![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Anyone got a free version of the "Una Grande y Libre" flag of spain during that era? I think it is required, as the Second Republic has its flag there. If anyone has it, please add it to the article. [Zespris - 14/6/05]
The statement that Spain was "the second most backward country in Europe" in the Spanish miracle section is a major value judgment. Something statistical like that it had the second lowest literacy rate, or the second lowest GDP in Europe should be provided, if either of those is true. "Backward" is a thin and insupportable description. Dave 19:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Note: This thread has been copied from talk:Catalan negationism. As the article was requested for delete on Dec,16 2005 WP:AfD, but the thread was deemed interesant and more suited for this article, is has been brought here. Comments are welcomed-- Wllacer 12:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
<start of original thread>
I agree that this article should be highly improved. I think that creating an article about Catalan repression under Francoism would be more interesting and suitable. This could also be a complement to current Spain under Franco. The different revisionist ideas could also be included in that article and also their legacy nowadays. There is much bibliography and info about that topic on Internet, but of course, it's also an amazing huge task. Toniher 13:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
<end of original thread>
I think much more can be said on this article, but expanding it risks taking losing NPOV 195.57.80.67 22:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Should we really have the link for the documentary When Franco died we were 30? As far as I can see, the linked site has vey little information unless you are paying to view the film. - Jmabel | Talk 05:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that Spain under Franco needs to be merged with the Spanish State article. One of the Spanish series links to the Spanish State article, while the History of Spain series links to Spain under Franco. Are these two articles not about the same thing? I would do the merger myself, but I don't really know how to do it. Suggestions? Oscabat 21:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I bring some: what about the translation of the extracts after choosing (hey, native english speakers). I would like to know your opinion, may be other extracts, etc.:
I would change those sentences (per començar), that's about it:
-- Call me Elmo Sesame Street 00:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Owdki. The sources above prove the first of your proposals, which I don't oppose. You might add it. The third is also true, but I think it needs context, especially on the "as the constitution says" phrase (which will be explained below). The second one, I oppose on two grounds:
As to why using a constitutional term, "Estado Español" implies a nationalistic (not of the Spanish nation, but of the other purported "nations")? I don't fully understand. After all, it is also a constitutional term. So, no, I don't agree with the second point. -- the Dúnadan 04:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The chronological presentation makes it difficult to mention the gradual decolonization of Francoist Spain, contrasting it with the stubbornness of Portugal. -- Error ( talk) 19:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
In the section "Franco's regime", I've added a number of tags to statements that are vague, un-cited, or weasel-ish. I did not do this simply to be troublesome -- I honestly believe that these need to be addressed. -- 201.37.229.117 ( talk) 06:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The official name of 1936/1975 Spain always was the Kingdom of Spain (Reino de España).General Francisco Franco Bahamonde was a monarquic party (His Majesty Alfonso XIII was his nupcial´s testify) but he was his diferences with the spanish princes and princess . Also it is the modern name. But the spanish king, Juan Carlos I, is "Constitutional King of Spain" or "Rey Constitucional de España".
I am not sure about the fact that it was called officially "Spanish State" during the Franco period. Anyway, this name is the name given to Spain when talking about the official institutions, about the state, and this name is used nowadays, and it was used too in the times of the Second Spanish Republic. So it's wrong to monopolize it for its usage under the Franco regime. This article should be mixed with Spain under Franco, or at least it should go into a different article called Spanish State (under Franco), because, as I said, Spain has always been a state: it was the Spanish State under the republic (read its constitution), and it is a Spanish State by now.
That's it. It should be fixed.. Onofre Bouvila 23:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree. What sense does it make to call the Period under Franco Spanish State. Is not Spain a state right now. Or was before?
I think everybody in this discussion pages agrees. I am going to change it. ( Vbroto ( talk) 17:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC))
I think this sentence needs a citation, as I believe it is not accurate: "With the death of Franco and the dismantling of the Francoist regime, the denomination of "Spanish State" ceased to be official, being replaced by " Kingdom of Spain", in that the country was reconstituted as a democratic parliamentary monarchy, where the head of state reigns, but does not rule.".
The current Spanish constitution does not use the term Reino de España (Kingdom of Spain) in any of the articles nor in the addenda. [14]. Surprisingly the term Estado Español (Spanish State) is used in several articles, and the country is referred to, all throughout the constitution as el Estado and not el Reino (please refer to the list of articles mentioned in the above section).
