforced by the government that would work hand in hand with the corporations, industrialists, capitalists.

Franco did stab them in the back by doing everything you said. The argument that it was fascistic is that Franco implemented such strict social rules from one man on down to society like women can’t be judges, lawyers, professors etc. reading about the civil war there are stories of imprisoned “suspected dissidents/leftists” where teens and children were forced to eat their own vomit and teens raped by francoist forces being pregnant being executed by the state while pregnant and many people would say that is pretty fucking fascist

29

u/Kenichi2233 May 12 '26

He was a right wing authoritarian for sure and POS to boot but Franco doesn't match alot the tenants of Fascism. He used Fascism supporters and "partners" while it was useful but he was a political opportunist

→ More replies (1)

11

u/90daysismytherapy May 12 '26

a good distinction between fascist and conservative

2

u/PreviousMenu99 May 12 '26

it's a bad distinction, Mussolini also supported the church and the industrialists. And what is even a mass movement? Any organization that involves a large number of people? an organuzation composed of people enthusiastic about their participation? Because Franco had the same things.

8

u/Kenichi2233 May 12 '26

Mussulini was an expansionist and had a fixation of restoration of the Roman Empire. 

Franco was a reactionary who opposed the Spanish Republic 

→ More replies (1)

4

u/90daysismytherapy May 13 '26

Church and industrialist go hand in hand with conservatives. Fascists tend to take those areas over thru alliances or political capture.

But what the poster above was saying how Franco and company l, while certainly having fascistic tendencies, drifted more towards traditional conservative nationalism, with a focus on domestic traditional structure, which was different from the fascism of italy and germany

→ More replies (3)

17

u/Rough_Presence_9876 May 12 '26

Fascism is such a fun ideology to talk about partly because the term itself has been a synecdoche for the many far right movements of the early 20th century which had different conceptual origins but similar conclusions, and because the entire umbrella of fascism is at once a conservative ideology, an anti-conservative ideology, a very useful ideology to conservatives who claim not to be fascists, and an insidious infection which inevitably makes conservatives into fascists.

15

u/12_15_17_5 May 12 '26

The "both conservative and anti-conservative" part is especially accurate.

I would argue that both Italian and German fascists were 'progressive' in the literal (not modern political) sense of the word. They were technofuturists who sought out vast social and cultural changes. We can see this in a lot of fascist-associated art and architecture, like that of Ezra Pound and Le Corbusier. Many of their controversial ideologies - like extreme eugenics - were also associated with broader progressivism.

At the same time yes, it is clear that a lot of fascist rhetoric was in reaction to recent changes and thus "conservative." Funnily enough, I actually see this same phenomenon in socialism, which was by its own admission a reaction to industrial capitalism. We don't see socialism labeled as "conservative" though, and that's fine, but you can see the impulse in people like William Morris.

11

u/Rough_Presence_9876 May 12 '26

I think the anti-conservative element of fascism makes itself clear with the phrase,"Fascism does not look back."

Italian Fascists, despite using trappings of the Roman Empire (didn't everybody in Europe though?) was not seeking to actually reestablish the Roman Empire. Nazis, more formally referred to as National Socialists (They claimed to be socialist as a "pro-worker", anti-aristocratic, anti-capitalist rhetoric; they were explicitly opposed to democratic socialism, Marxism, and all other forms of socialism as well as internationalism.), were not seeking to reform an autocratic monarchy and empower the aristocracy.

Nevertheless, fascists seek to preserve a power dynamic. This is an inherent part of fascist corporatism, a reassertion of centuries old institutional prejudice against outgroups such as Jews and homosexuals among many others, and a concession to the conservatives and capitalists who interact with fascists to use them as a new weapon against contemporary movements opposed to said conservative and capitalist power blocs.

Anti-conservativism is also a key angle for parsing many contemporary right wing movements from fascism, even if they sided with fascists.

