Was Spain Fascist under Franco?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

<Thread forked from US General to debate the fascinating topic of whether or not Fransisco Franco's Spain was fascist.>

Of all the fascist dictators to idolise, Mussolini must be close to the most pathetic.

I think idolising Franco (hey tradcaths!) is easily the most pathetic.

Well, it’s a good thing Franco wasn’t a fascist then.

But anyways, of the 2 fascist dictators to ever exist, idolizing Hitler is pure evil, even if he is more accomplished than Mussolini.

That cannot possibly be a serious statement.

Historian James S. Corum states:

“As an ardent Nazi, (Ambassador Wilhelm) Faupel disliked Catholicism as well as the Spanish upper classes, and encouraged the working-class extremist members of the Falange to build a fascist party. Faupel devoted long audiences with Franco to convincing him of the necessity of remolding the Falange in the image of the Nazi Party. Faupel's interference in internal Spanish politics ran counter to Franco's policy of building a nationalist coalition of businessmen, monarchists and conservative Catholics, as well as Falangists.”

Summary: Nazis were disappointed with the Francoist Regime not pursuing Fascism.

In his book Fascism in Spain: 1923-1977, Stanley Payne states that very few serious historians would consider Franco a “core fascist.”

It is true that between 1937 to 1948, Franco had built a coalition of Spanish Fascists known as “Falangists” along with Conservative Catholic Monarchists, Franco himself being the latter.

Franco also marginalized Fascists in favor of technocrats to support economic modernization of Spain.

For the edification of any readers who are  interested in fascism and Franco, Wikipedia is a decent starting point:

Franco adopted Fascist trappings,[159][160][161][162] although Stanley Payne argued that very few scholars consider him to be a "core fascist".[163] Regarding the regime, the Oxford Living Dictionary uses Franco's regime as an example of fascism,[164] and it has also been variously presented as a "fascistized dictatorship",[165] or a "semi-fascist regime".[166] Francisco Cobo Romero writes that, besides neutering left-wing advances by using an essentially antiliberal brand of ultranationalism, "in its attempt to emulate Fascism, Francoism resorted to the sacralization and mystification of the motherland, raising it into an object of cult, and coating it with a liturgic divinization of its leader".[167]

All in all, some authors have pointed at a purported artificialness and failure of FET JONS in order to de-emphasize the Fascist weight within the regime whereas others have embedded those perceived features of "weak party" within the frame of a particular model of "Spanish Fascism".[168] However, new research material has been argued to underpin the "Fascist subject", both on the basis of the existence of a pervasive and fully differentiated Fascist falangist political culture, and on the importance of the Civil War for falangism, which served as an area of experience, of violence, of memory, as well as for the generation of a culture of victory.[168] Under the perspective of a comparative of European fascisms, Javier Rodrigo considers the Francoist regime to be paradigmatic for three reasons: for being the only authoritarian European regime with totalitarian aspirations, for being the regime that deployed the most political violence in times of rhetorical peace, and for being the regime deploying the most effective "memoricidal" apparatus.

[TheReckoning]

From 1936-1948: No, although fascists did hold significant amounts of power in the government and fascists did get some of their agenda passed

After 1948: No

Ironically, calling Francoist Spain fascist would actually help rehabilitate the image of fascism. Not because Spain under Franco was any paradise, but because the only other two examples of fascism were much worse.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I've never had a ton of patience for these sorts of definitional quibbles. Franco was a bad dude who ran a bunch of bad boys; they defeated a coalition of some similarly-bad dudes and some much-less-bad dudes in the Spanish Civil War, then put in place a bad regime dominated by bad elements and unsavory characters. Arguing about what ideology he was exactly misses a key point about his regime, which is that he himself had no ideology and consciously deputized various flunkies to come up with one in real time to justify how he was running the country. Some stages of this ongoing process were distinctly fascist-adjacent, though, yes.

[afleitch]

Strictly speaking the only 'true' fascist regime was Italy. Germany was a hybrid and other European states were at varying degrees of autocracy. But.

Tell a contemporary European anti-fascist (and an anti-fascist was a much broader term)  that 'oh strictly speaking X wasn't really fascist' then you'd be looked at with a mixture of suspicion and derision.