While it is obvious that Spain is a kingdom (in that a king is the head of State), "Kingdom of Spain" is not -at least- a de jure constitutional denomination to refer to the country. As such, I think it is incorrect to say that: (1) the denomination Estado Español has been replaced, since it is still a de jure constitutional denomination (2) that it is a term used primarily by "nationalists"because it is rather a constitutional term. (For those users unaware of the nuances of Spanish politics, the term "nationalistic" is contradictorily not used to refer to those who defend the Spanish nation, but to the separatist regional movements of those regions that claim to be nations themselves).
I think the introduction needs to change accordingly. -- the Dúnadan 23:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
This has been changed twice from the version I preferred. For non-Spanish languages spoken in Spain, I prefer "unofficial;" some IP addresses prefer "prohibited from public use." See this diff
First off, it's an infobox, brevity is preferred. Second of all, "prohibited from public use" is unclear. Does it mean "public" in the sense of "in any public space?" I don't believe it was illegal to hold a conversation in non-Spanish in the street. If it means the "prohibited from government use" sense of public, well, "unofficial" gets that point across just as well. I mean, sure, there's "suppressed" as well, which would be accurate but perhaps a bit overdramatic for the infobox.
I definitely prefer "Unofficial," or even just nothing at all - an official note on Spanish, and then list the rest. Franco's language policy can be discussed more fully in the article. SnowFire ( talk) 00:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what is best for an info box, as I rarely edit those, and am unsure as to what would be appropriate there, however "suppressed" at least for Basque would be an accurate discription, at least, if memory serves. according to Compton's encyclopeida from 1960. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.184.48.237 ( talk) 03:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
This article is named incorrectly. This is an article about a historical period of Spain. I think this article has been created to manipulate information on the Kingdom of Spain, for propaganda purposes, because the main article is locked. ..Joe.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.67.143 ( talk) 08:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The redirect http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Spanish_state&redirect=no links to Spain article and is very explicitly and clearly wrong!
This page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_State relates to The Spanish State (Estado Español) was the formal or legal name of Spain from 1939 to 1975 under the authoritarian dictatorship of Francisco Franco. This can now only be reached by searching something like "franco spain"
The redirect page should be renamed The State of Spain or Spanish Nation, since Spain (target article) may relate to various kingdoms (including the current 'democratic kingdom' of Juan Carlos I of Spain) plus a couple of dictatorships: Primo de Rivera (1923 to 1930) Franco (1939 - 1975) or either of the two republican governments (1873-1874) or (1931-1939) Timpo ( talk) 17:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Given that between 1947 and 1978 (31 years) Spain was a kingdom known as the Kingdom of Spain, and that before from 1939-1947 (8 years) it was known as the Spanish State, it would seem more proper and notable for the article not to be named Spanish State but Kingdom of Spain. The best way of doing so would seem to have it be "Kingdom of Spain (Francoist)". Is there anyone who would be opposed to this move? Lt.Specht ( talk) 08:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
"Franco's Spanish nationalism promoted a unitary national identity by repressing Spain's cultural diversity. Bullfighting and flamenco[17] were promoted as national traditions while those traditions not considered "Spanish" were suppressed. Franco's view of Spanish tradition was somewhat artificial and arbitrary: while some regional traditions were suppressed, Flamenco, an Andalusian tradition, was considered part of a larger, national identity." The whole paragraph is utterly false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.146.149.53 ( talk) 14:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv ( talk) 09:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Spanish State → Francoist Spain — The Spanish State was the formal name of Spain from 1936/9 to 1947 (eleven/eight years depending on whether the Spanish Civil War era is counted), whereas this article also covers the period 1947 to 1975 (twenty-eight years) during which Spain was formally called the Kingdom of Spain.