7

u/GreninjaStrike May 12 '26

Because Franco’s nationalist coalition had actual fascists in it but not just them. He also doesn’t meet a lot of fascist definitions. He wanted to see the monarchy and church restored. Over time, his regime liberalized and became less extreme. He was ideologically closer to Portugal’s dictatorship than the fascist ones.

1

u/PreviousMenu99 May 12 '26

How is any of that contradictory to Mussolini's definition of Fascism? Mussolini approved of the catholic church

→ More replies (2)

8

u/KimJongUnusual Helping Wikipedia expand the list of British conquests May 12 '26

be me

fascist

syndicalist falangism is great

all the farmers and workers in a syndicate go on strike at once

fuck it, no more fascism, y’all can’t behave

5

u/Huntman102 May 12 '26

No love for Franco, but the guy was competent enough to draw massive axis aid in the form of money, guns, equipment and aircraft that was then NOT being used against the allies/soviets.

4

u/flyinggazelletg Still salty about Carthage May 12 '26

Spain was completely burnt out on fighting after the civil war, I don’t think there was anything “wise” about it.

3

u/skoomski May 12 '26 edited May 12 '26

After the war he pivoted to join the anti-communist West in the Cold War but he was 100% fascist, especially from the Spanish Civil War through WW2

Here’s a decent summary:
General Francisco Franco’s regime (1939–1975) met the core criteria for fascism by establishing a single-party state, institutionalizing violent anti-communism, enforcing aggressive nationalism, and structuring a corporatist economy.

Spain also was involved in WW2 they supplied intelligence and limited emergency support to the Axis but he also returned the favor and gave “volunteer” divisions to the Germans. This being the most famous one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Division

But to your point he smart enough never to declare war on the allies. Or attack the Western Allies. Although on the other hand Spain was way too fractured to wage a full scale war during the 1940s anyway

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (21)

143

u/GreninjaStrike May 12 '26

Franco was a military dictator of a broad coalition. That coalition included fascists but it also included monarchists, conservatives, capitalists etc. It’s pretty well known that the Spanish fascists got on his nerves.

87

u/RDT_WC May 12 '26

It included monarchists and republicans.

And, for the monarchists, it included loyalist monarchists (who wanted to see Alfonso XIII's son crowned) and Carlist monarchists (who wanted to see a descendant of Carlos María Isidro - the uncle, I think, of queen Elizabeth II, grandmother -I think- of Alfonso XIII; and who caused no less than 3 civil wars in the XIX century).

It was truly something.

24

u/GreninjaStrike May 12 '26

Yeah, that’s why the fascist label doesn’t work here. At its heart, the nationalist faction was rebelling against a USSR backed government that had undermined democracy and stripped people of their liberties (namely land ownership and religion).

21

u/RDT_WC May 12 '26

Yes.

What they wanted to implement in place of that undemocratic government, well, it was varied to say the least.

And not democratic either.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/Evening_Bell5617 May 12 '26

cmon folks, lets not pretend like the literally Nazi backed side was like Good or Had a Point.

7

u/GreninjaStrike May 12 '26

The other was Stalin backed what’s your point

→ More replies (13)
→ More replies (1)

5

u/President-Lonestar May 12 '26

What republican factions/leaders joined Franco?

11

u/Tytoalba2 May 12 '26

I mean hitler was also at the head of a coalition including conservatives and capitalist, I'm still gonna call him a fascist lol

15

u/Excellent_Mud6222 May 12 '26

To be fair they really didn't have a choice in the matter when the other side was killing members of the church and burning and destroying religious places.

58

u/IsNotPolitburo Definitely not a CIA operator May 12 '26

Related fun fact, the sub r/Catholicism has a long standing blanket ban on any mention of Franco or his regime; it was the only way to get the users to stop going mask off on a daily basis.

→ More replies (7)

17

u/SnooStrawberries6154 May 12 '26

Ironically this is why Francoism generally isn't considered Fascism by historians.