If international involvement in the Spanish Civil War wasn't a proxy war against creeping fascism, or in defense of it, then what was it?

Historian Paul Preston considered Franco of that time to be much much worse than 'a Mussolini' even if you refrain from calling his regime fascist. He had the background as a colonialist officer and had an equally sociopathic disregard for human life.

That Falangism spun off into something different as a result of Hitler blowing his brains out and Benito seeing the sky upside down doesn't deflect from what it was supposed to be, when conditions elsewhere in Europe were right.

Spain compilied a 'list of Jews' and added Jewish identity to it's list of documents ffs. Public Jewish (and public protestant) services were initially banned. Franco was sympathetic to the same conspiratorial anti-Semitism as in Germany.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Any definition of fascism that doesn't include f**king Franco is hyperspecific to the point of being operationally useless.

(Which of course explains why it is the fascist-adjacent posters who are insisting on it)

[TheReckoning]

Any definition of fascism that doesn't include f**king Franco is hyperspecific to the point of being operationally useless.

(Which of course explains why it is the fascist-adjacent posters who are insisting on it)

You do realize most scholars don’t consider him a fascist?

But as I’ve said before, if I was a fascist, I’d want to consider Franco one. If Mussolini and Hitler are the only ones associated with a movement I’m supporting, my movement is getting absolutely no where. Not that Franco would be much help.

Spain compilied a 'list of Jews' and added Jewish identity to it's list of documents ffs. Public Jewish (and public protestant) services were initially banned. Franco was sympathetic to the same conspiratorial anti-Semitism as in Germany.

A lot of medieval kings did the same thing, that doesn’t make them fascists.

[If my soul was made of stone]

if I was a fascist

"if"

[TheReckoning]

if I was a fascist

"if"

Not cool dude.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Largely, yes. He was far closer to "traditional" fascism than Hitler's mad death cult was.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Any definition of fascism that doesn't include f**king Franco is hyperspecific to the point of being operationally useless.

(Which of course explains why it is the fascist-adjacent posters who are insisting on it)

You do realize most scholars don’t consider him a fascist?

The hyperspecific definition of fascism can make sense if you're a historian of the interwar period (not that I agree, Franco still has more than enough to put him in the same category as Mussolini), not if you have any interest in understanding political trends on a macro level.

[afleitch]

Any definition of fascism that doesn't include f**king Franco is hyperspecific to the point of being operationally useless.

(Which of course explains why it is the fascist-adjacent posters who are insisting on it)

You do realize most scholars don’t consider him a fascist?

The hyperspecific definition of fascism can make sense if you're a historian of the interwar period (not that I agree, Franco still has more than enough to put him in the same category as Mussolini), not if you have any interest in understanding political trends on a macro level.

Not to mention; 'X wasn't a fascist, just a far right autocrat' isn't exactly a win

There's clearer grounds to argue that the Estado Novo next door was succinct enough to not be considered fascist or fascist adjacent at it's onset given that it tended to be ideologically bounded to  conservative adherance to Catholic social doctrine of that time (which was undoubtedly Very HP) rather than a grab bag of fascist doctrine.

Ireland constitutionally was, and until far more recently than Portugal, very much bound to Catholic social doctrine, but was of course a legitimate functioning democracy (and democratically aligned) in the way Portugal was not.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Historian Paul Preston considered Franco of that time to be much much worse than 'a Mussolini' even if you refrain from calling his regime fascist. He had the background as a colonialist officer and had an equally sociopathic disregard for human life.

I've always found it revealing that unideological pop culture use can be made of Mussolini without coming across as some sort of dog whistle (like how--I'm dating myself here!--in "The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny" he's part of the massive coalition of historical and fictional figures that takes down Chuck Norris), whereas using Franco in that way comes much closer to using Hitler in terms of what it implies about the views of the person doing it.

[If my soul was made of stone]

(like how--I'm dating myself here!--in "The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny" he's part of the massive coalition of historical and fictional figures that takes down Chuck Norris)

"The Ultimate Showdown..." was a favorite of my brother, who's four and a half years younger than you, and I've met people about that much younger than myself who are aware of it or at least of Neil Cicierega's more recent work, such as the Mouth series. It's quite remarkable how he's managed to stay relevant for about twenty years of internet history now.