Francoist Spain is the much more widely used terminology used by both contemporaries and historians alike to describe Spain through the entire dictatorship of Francisco Franco. Compare this with Vichy France, which was formally called the French State throughout its entire existence but is likewise known much more widely by an alternative name. East Germany, or the German Democratic Republic, is another example. The Celestial City ( talk) 14:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Support This article appears in practice to be already about the whole Franoist period, not when it formally changed its name, which is not a marked divide in practice. To complicate matters, some people use the term "Spanish state" in a current political context. PatGallacher ( talk) 11:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
As far as my knowledge of Spanish history is concerned, the actual end of the authoritarian regime in Spain should be considered to take place in 1977. At any rate, in 1976 Spain was still roughly the same state it had been for the previous forty years. Franco's death occured in November 1975 but it's not that it restored democracy just like that. The referendum on political reforms was held no sooner than at the end of 1976. Anyway, it was not until 1977 that the PSOE was allowed to return to the country and thus a multiparty system was restored. But till that, the country was still under complete control of the Francoist party. -- Jaro7788 ( talk) 18:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Spanish State currently redirects into this article. Spanish state (lowercase state) redirects into Spain. AFAIK, I have never heard anyone the modern country of "Spain" as the "Spanish state". it's always "Spain". Someone reconcile the two redirects, please. hbdragon88 ( talk) 04:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence of "right wing" or anti-communist politics in the article, although in half a dozen places Franco is called (strongly) anti-communist. What did he do? Ban the Communist Party? (He banned all other parties.)
While we're at it, are we calling him "fascist" as a synonym for "anti-communist" (which is how leftists use the term facscist) or because his government met some or all of the aspects of fascism as typically defined?
In other words, a police state like the "left-wing" USSR?
Try not to use words that mislead. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 23:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I didn't really understand that mish mosh, and there were some personal remarks and other distractions. Perhaps we need an article on Fascism and communism so we can tell the difference between the two things, as well as what they have in common.
But my real question was not WHO called Francoist Spain fascist or right wing but rather WHY. Which elements of Fascism did his regime exhibit or support?
Or if "fascist" in this context only meant anti-Communist then how did Franco oppose communism?
I just want a bit more detail. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 14:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
It is true that Truman was opposed to Catholic Spain. In the article it says that he was a Baptist and a Freemason. It is not noted that he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, an organisation noted for its anti-Catholicism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.57.228 ( talk) 12:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Please, don't cite anymore negationism authors like Payne. Aren't there any other experts in the Spanish history you can cite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.224.130.5 ( talk) 08:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe that Spain under Franco was indisputably fascist, in spite of what the article states, so I requested citation stating that Spain under Franco was not a fascist state and why it was not.-- LTsereteli ( talk) 00:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Here's a Wall Street Journal article that frequently references Franco as a "fascist." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123594813501604681.html?mod=rss_topics_davos
So Franco used some aspects of fascism, but used traditional conservative authoritarianism more. Plumber ( talk) 01:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, Franco's Falange party was indisputably quite fascist. How Franco can be a member of a fascist party and not be a fascist is very perplexing.
I think that the reason it is important to get this right is because there are still a lot of apologists for Franco's regime in Spain and elsewhere, and a lot of rabidly anti-communist far right-wingers who are supportive of Franco's historical legacy. You did provide a citation, but the reasons given for Spain not being a fascist state under Franco are simply counter-factual. Franco led a revolution against a democratically elected government to transform Spanish society and impose a Falangist ideology on the whole of Spain. If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck, no?-- LTsereteli ( talk) 14:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that "fascism" has many meanings, ranging from movements and regimes self-identifying as such to simply ultra-conservatist regimes. The Falange was undoubtedly fascist, but after José Antonio Primo de Rivera died it was merged in the Falange Española Tradicionalista y de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista (later Movimiento Nacional). If Primo de Rivera jr, and not Franco, had taken power, there would be no ambiguity, but what I always learned and read was that Franco himself was not, ideologically speaking, a fascist : he was more of an arch-conservative who used the spanish fascist party for his own means while not really caring himself. His regime is, IMHO and according to all the teachings I received at school and college, best described as an authoritatian, conservative and militaristic regime with some fascist undertones. Jean-Jacques Georges ( talk) 11:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Again an editor has deleted language saying that the Spanish State was not fascist. The editor then claimed that the cited sources supported his position that it was fascist. This is incorrect. All the cited sources say either or both of the following: Franquist Spain was not fascist, Franco was not fascist. A sampling of the sources verbatim: Laqueur - “Twentieth-century didctatorships may be detestable but they are not necessarily fascist. Japan in the 1930s was not a fascist country…nor Spain under Franco.” Payne: “scarcely any of the serious historians and analysts of Franco consider the generalissimo to be a core fascist” at p. 476 and “the new regime was not so much a revolutionary fascist state as a rightist authoritarian system flavored with fascist rhetoric.” at p. 347. I am reverting to restore the language saying that the state was not fascist. Mamalujo ( talk) 21:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The edit NEVER said that Francoist Spain was Fascist. My position was not that it was fascist. The comment did, however, state that it was fascist until 1943. Should we list all the other forms of government that Francoist Spain wasn't? Should it read "Spanish state was not a fascist state, nor was it Direct democracy, nor was it Representative democracy, nor was it a Theocracy, nor was it Communist state etc."? People read an encyclopaedia article to find out what something was, not what it wasn't. If the article had been changed to stay "Spanish state was fascist" then the revert would have been justified as for much of its history, Spanish state was Francoist (a sui juris), not fascist. However, that still doesn't mean the article should say "Spanish state was not fascist", as that doesn't add any information to the article. Instead it should state what the state was "authoritarian, right-wing". Later on in the article it states are "not generally considered to be fascist" stating that it differs from fascism due to Francoism social conservatism vs fascism's social revolutionist aims. This is a more appropriate location for the "Francoism vs fascism" discussion as deeper into the article were more detail can be given to the discussion. To simply state that "Spanish state was not fascist" in the introduction does not do justice to the nuanced ideological details of the Spanish state under Franco.