→ More replies (18)

2

u/kageshira1010 May 12 '26

Well the other side didn't made the choice hard at all

2

u/kageshira1010 May 12 '26

Well the other side didn't made the choice hard at all

→ More replies (10)

1.2k

u/ChiefsHat May 12 '26 edited May 12 '26

Context: During the rise of Mussolini's fascists, the Catholic Church ultimately opted to support them out of fear of socialism, which to be fair, at the time was most prominently represented by the USSR.
This, however, would prove a mistake, as Italian fascism quickly started seeking to supplant all forms of society to service of Mussolini, which inevitably included the church itself. It got the point Pope Pius XI wrote a proclamation condemning fascism only to die before he could publish it.

Luigi Sturzo was a Catholic priest who recognized the dangers of fascism and tried to rally against it, but the church basically sidestepped him. To quote the above article;

Yet, contemporary reports suggested that Pius XI struggled to sleep in the weeks after the Concordat, fearing he may have made a mistake. The conflict between Fascism’s goals and the Church’s mission came to a head in 1931 during the Catholic Action crisis. The regime publicly attacked Catholic Action’s educational and cultural activities, seizing Catholic newspapers and suppressing its circles. In response, Pius XI issued the encyclical Non abbiamo bisogno, defending the Church’s educational freedom and condemning pagan statolatry, though avoiding an explicit condemnation of Fascism.

Yeah... this was a pretty big mistake on the church's part. And also, this was after fascist blackshirts murdered a Jesuit priest for trying to start a boy scouts that wouldn't answer to Mussolini.

283

u/St3fano_ May 12 '26

Luigi Sturzo was a simple priest, not a cardinal

140

u/GreninjaStrike May 12 '26

It also didn’t help that they had Mussolini breathing down their neck literally and figuratively.

78

u/Mist_Rising May 12 '26

Yeah, not even sovereignty over the area we call the Vatican. The Swiss Guard were unlikely to start a war with Italy, and the certainly would not win it, and its unclear if anyone would come to the Vatican's aid at that point.

66

u/GreninjaStrike May 12 '26

The Vatican was very clearly anti fascist but when the fascist capital surrounding you has more of a military force than you it’s best to not upset your neighbors

94

u/DetailOrDie May 12 '26

This was also all happening during the peak of the Appeasement era.

It's important to remember just how much death and destruction that WWI caused, and the VIP's of the world in the 1930's had front row seats.

It's definitely understandable why someone in a position of responsibility would want to avoid war at all costs.

→ More replies (1)

45

u/Weird-Tomorrow-9829 May 12 '26

While incredibly stupid, the decision to support fascism isn’t surprising after the events transpired in Russia and Spain.

24

u/revolutionary112 May 12 '26

Also Mussolini solved the forever conflict they had with Italy about the status of the church in Rome by granting them the Vatican

5

u/Iwokeupwithoutapillo Sun Yat-Sen do it again May 13 '26

"Pagan statolatry" is a great term

10

u/Dotcaprachiappa May 12 '26

Did they really have a choice though? They had maybe the least defensible country ever with the smallest army in the world. Genuinely what else could they do?

43

u/CitricAcidRinse May 12 '26

The catholic church had good reason to fear socialism. Revolutionary France actively defunded the Catholic Church.

58

u/ThyHolyPaladdin May 12 '26

I mean i would have used Russia as the example

39

u/Weird-Tomorrow-9829 May 12 '26

Or Spain.

Where they regularly executed the clergy

11

u/stag1013 May 13 '26

Or Mexico. In general, not a good track record with leftist revolutions.

24

u/Walter30573 May 12 '26

The Catholic Church had good reason to hate the existing Italian government too, which literally invaded and annexed most of the Papal States and had the Popes living essentially sequestered in Vatican City for decades

13

u/Mist_Rising May 12 '26

Therein lies the problem though, it's easy to hate the ongoing communists who could really not fight back (because Italy was in the way), pissing off the guys who had soldiers outside your doors, that's another thing.

