Belloc

Payne places Franco in the category of "Authoritarian Conservative".

rory-c

@ Chancellor......hmmmmm so what are you saying? only Mussolini's Italy can truely be called Fascist?

Chancellor

Another tip... Between Hitler and Mussolini by Ernst Rüdiger Starhemberg. It's in no sense objective, given it's written by one of the architects of the Austrofascist regime, but once sticking to the historical facts and not the author's own thoughts it's quite interesting, not least regarding the "alliance" of Fascist (true and "generic") regimes (Mussolini, Dollfuß, Gömbös) to counter Hitler's Germany which would ultimately fail due to the political consequences of the Second Italo-Abyssinian war and Mussolini's arbitrary nature (think... Colonel Ghaddafi).

The only one ruled by the Fascist movement, yes (excepting Albania and Abyssinia, indirectly through Italian occupation). Fascist rule was not obliterated through Mussolini's overthrow, but rather just made short of their leader and figurehead. Several key Fascists had argued against an alliance with Germany, Italy's antagonist from the First World War, and felt only rejoice to turn against Hitler.

In terms of "Generic Fascism" (a historians' invention), Hitler's National Socialism and a few other (more or less successful) movements can be added (Payne mentions Austrofascism, the National Syndicalist movements of Spain and Portugal, the Arrow Cross Party of Hungary and the Iron Guard/Legion of Romania). It's important to mention then that all of these were destroyed or suppressed by a rightist regime, except Dollfuß' Austrofascism, which itself was conservative rather than nationalist-revolutionary and actually suppressed the Nazi movement with crackdowns, labor camps and executions, and ultimately saw utter destruction as the Nazis responded.

Linschoten

I agree with Chancellor on this, people often fail to draw adequate distinctions between the different types of authoritarian rightist regimes. The Falange was originally quite fascist and modernist in many respects, but Franco, as a reactionary authoritarian, altered its character quite fundamentally when he took it over.

falcon

Franco was not a fascist. He was a nationalist/anticommunist.
In order to have Fascism you need three indispensable ingredients

1) An organized party.
2) A clear cut ideology.
3) A grass root movement.

These things were not present in Spain under Franco, or even under Salazar.
They were present though in Italy under Mussolini.
In the case of Hitler's Germany you also had extreme racism at play.

Franco was certainly a nationalist and an anticommunist, but I wouldn't call him a fascist in the strict sense of the word.

johnincornwall

That's one of those one-sided views that seems fashionable in 21st century revisionism. He wasn't Stalin you know.

Falcon is quite right and you have to put it all in the context of 30s politics, where Spain had been taken over by a left-wing conglomeration, tending toward the extreme left. Priests and landowners assassinated by night by local 'committees' and the whole country going to the dogs in the eyes of many proud nationists and traditionalists. Also some of this enmity went all the way back to the Carlist wars.

So against this perceived evil the nationalists rose up - another conglomeration, this time of the right, from middle to extreme, just as the republicans were the opposite. As soon as war broke out both sides just polarised even more, moderate government voices were lost and the ultra-left 'committees' took over.

So is war murder? Then both sides 'murdered hundreds of thousands of people', not just Franco. After the war the settlement of scores was a little harsh, but in context with the times, and with previous events. Living under any dictatorship is not ideal, and enemies were locked up, exiled or shot for sure. But it evolved into something that bore a true monarchist democracy. The alternative 'what-ifs' can be pretty scary.

I wouldn't go saying Franco 'murdered hundreds of thousands of people' in everday conversation in Spain if I were you, certainly not in the countryside. You may be speaking to someone who's grandad was thrown off a bride by the Republicans, for being on the town council!

rory-c

Im not picking a fight here, this is an area i really want to learn about

well if you have to put Franco into the context of 1930s politics, how could you possibly come to the conclusion that he wasnt a fascist????!!!! he's blatantly on that side of the fence, even if he doesnt 100% conform to the letter of "true" fascism.

I take issue as well with you saying spain was "taken over" by the left. winning elections isn't "taking over", its winning elections. The republicans were voted into power in 1931 no? just as the right were voted into power in 1933. And extreme left? really? why do you think so?

killing non combatants because of their political beliefs or otherwise is murder, yes. thousands and thousands and thousands were rounded up and shot in their villages during the war, thats murder. what about those that died in the fascist concentration camps?
Franco was still ordering deaths for policitical beliefs in the last few years of his life and used slave labour to build his tomb, hows that justified in the context of the time? was that happening in England? France? Where?

agreed. I've lived in a few places in Spain and yes, you dont want to mention the civil war. it obviously applies to both sides though doesnt it. I live in Jerez de la Frontera, a minutes walk from my flat is a square where hundreds of "reds" were rounded up and shot dead, and this in a town that fell straight away and didnt fight against the uprising.

sylla1

You must be kidding; period.

I simply can't imagine your sources for such absurd statement.

AFAIK Franco & his party (Falange) were rather proud self-acknowledged self-promoted Fascists from the beginning of his autocracy.

P.S. Must entirely agree with the comprehensive answer of our Rory-C.

Chancellor

Well, plainly, by the lack of coherence between Franco's belief and policies with those of generic fascism. Franco's ideological doctrine (if such a thing existed) was ultra-conservative, clericalist, agragrian, anti-modernist, etc etc, and ultimately adopted broad laissez-faire economic policies quite incompantible with fascist economics, just as the idea of God as supreme authority is incompantible with fascism's stressing of the nation as the highest virtue. Fascism seeks to establish a new order, whereas Franco's conservatism could (slightly flawed) be interpreted as rolling back the liberal tradition of the 19th century, all back to the rule of the Bourbons (mission accomplished).

Another point that might have some prevalence to present-day Spain is the issue of monarchy; though the Fascist movement moderated their republican position in order to gain acceptance among other anti-socialist elements of Italian political life, Mussolini never let this pretence drop his hopes to destroy monarchy as a remnant element of feudalism and establish himself as Head of State. Franco did it (as Jefe de Estado) but avoided to crown himself, likely due to his feeble background and lack of interest to relinquish the highest office to someone else while still alive, but nevertheless became known to history as the savior of Spanish monarchy (no moral evaluation intended).

As an infamous Polish MEP put it; "Franco guaranteed the maintenance of traditional values in Europe." Fascism does not mean traditional values, but contrary the establishment of a new world order, which is not denying it is an anti-Marxist and horrendous one.

First, the Falange wasn't Franco's party, he took it over under pressure of arms after de Rivera's imprisonment and execution. Second, read an academic work on fascism and you might get the chance to reverse your statement.

sylla1

The lack of coherence between beliefs and policies are commonplace for all Fascisms, not just Franco's Falange.

Each Fascist regime has been different; the core elements were still present in the Spain of Franco, expecially at the beginning. None of the elements mntioned by you above disqualify such tautology.

Another nice tautology; irrespectively of its origins, the Falange was of course the property of the Generalisimo., in the same way as the Nazi party was the property of Herr Hitler.

BTW, bare assertions and an emoticon would hardly do the job here; better try to follow your own advice and quote some sources, let say Franco himself: (Source: Cyprian Blamires World fascism: a historical encyclopedia, Volume 1)

Last but nor least, the way to Hell is paved with good intentions, and the ultra-Catholic hell of Sr. Franco was no exception; there's simply no possible justification for the deliberate massive extermination of hundreds of thousands of civilians of any age & genre.