In my opinion, it all depends on what you qualify as Fascism. If you want to use strictly official terms, only Musollini's regime should be considered fascist (or Nationalsyndicalist). In that case, it would be inappropriate to talk about the rise of "fascisms" in Europe and Franco's regime should be labelled as falangist (or Nationalsyndicalist aswell). Any further extension of the term "Fascism" should certainly include Franco's dictatorship.-- John Caves Goldenbear ( talk) 09:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
A statement reads "From 1954 onwards, homosexuality, pedophilia, and prostitution were criminal offenses,[37]" Why from 1954? They were criminal offenses nearly everyplace else in the world. Only sodomy is legal today. Why is this relevant to the article? Student7 ( talk) 02:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC) I completely agree with you. I think that it would be good to include your point.-- John Caves Goldenbear ( talk) 19:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I think this article portrays Franco's dictatorship in a very good light. Executions (with and without trial), tortures, depurations, disappearences, ethnical repression, state-terrorism and fear pocicies are severely downplayed. Moreover, the extreme political corruption isn't even mentioned. The social inequality and the conditions of extreme poverty of a highly significant part of the population is nearly ignored, so is the extreme militarism of the ditatorship.-- John Caves Goldenbear ( talk) 19:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Under the WWII section, it says ...Franco did send volunteer troops to fight communism joining the Axis armies on the Eastern Front against the Soviet Union.... For someone to make this statement, which I highly doubt is true, they should cite it at least. I feel that this wasnt the case, since communism wasn't a big thing during the second world war and this phrase compromises the neutrality of the article. I suggest changing the word communism into Russian Army or something in that sense. Also, there should be a comma before the word "joining". JasonDomination ( talk) 19:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Communism was "a big thing" during the Second World War. The Soviet Union was around since 1922, and much of the Nazi's rise to power can be credited to the Nazi party's anti-communist stance (along with its anti-Semitism), which allowed them to gain some support from German conservatives fearful of the communist revolution in the Weimar Republic. Furthermore, the fact that the USSR was a communist state meant that it was not friendly with the US or UK or other western powers until after Operation Barbarossa (Nazi invasion of Soviet Russia). (Furthermore, in Asia, the Chinese civil war had started before the Japanese invasion, meaning that Chinese forces were split in different factions (though, mostly during the invasion, there factions were (mostly) at a truce until after the war). As for Franco allowing people to volunteer to fight communism under the command of the Nazis, this is well documented. See the article on División Azul (Blue Division) for more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.184.48.237 ( talk) 03:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that the statement sayin that the Blue Division was sente to "fight against communism" sounds toomuch like the post-war Francoist propaganda and its attempts to hide an undeniable, objective and solid fact. The Blue Division was sent by the Spanish government to fight along the Axis in WW II. Consequently, Spain was not only not-neutral, bu also belligerent. John Caves Goldenbear ( talk) 11:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I've added some minor details to the article. However, I don't take back what I've said above. I think this article should be labelled as not-neutral (with that icon of a set of scales, you probably know what I mean). As I'm new to Wikipedia, I don't know how to do it. Thanks in advance. John Caves Goldenbear ( talk) 11:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC) My changes have been reverted due to informatical and technical problems, but I don't take back what I said. This article needs to be labelled as partial. John Caves Goldenbear ( talk) 12:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot!!! John Caves Goldenbear ( talk) 16:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
The Legacy section starts with the sentence "In Spain and abroad, the legacy of Franco remains controversial". There is severe POV concern with this sentence, and trying to justify the numerous human rights violations carried out during Franco's regime. Neo-Nazis admire Hitler, and not all of them are fringes, in this way we can continue to add this kind of structure in all articles about mass-murderers. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 17:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
WORLD WAR II