Potter Puppet Pals will always be far better than anything Rowling ever did (paging Alben Barkley).

whereas using Franco in that way comes much closer to using Hitler in terms of what it implies about the views of the person doing it.

Is "Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead" an exception?

[TheReckoning]

Any definition of fascism that doesn't include f**king Franco is hyperspecific to the point of being operationally useless.

(Which of course explains why it is the fascist-adjacent posters who are insisting on it)

You do realize most scholars don’t consider him a fascist?

The hyperspecific definition of fascism can make sense if you're a historian of the interwar period (not that I agree, Franco still has more than enough to put him in the same category as Mussolini), not if you have any interest in understanding political trends on a macro level.

Would Chiang-Kai Shek be a Fascist, according to your definition? What separates him from Franco?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Any definition of fascism that doesn't include f**king Franco is hyperspecific to the point of being operationally useless.

(Which of course explains why it is the fascist-adjacent posters who are insisting on it)

You do realize most scholars don’t consider him a fascist?

The hyperspecific definition of fascism can make sense if you're a historian of the interwar period (not that I agree, Franco still has more than enough to put him in the same category as Mussolini), not if you have any interest in understanding political trends on a macro level.

Would Chiang-Kai Shek be a Fascist, according to your definition? What separates him from Franco?

I honestly don't know enough about Chiang-Kai Shek. It's certainly plausible that he had some fascistic tendencies, though given the unique situation of China's political conflict I'm really not equipped to answer that.

[AtorBoltox]

The argument Franco wasn't a fascist has merit coming from a scholar on the political ideologies of inter-war Europe, coming from a blue avatar though it's just an attempt to rehabilitate his regime

[TheReckoning]

The argument Franco wasn't a fascist has merit coming from a scholar on the political ideologies of inter-war Europe, coming from a blue avatar though it's just an attempt to rehabilitate his regime

Except for the fact that I have never supported Franco. I mistakenly at one point believed him to be no worse than Trump, after being prompted by users on Atlas here however, I learned just how bad he was (although probably better than some of his opponents in the Spanish Civil War).

Additionally, whether you call him “fascist”, “not-fascist”,  “communist” or “anarcho-statist” makes no difference for what his regime actually was, so it wouldn’t rehabilitate him in this slightest.

[afleitch]

Historian Paul Preston considered Franco of that time to be much much worse than 'a Mussolini' even if you refrain from calling his regime fascist. He had the background as a colonialist officer and had an equally sociopathic disregard for human life.

I've always found it revealing that unideological pop culture use can be made of Mussolini without coming across as some sort of dog whistle (like how--I'm dating myself here!--in "The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny" he's part of the massive coalition of historical and fictional figures that takes down Chuck Norris), whereas using Franco in that way comes much closer to using Hitler in terms of what it implies about the views of the person doing it.

Mussolini was the first modern politician with mass media presence and an image forged through it. There was a very real 'Benitomania' in Europe, America to almost Hollywood proportions.

While it waned, it became parody. Almost an art in line with other Italian fascist aesthetics.

Franco was more visceral maybe?

My grandfather, a North Africa campaign vet refused to set foot in Spain until Franco was dead and holidayed in Yugoslavia instead.

[Vice President Christian Man]

I would consider him to be one

[FT-02 Senator A.F.E. 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

yesnt

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Historian Paul Preston considered Franco of that time to be much much worse than 'a Mussolini' even if you refrain from calling his regime fascist. He had the background as a colonialist officer and had an equally sociopathic disregard for human life.

I've always found it revealing that unideological pop culture use can be made of Mussolini without coming across as some sort of dog whistle (like how--I'm dating myself here!--in "The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny" he's part of the massive coalition of historical and fictional figures that takes down Chuck Norris), whereas using Franco in that way comes much closer to using Hitler in terms of what it implies about the views of the person doing it.

Mussolini was the first modern politician with mass media presence and an image forged through it. There was a very real 'Benitomania' in Europe, America to almost Hollywood proportions.

While it waned, it became parody. Almost an art in line with other Italian fascist aesthetics.