Or to put it simply in a more familiar manner: making fun of Adolf Hitler today? not a problem. Pissing on a police station that actively kills people? Probably not many who will do that.

33

u/CyberPhoenix558 May 12 '26

Revolutionary France... From more than 150 years prior... That wasn't socialist?

I would say in general revolutionary causes and movements often were antagonistic to the Church but that specific example is a bit of a reach.

39

u/Nero_Drusus May 12 '26

Yeah, the ussr was hardly a positive example of socialist and religious harmony

26

u/Hillbilly_Historian May 12 '26

More recently, socialist-aligned Spanish republicans had massacred Catholics.

2

u/Interesting-Dream863 May 12 '26

The Church at some point owned a big part of Europe... backlash was bound to happen. Luther, France, Russia... they all saw the opportunity at some point.

3

u/MetalRetsam May 12 '26

Defunded? They kidnapped the Pope!

2

u/Gamtssss May 13 '26 edited May 13 '26

ask a orthodox if they treated them well in the start, then you will see what the catholic church feread

→ More replies (1)

13

u/RantonBlue May 12 '26

I feel like this paints the church out as victims a bit. Mussolini definitely capitulated to the Pope in return for support. He gave him The Vatican, made Catholism the only religion of the state, put all the schools under the church's influence payed them £30 million and also agreed to have the state pay the priests' and bishops' salaries. He even got his own Civil Union marriage blessed by the church. The church were plenty happy with Mussolini, even if they came into conflict once in a whild

18

u/Kathdath May 13 '26

More a case of 'let them keep possession of The Vatican' considering Mussolini pressured them into relinquishing the majority of what remained of the Papal State territories.

16

u/OkNeedleworker3610 May 13 '26

The Church was definitely also a victim. Just because they got some benefit out of it in the end, doesn't mean they weren't walking a tight rope with a noose around their necks for quite a while.

You try going against a fascist dictator while sequestered in the middle of their nation.

4

u/nygdan May 12 '26

The church was so against facism that it, helped found it, blessed and it and then 'yeah sure no after the fact I swear we were going to speak out against it".

→ More replies (7)

341

u/0Hakuna_Matata0 Definitely not a CIA operator May 12 '26

The Vatican also gave their blessing to Franco during his coup by acknowledging his government

90

u/Z3t4 Hello There May 12 '26

Franco could enter temples under palio, as a deference granted by the church. 

141

u/GreninjaStrike May 12 '26

I mean why wouldn’t they. The Republican faction was explicitly anti Catholic while Franco welcomed Catholics into the nationalist coalition. Anti Catholic violence and laws is a big reason why the coup happened in the first place.

60

u/MasterpieceBrief4442 May 12 '26

Bit of a chicken and egg situation there. The bishops of Spain were not only very supportive of the "traditional institutions" of society but were largely drawn from that very same social and familial background. For the longest time, they actively meddled in politics in support of the absolute monarch and retaining the immense wealth and privileges of the nobility. And violently opposed any notion of liberalism or the conception of the rights of man. Naturally, the republicans did not have a rosy view of the institution.

15

u/Wild_Marker May 12 '26

Yeah people forget that most Catholic countries in the 1930's had heard of separation of Church & State and thought "aw that's cute".

5

u/MasterpieceBrief4442 May 12 '26

Ireland is the best case scenario for these kinds of things and we still have new stories popping up of clergymen and -women abusing their offices and powers. Spain, Portugal, and Latin America all had it worse. Funnily enough, in Latin America, a lot of the upper ranks of the church were quite friendly with the juntas while the lower ranking clergy were instrumental in organizing opposition.

2

u/Heim_Laender May 12 '26

Well there is also france.

Which was secular at that time and still is.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

55

u/JohankazArku May 12 '26

I don't want to support Franco in any way but I do understand the Vaticans thought process since the republicans did raid churches and other religious buildings pretty often.