If I well remember, Franco besides sending soldiers to fight against Soviets, sent also soldiers to fight against Japan in the Philippines. Is it true? If it is the case, it should be mentioned as well. Thanks Arnaldo Mauri. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnaldo Mauri ( talk • contribs) 06:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC) I had never heard of that before and, as far as I know it isn't true. However, he is believed to have offered some aid for the Korean war in 1953. Maybe that was what you meant. Hope it helped. Regards John Caves Goldenbear ( talk) 12:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Strong consensus. Andrewa ( talk) 08:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Francoist Spain → Falangist Spain – Is the title of the Nazi Germany article "Hitlerist Germany"? 67.166.194.80 ( talk) 04:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Reading the sentence "A woman was to be loving to her parents and brothers", I can't help wondering whether the omission of "and sisters" is deliberate, or simply due to the fact that the Spanish word "hermanos" can refer to siblings of either sex ("hermanos = hermanos y hermanas, herman@s") whereas the English word "brothers" cannot - a difference the writer of this article may not have been aware of. It might be more in keeping with Franco's other misogynistic policies that women were only to be loving towards their brothers (their sisters didn't matter), but in that case why both their parents and not just their fathers? 213.127.210.95 ( talk) 18:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Francoist Spain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I find the sentence "During the Second World War, its entry into the war on the Axis side was prevented largely by British Secret Intelligence Service (MI-6) efforts that included up to $200 million in bribes for Spanish officials." in the first paragraph a little misleading. The MI6 bribes might've played a role, but surely Spain's dire economic and military situation at the time, as well as disagreements between Hitler and Franco, contributed to it in a higher degree. A more comprehensive explanation is given in Spain during World War II. I feel like it would be better to reflect a more global vision, if Franco's entry into the war is to be mentioned in the first paragraph - the whole MI6 thing seems a little anglo-centric. 87.125.111.2 ( talk) 18:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
In answer to a query above, I reckon this matter needs a new section. Not sure if Spain did actually break off diplomatic relations with Japan following the Manila massacre but they certainly toyed with the idea of doing so and contemporary press reports mention it. As usual, however, it was a typical Franco propaganda bluff (No-Do had claimed the highly unlikely number of 50 Spanish consulate staff killed) and was clearly part of a strategy to be invited to attend the San Francisco Conference. Florentino Rodao, an expert in contemporary history at Universidad Complutenese, and author ofFranco y el imperio japonés (Plaza Janés, 2002), states the following: "Cuando Japón irritó a Franco" "According to a report by the OSS, based on the declarations of a high-ranking ministry official, Spain had offered to send two division of "volunteers", led by generals Agustín Muñoz Grandes and Antonio Aranda, to the Phillipines to fight againt the Japanese." Another version refers to a División Azul Marina. In either case, MacArthur obviously wasn't interested/impressed. Hope that helps. Cheers! -- Technopat ( talk) 17:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Francisco Franco established a totalitarian military dictatorship.
According to the generally accepted definition of totalitarism, Franco's dictatorship was not totalitarian at all. This issue was settled by Yale University professor, sociologist and political scientist Juan José Linz in his well known work Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes, Rienner, 2000.
See also Authoritarianism
May I therefore reword that sentence in this way?: Francisco Franco established an authoritarian military dictatorship. -- 46.27.119.30 ( talk) 10:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Fully agree-- Havsjö ( talk) 15:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Labelling Francoism a "constitutional monarchy", is frankly, bluntly speaking, oxymoronic. The notion of 1947 (in terms of form of "government" as the infobox implies) being a breaking point is also somewhat dubious (the notion of being "totalitarian" before 1947 and "not totalitarian" after 1947 doubtlessly looks like the opinion of some Wikipedia user). It certainly brought no "constitution", ffs! For the rest of descriptors other than dictatorship, while not all of them being exactly oxymoronic, they are haphazard, and condensing them in the infobox in two or three words is not an improvement (not the least the "Francoist regime" being a "Francoist regime", a rather circular statement if you ask me particularly as the Francoist regime does not seem to have developed into a class either). For an actual up-to date commentary on the elusive characterization of the dictatorship by commentators, see Gil Pecharromán (2019) [16].--Asqueladd ( talk) 15:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
“Francoist Spain ... is the period of Spanish history” – this is how this article begins and it sounds rather absurd to me. A period is an interval of time, not a state. Examples of WP entries which can be defined as intervals of time are e.g. “ Triassic”, “ Roaring Twenties” or “ Age of Sail”. “Francoist Spain” does not seem to be in the same category to me.