Franco was more visceral maybe?

My grandfather, a North Africa campaign vet refused to set foot in Spain until Franco was dead and holidayed in Yugoslavia instead.

Yes, there's something almost camp about the image Mussolini ended up having (something he of course has in common with Trump, in spades!), whereas with Franco he was so personally boring and seems to have taken himself so seriously that the only way to find him entertaining was to actually approve of what he was doing.

[Benjamin Frank]

"In his book Fascism in Spain: 1923-1977, Stanley Payne states that very few serious historians would consider Franco a “core fascist.”

It is true that between 1937 to 1948, Franco had built a coalition of Spanish Fascists known as “Falangists” along with Conservative Catholic Monarchists, Franco himself being the latter.

Franco also marginalized Fascists in favor of technocrats to support economic modernization of Spain."

I don't know where 1948 comes from on economics.  Franco pursued a policy of autarky as part of his Fascist agenda until 1954-1955.

Whether autarky is part of Fascism is another matter.  To be sure, the Nazis also had a unique philosophy that separated them from Italian Fascism, but the Nazis economic policies can't be separated from its war policies or from simple criminality:

Why the Nazis Weren’t Socialists - ‘The Good Hitler Years’ | BETWEEN 2 WARS I 1937 Part 2 of 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHAN-RPJTiE&list=PLrG5J-K5AYAU1R-HeWSfY2D1jy_sEssNG&index=51

[TheReckoning]

"In his book Fascism in Spain: 1923-1977, Stanley Payne states that very few serious historians would consider Franco a “core fascist.”

It is true that between 1937 to 1948, Franco had built a coalition of Spanish Fascists known as “Falangists” along with Conservative Catholic Monarchists, Franco himself being the latter.

Franco also marginalized Fascists in favor of technocrats to support economic modernization of Spain."

I don't know where 1948 comes from on economics.  Franco pursued a policy of autarky as part of his Fascist agenda until 1954-1955.

Whether autarky is part of Fascism is another matter.  To be sure, the Nazis also had a unique philosophy that separated them from Italian Fascism, but the Nazis economic policies can't be separated from its war policies or from simple criminality:

Why the Nazis Weren’t Socialists - ‘The Good Hitler Years’ | BETWEEN 2 WARS I 1937 Part 2 of 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHAN-RPJTiE&list=PLrG5J-K5AYAU1R-HeWSfY2D1jy_sEssNG&index=51

Autarky is a part of fascism, but that doesn’t mean that anyone who pursues autarky is a fascist. After all, Authoritarianism is a part of fascism, but no serious person would say “authoritarian=fascist”.

However, in the context of Francoist Spain, while the government has been largely purged of fascists by the late 1940s, fascist thought did, in very rare, limited occasions, influence policy after that, an example being Franco’s pursuit of autarky. I think the last time was sometime in the early-mid ‘60s.

[MATTROSE94]

Francisco Franco was a Catholic theocrat who utilized many fascist policies, so yes.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Fascist is a catchall term for almost any reactionary political movement now, similar to Tory in the 18th century on both sides of the Pond.

That being said, I wouldn't consider Monarchism for instance to be fascist, though many monarchists did support fascists in various countries because of shared objectives/common opponents. However, it seems off from an academic standpoint because it would be like calling Louis XIV a fascist and while it is less ridiculous than calling him a socialist, its just a hard no for me.

Fascist is a radical movement that tends to absorb traditionalist, reactionary and conservative elements of support into itself but also tends to have less regard for other elements of tradition that get in the way and often are led by people from lower rungs of the social hierarchy. Furthermore, if you go the next step towards Nazism, you have all sorts of co-option still but also a lot of small r Republican sentiment (Which is to say opposition to Monarchism), even more disdain for the top of the pyramid, you have the cultist religious practices and rituals, and so on.

I would certainly agree with use of the terms Nationalist, authoritarian, Right-wing and Reactionary and I would certainly say that he had fascists in his government in the early period and had the support of fascist governments to obtain power. However, rather than these elements being incorporated under a fascist umbrella like in Italy, the fascists were incorporated under a nationalist and traditionally right wing (high ranking military figure with a Monarch as designated successor) umbrella instead.