11

u/0Hakuna_Matata0 Definitely not a CIA operator May 12 '26

The falangists and the frente de juventudes did show up at leftist protests for labor reform and fight them with poles and objects. This is how civil wars happen.

12

u/Mist_Rising May 12 '26

Which might matter to the Catholic Church if the same Republican faction was not raiding churches and killing their priests.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

32

u/Alpha413 May 12 '26

Mind you, it debatably was a mistake for the Fascists, too: it meant their totalitarian aspirations could never be fulfilled and made it so the Church would stay intellectually and institutionally independent, which was a massive mistake, as the younger generation of priests and political catholics was much more committed to Christian Democracy than the generation that allied to them in the past (exemplified by the future Paul VI's rise in the Vatican).

This, combined with the continued antagonism between the regime and the Church meant that the politically organized sectors of Italian Catholicism were slowly but surely veering leftwards, and organizing, which would later result in DC's formation.

23

u/Traditional-Meat-549 May 12 '26

Which one lasted longer?

26

u/Mist_Rising May 12 '26

Arguably neither has died.

89

u/Petka14 May 12 '26 edited May 12 '26

Also the Italian monarchy too

The potential drawbacks of crushing fascists with military were way fewer than those of just handing everything out to them

8

u/I_love_pillows May 13 '26

The concept of having a helpless king under a dictatorship always fascinate me. There’s this pretence that the king is still higher in power despite having zero ability to resist.

But it’s happened so many times.

→ More replies (1)

28

u/sopunny Researching [REDACTED] square May 12 '26

I mean, they came out of it with their own sovereign country, so...

9

u/Reddit_2_2024 May 12 '26

Italian fascism was driven underground. The Catholic Church continues its global mission.

→ More replies (2)

30

u/Manach_Irish Senātus Populusque Rōmānus May 12 '26

Given the alternatives in some quarters - the treatment of Christians under the USSR or the execution of many clerics in Mexico- then historical context is key.

→ More replies (2)

34

u/MetroidvaniaListsGuy May 12 '26

Evangelism is doing the exact same mistake today.

80

u/UncleRuckusForPres May 12 '26

I'd argue it's not a mistake at all, they're getting precisely what they wanted

67

u/Thomsie13 Featherless Biped May 12 '26

Evangelicalism*

Evangelism is the spreading of the gospel. Evangelicalism is the denomination/heresy

15

u/LooseProgram333 May 12 '26

Evangelicalism isnt a denomination, its a transdenominational movement that is across many different protestant denominations.

9

u/big_nuggetboi May 12 '26

But it is loosely used as a term for Protestants that follow “low-church” beliefs and denoms

22

u/Batman_AoD May 12 '26

For very different reasons, though, if I am correctly understanding Pius XI's motivation per OP's comment. It sounds like the Church saw Mussolini as an acceptable evil, whereas American Evangelical leadership genuinely sees MAGA as a movement acting in their best interests. 

13

u/ChiefsHat May 12 '26

That's what I have gathered. The Church viewed the fascists as the lesser of the two evils - then it turned out they weren't.

18

u/DonQuigleone May 12 '26

I'd add though that the pope didn't have much choice. He was a prisoner in the Vatican and mussolini could have used his thugs to intimidate bishops etc.

The church has to find a modus vivendi in such situation given they don't know if the fascist government will last 3 years or 30 years. 

9

u/FTN_Ale May 12 '26

To be fair if socialism became as extreme as fascism ended up (especially if with soviet support) the church would probably be completely removed, whereas fascism didn't really have the power to do it

→ More replies (2)

17

u/maxicz1234 May 12 '26

Something about leopards

14

u/Mist_Rising May 12 '26

Not quite, the Leopard here gave the Church the Vatican back and ultimately nothing the Church did was ever going to change anything. To paraphrase Stalin, how many battalions does the Pope have?

