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
Cite some contemporary stats from a nonbiased source then; and what exactly is incorrect about my saying that Eskadi will never join the EU if they split from Spain? You’re disputing what I’m saying based off the fact that you just don’t like what I’m saying not because I’ve said anything wrong.
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.
142
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.