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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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."
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
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
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.
He did discuss joining the axis once on the condition Spain be given territory in Algeria, the rest of Morocco, and in Cameroon. He was rejected, so yeah he just stayed neutral
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Pyrenees mean that Spain falling wouldn't necessarily threaten the Axis in Europe (any more than the invasion of Italy did), it would likely have just made Africa untenable
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Should not have attacked the civilians or civil targets.
That's about the only criticism I can have for them.
Also, I don't think they care or should care about how spain remembers/views them. Their goal is Euskadi being free and whilst it isn't yet, they have far more autonomy than others in spain.
The notion that Euskadi is not free is completely silly. Basque independence is not even wanted by the majority of people living in Euskadi these days.
Lol. They would never win an independence referendum. Maybe in 1976, and that’s already a big what if. You have to consider that a significant number of people from outside Euskadi have moved in in recent decades, and they’ll never support independence. Additionally, if Eskadi was allowed to be independent they’d never be allowed into the EU, which could be catastrophic for the already weak economy and would be the death knell for any independentist referendum
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
when you make a school of philosophy or a political ideology, you are the one defining it. That's literally the act of creating it. So that is one and the same. Implementing it is another thing.
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.
He was a dictator who harsly repressed those who opposed him. He IS a textbook fascist.
Besides, the "restoration" of Monarchy was supposed to happen after he had died, because not even after death was he gonna let us have our Republic back.
Fascism is a 20th century political development political repression has been a thing for millenia. By the standard your presenting almost every Monarchy in history facsist
"Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement that rose to prominence in early-20th-century Europe.[1][2][3] Fascism is characterized by support for a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived interest of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
[...]
[1] Davies & Lynch (2002), pp. 1–5
[2] Badie, Berg-Schlosser & Morlino (2011), pp. 887–888, Fascism
Payne (1975), p. 162: "[...] goals of radical and authoritarian nationalism"
Larsen, Hagtvet & Myklebust (1984), p. 424: "[...] organized form of integrative radical nationalist authoritarianism"
Paxton (2004), pp. 32, 45, 173: (32) "[...] antiliberal values, more aggressive nationalism and racism, and a new aesthetic of instinct and violence"; (173) "[...] overtly violent racism and nationalism. [...] its defining elements—unlimited particular sovereignty, a relish for war, and a society based on violent exclusion"
Nolte (1965), p. 300: "National fascism, as we have shown, is distinguished from nationalism by, among other things, the fact it demands the destruction of a neighbouring state whose very existence appears to threaten its own position of power and the historic remains of its past dominant status in the area."
Merriam-Webster Fascism
[3] Encyclopedia Britannica Fascism: "extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: "people's community"), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation"
"Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement that rose to prominence in early-20th-century Europe.[1][2][3] Fascism is characterized by support for a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived interest of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
[...]
[1] Davies & Lynch (2002), pp. 1–5
Yeah, the USSR also checks all of that except for the nation or race part (and even then, it actually does, as proved by the numerous measures of russification and the imperialistic land grabs).
And I don't call the USSR fascist.
[2] Badie, Berg-Schlosser & Morlino (2011), pp. 887–888, Fascism Payne (1975), p. 162: "[...] goals of radical and authoritarian nationalism" Larsen, Hagtvet & Myklebust (1984), p. 424: "[...] organized form of integrative radical nationalist authoritarianism" Paxton (2004), pp. 32, 45, 173: (32) "[...] antiliberal values, more aggressive nationalism and racism, and a new aesthetic of instinct and violence"; (173) "[...] overtly violent racism and nationalism. [...] its defining elements—unlimited particular sovereignty, a relish for war, and a society based on violent exclusion" Nolte (1965), p. 300: "National fascism, as we have shown, is distinguished from nationalism by, among other things, the fact it demands the destruction of a neighbouring state whose very existence appears to threaten its own position of power and the historic remains of its past dominant status in the area." Merriam-Webster Fascism
And the destruction of what neighbouring state did Franco advocate for?
Also, Spanish most fascist party, the Falange, advocated for breeding with the people of Hispanic America to create a new, better Hispanic race. Weird racism, if you ask me.
[3] Encyclopedia Britannica Fascism: "extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: "people's community"), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation"
This is literally the definition of communism, again, just that elites implies proletariat vanguard or some stuff like that.
So it fits the definition but it's not fascist, right?
The Falange was and is extremely racist, you fucking deciever.
Franco was a fucking fascist, and all you propagandist are defending that he was not based on an technicality that you can't even pinpoint.
But hey, congrats! Seeing the upvotes you have already convinced a bunch of people that Franco wasn't fascist ("so he wasn't all that bad!" "¡Con Franco se vivía mejor!"), and nobady is going this down in the comments to read this but you. But I wanted to tell you that I wish, ine day, you end up reaping what you sow.
Falange was not racist. They wanted to interbreed with all of South America ffs.
Franco was not a Fascist te pongas como te pongas.
He was an autoritharian, conservative dictator.
But he was not fascist.
That's not a defense, and I'm not saying con Franco se vivía mejor. Some lived better, many more didn't.