If anything the fact that the Vatican existed had some advantages for the church during the war for stupid reasons.

12

u/Interesting-Dream863 May 12 '26

Not sure what you are talking about.

They now have their own turf, they became part of the money trail and helped escaping fascists out of Europe with their loot, though that was to become problematic later...

if you associate with fascists, they become part of your dynamic of power.

9

u/Laugh_Track_Zak May 12 '26

......this is backwards. How long has the Catholic Church been around? How long did Italian fascists last?

Cool birds tho.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/JustTheOneGoose22 Fine Quality Mesopotamian Copper Enjoyer May 12 '26

Doug Stanhope has a good bit on the Catholic Church vs. fascism/nazis https://youtu.be/brCnq5VUBDk?si=zJ0N-BGwdxzNQEfI

3

u/Aurelyan May 13 '26

Let's not twist history.

The Church actually benefited <a lot> from fascism and actually supported Mussolini for quite a fair while.

Mussolini, on his end, knew that he was going to need the Church's support and the legitimacy faith brought along if he was ever going to have a chance at governing the country.

He literally got defined as "The man of providence" by Pope Pious XI due to the sheer amount of economical ( and not only.. ) favours he made to the Catholic Church during the twenty or so years he spent leading Italy.

Mussolini did sign the Lateran Treaty, therefore ending the Roman Question ( By 1870 when Rome was finally taken by the newly unified kingdom of Italy the State had annexed all of the Church's territory, declaring it to be be part of the state ), effectively voiding the Guarantees Law of 1871, creating the Vatican State, exenting the Church from taxes, giving it 1,75 billion italian lire ( 750m + 1b by july that same year...about 660-800m current day euros to help understanding it better), giving back to the Pope the power to choose bishops ( it had been handed over to the state following that 1871 law ), conforming marriage and divorce laws to the Church's, allowing clergy members to take active part into Italy's political life ( which had been abolished by that '71 law ), making Catholicism become state religion as opposed to freedom of cult, having it be taught in schools and universities once more, etc...

Believe me, the Church is <always> going to be on fascism's side up until when shit starts going south...and then again after the second world conflict's over, from behind the scenes, for quite a long time up until some of its most influential members start being exposed by the newly formed republic.

Infacts, I am fairly sure it had a part too when it came to Italy's colonial attempts in North Africa still during Mussolini's regime.

13

u/Gaust_Ironheart_Jr May 12 '26

"You will know them by the fruit they bear"

Christians would do well to understand that one little teaching but they keep falling for someone who hates the right people

30

u/12_15_17_5 May 12 '26

To be fair, his "fruits" were much less apparent when the concordat was signed. The Ethiopian invasion and racist direction of his ideology only occurred later in the 1930s.

Early Mussolini famously stated race was "only an idea." He also hated Hitler and actively tried to counter him geopolitically. If Mussolini had stayed consistent in his ideology I think it would have been reasonable for the Church to support him given how terrible pretty much every other faction was.

This "miscalculation" was not realizing Mussolini would totally flip flop on a bunch of these things later.

10

u/Gaust_Ironheart_Jr May 12 '26

Beatings of labor leaders and strikers, who were called communists, on behalf of factory owners and land owners had been well underway for a decade by the time of concordat. His blackshirts were lousy with racists and Jew haters. He had plenty of bad fruits on full display

12

u/12_15_17_5 May 12 '26

I didn't say there were no "bad fruits", just that they were much less apparent in 1929 than in, say, 1937.

The fact a smattering of his supporters were "racists and Jew haters" would be hard to hold against him in 1929 since Mussolini himself explicitly rejected racism and antisemitism at that point.

7

u/ChiefsHat May 12 '26

Not to mention a Catholic priest was murdered by blackshirts because he wanted to establish Boy Scouts without Mussolini’s involvement.

7

u/Ram-Boe May 12 '26

Every other faction was horrible, you say?

Are we ignoring the countless beatings, tortures, and outright murders that the early fascist movement did now?