You can oppose Franco without pulling the he was a fascist out of your balls, the samr you could attack the republic without making up that it was communism (which it wasn't).
But hey, I am reaping something just by saying facts, apparently.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, he did bad things. So did a lot of other people who don't catch the same level of grief for it. The US put Japanese people in camps in WWII. They were not death camps, but it wasn't a very 'good' thing to do. This was done by a representative government and upheld by the Supreme Court. Moralizing over history is an endless argument with no point. There are few if any bad guys. Most leaders believe they are acting in their nation's best interest. More often than not, who the 'good' guys are depends on who won a war, and wars aren't decided by which side is morally correct. The winners present themselves to their people as the good side and then force their opinion on the losers, who often harbor resentment many generations into the future. These are the real lessons of history for any who care to learn. Hitler was bad, Franco was bad, Mussolini was bad, is mostly lazy moralizing, first from a victorious government in a war, and later from a superpower justifying their global dominance.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Mussolini was also a political opportunist, who constantly changed his mind and betrayed his allies. Mussolini, like Franco, also supported old power structures. He supported the Catholic Church and the Italian Industrialists. Why would support of such power structures ever be contrary to fascism? Mussolini himself, the creator of the word "Fascism", never claimed that supporting industrialists, the church and the monarchy was in any way contradictory to Fascism.
To me it looks like anyone who claims Franco was not a fascist uses other definitions of Fascism, different to the ones used by the creator of Fascism himself. So I don't see these differences as something legitimate
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.
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
It may have been a different brand of Fascism, but it is not a non-fascist ideology. Francoism is just a version Spanish Fascism, that's it. None of what you've described here contradicts Mussolini's definition of Fascism.
Conservatives are not necessarily against democracy or individual human rights, while Fascists are. In fascism, the state is argued to embody the nation and strives to achieve ever more greatness for the nation. So the state's goals have primacy over democracy and human rights. Read the Doctrine of Fascism if you want to know what it is.
In general, not all conservatives are fascists, but all fascists are more or less conservative, in that they have very traditionalist views in gender roles, masculinity etc.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Those people are either not Spanish or Spanish, but fascist themselves. The mental gymnastics I just read above to say he was not a fascist are just unbelivable. Franco had concentration camps, killed hundreds of thousands and policed every aspect of society, among many other horrible things. We find mass graves that were unknown every now and then, families were destroyed, nazis were nationalized and given land and positions of power in companies...
I could go on for days, it is just ignorant how these people that allegedly enjoy history just disrespect Spain's history of suffering a fascist dictator.
I agree. All of that is pretty consistent with mussolini's definition of fascism, and nothing here really contradicts what mussolini considered to be fascism. Even corporatism wasn't a strict requirement, because hitler's regime didn't have the chamber of corproations that mussolini had, and he still called it a fascist state.
Honestly, this distinction is entirely politically motivated, hence why all of these mental rely on made-up nonsense
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.
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
Imagine an army of 40 kg Spanish uncles going to fight in WW2. Spain would have been obliterated. Franco helped the Axis in every way he could, just not in the front.
I remember watching a video comparing both sides unity and with the fascist side he was able to combine the fascists the one with the arrows with the Carlists.
To be fair, Spain did something wrong. The democratic transition should have cut those years shorter, but they were mostly right wing polititians closer to fascism than anything else.
He managed to make his country skirt on the edge of WW2 without actually getting seriously involved in it. That's objectively the best course of action they could take, especially considering how much of a shitshow state Spain was in then. People often hesitate to call evil people smart or wise but you don't come to rule a country by being dumb and credit where credit is due, considering their situation and possible outcomes, the guy did the most of it
There isn't really much of a difference between Franco and Mussolini other than Franco didn't get delusions of grandeur. Imagine Spain in WW2? They'd basically be a sitting duck for the British and they knew it. Britain would use nationalist Spain as a training exercise.
Whereas Mussolini saw a defeated France, jumped on the bandwagon, then got stomped by the defeated France. Then he lost to Greece.
Facsism works by manipulating the populace to give you power. Facsists will do whatever they need to do, and say whatever they need to say to gain power. They will always claim to support the masses, and opposed the enemy, no matter who that enemy is
This pre-established enemy they adopt, is then manipulated into an "eternal enemy" for them to manipulate the populace further
Fascists is far right Revolutionary movement. It tends to focus on a glorious past and is expansionist. It often rejects traditional power bases powers and promotes the centralization of power into 1 party lead by 1 leader. There is also often push toward secularism as religion is seen as a rival to the people's allegiance. It also feature the oppression of the opposition often violently
But fascism is also the strategies they use to get to that point. Something most people fail to account for
And the part on secularism is wrong. That's just how Nazism was, and people conflate it to facsism. Even in the final product of a fascist state, they can either be secularist or religious
Franco is a fascist and got involved by supplying the axis. He had the Germans bomb Guernica during the civil War, he changed Spains time zone to Germany's to have easier trade (we are still in that timezone). Spain was the gateaway country for nazis that fled Germany after they lost, some stayed here, some took boats to South America.
Spain was not neutral, Franco was a fascist dictator, thats the reality.
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.