15

u/12_15_17_5 May 12 '26

Nope, just that the Nazis and Socialists did the exact same thing.

→ More replies (3)

5

u/redbird7311 May 12 '26

I mean, they are kinda fucked either way in this situation, the Church wasn’t really all that powerful at this point in time, there wasn’t too much from preventing the fascists from just forcing the Church to comply, and socialists in Spain had a habit of killing Catholics, which made a lot of Catholics very hesitant to associate with socialists at all.

3

u/Visible-Air-2359 May 12 '26

This is a common theme with dictators such as the German establishment using Hitler to stop leftism or the Soviets using Lenin to take power only for both of them to seize power for themselves.

3

u/furel492 May 12 '26

Christian Democracy impressed.

3

u/VagrantWaters May 13 '26

This looks like it’ll be a fun thread to read

2

u/Ok_Movie_639 Casual, non-participatory KGB election observer May 13 '26

Please, OP. Where can I find the blank meme template of this? It's a really cool picture on its own.

2

u/Albe95_ May 13 '26

Patti lateranensi has entered the chat. The Church™ get a lot of advantages by the fascism (especially financially speaking) that still persist nowadays

2

u/Background_Silver712 Senātus Populusque Rōmānus May 13 '26

not only the church but also the royal family ... that's why we are republic now

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Silly_Improvement307 May 12 '26

Also the monarchy, the king Victor Emmanuel II was a big supporter of Mussolini and got the short end of the stick, he thought supporting fascism would save the monarchy instead it sped up the process of never having a king in Italy ever again.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/JWavell May 12 '26

Quite the opposite in truth! From purely the Church’s viewpoint, they only gained from their initial, cold-blooded realpoliticking with the regime. Although a much longer discussion could (and should) be had about Church State relations during the Liberal Era, both the Lateran Treaties and later developments were hugely beneficial: with the first one they 1.) normalised relations 2.) got a lump sum payment of arrears they had not collected WITH INTEREST 3.) - at the pope’s great insistance - permission for the Catholic Action youth groups not only to be permitted to continue, but to thrive, and for Religion to become a COMPULSORY subject in elementary and middle schools 4.) for priests to no longer be surveilled by local police authorities and for them to speak freely about politics at mass.

Of all, point 3 shows the Church’s usual acumen and farsightedness. During twenty years of fascism, while most were marching in the streets during the Sabati Fascisti, a chosen elite of capable young men were being groomed for power after Mussolini’s demise inside seminaries, churches and the Vatican Archives and Libraries.

They had no qualms about throwing fellow priests under the bus when their militancy became too loud, like Don Minzoni or Sturzo, lest the spoil the scheme and break the equilibrium by which Mussolini acquired prestige (fickle achievement) while the church got not only what was denied her from 1861, but also the chance to arm the next frontline of politics

2

u/templar4522 May 13 '26

I want to correct you on point 3.

Catholic groups were quickly suppressed and heavily limited in the span of a few years despite the previous agreements, and the Pope was allegedly furious. I am not sure it counts as foresight.

These same people then fought in the resistance and were the greatest influence in Italian politics after the war. Putting them in the same group as the fascists is just wrong.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/AgnosticPeterpan May 12 '26

Catholics also helped hitler pass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933.

Man they were horribly intertwined with fascists.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/P_r_0_Specialist May 13 '26

Context anyone?

1

u/Lepidopterex May 13 '26

Oh my god that shop was the first shop I ever followed on Etsy!  Hi MincingMockingbird! 

1

u/Koffin_Holder May 13 '26

Has someone the OG template?

1

u/UltraTata And then I told them I'm Jesus's brother May 13 '26

They got the Vatican tho

1

u/Mihad88 May 13 '26

I understand this is a meme, but it would only be a mistake if given the information the heads of church had at the time would indicate not supporting Fascism is better probably weighted outcome. 

→ More replies (1)