Admittedly, WP has a problem with non-official state names serving also as titles of articles. There is little consistency, and various perspectives are followed.
1. name (or similar)
2. state
3. government
4. regime
5. time interval
6. no definition or tautological definition
Perhaps some board of WP pundits might fancy settling the issue once and for all and issue an appropriate policy. Until this happens, I would humbly suggest we no longer claim that “a state is a period” and settle for something slightly more sensible. I like the first option of these listed above, especially that it captures the “common/unofficial” ingredient, end hence my edit. regards, -- 89.76.22.216 ( talk) 18:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Why not mention on the infobox that Spain was de jure a monarchy from 1947 under a personalit totalitarian dictatorship, like Fascist Italy? The infobox does not describe Spain's government, but situtation. VevekVek ( talk) 04:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
If anything, Spain 1947-1975 was more like Hungary 1920-1944/46, in that it was a monarchy, but one without a monarch, rather than Italy under Mussolini.
And surely 'Kingdom' is just one type of monarchy, along with 'principality' (eg Monaco, Liechtenstein, Andorra), 'Grand Duchy' (Luxembourg) or 'Empire' (Japan). Just referring to the title of the monarch. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 00:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The following section is currently in the article:
The consistent points in Francoism included above all authoritarianism,[citation needed] Anti-Communism,[citation needed] Spanish nationalism,[citation needed] national Catholicism,[citation needed] monarchism,[citation needed] militarism,[citation needed] national conservatism,[citation needed] anti-Masonry,[citation needed] anti-Catalanism,[citation needed] pan-Hispanism[citation needed] and anti-liberalism[citation needed]—some authors also include integralism.[27][28]
Is the high amount of the "citation needed" tag really necessary? It disrupts reading the article. I understand all these things need verification but maybe one tag at the end would be better. Heyoostorm ( talk) 19:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
"Pan-Hispanism"Lol, someone wanted things that sound nice or something..--Asqueladd ( talk) 04:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi @ Asqueladd:
Could you further explain for us all why you introduced an awkward tag in the first sentence ? Your summary was quite strange.
If you doubt the status of the name, the Fundamental Laws of the Realm confirm that the country was legally called Estado español [18], Spanish State. Otherwise it is mentionned as Estado nacional, National State or simply Estado, State [19]. The word officially seems accurate for me.
Best regards, CocoricoPolynesien ( talk) 15:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello Beyond My Ken, could you please explain to me how "Francoist Spain" can refer to a historical period? I find it really strange to define "Spain" as an interval of time and not a country. It does make sense to say that something happened during the Francoist Dictatorship, but how does it make sense to say "during the Francoist Spain"? While connected, those terms do not refer to the same thing. To me it seems clear that Francoist Spain describes Spain -the country- during a specific historical period and not the period itself. Even the article itself links to List of people executed by Francoist Spain, treating Francoist Spain as a country (how could a period execute anyone?). Oqwert ( talk) 04:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Anyone got a free version of the "Una Grande y Libre" flag of spain during that era? I think it is required, as the Second Republic has its flag there. If anyone has it, please add it to the article. [Zespris - 14/6/05]
The statement that Spain was "the second most backward country in Europe" in the Spanish miracle section is a major value judgment. Something statistical like that it had the second lowest literacy rate, or the second lowest GDP in Europe should be provided, if either of those is true. "Backward" is a thin and insupportable description. Dave 19:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Note: This thread has been copied from talk:Catalan negationism. As the article was requested for delete on Dec,16 2005 WP:AfD, but the thread was deemed interesant and more suited for this article, is has been brought here. Comments are welcomed-- Wllacer 12:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
<start of original thread>
I agree that this article should be highly improved. I think that creating an article about Catalan repression under Francoism would be more interesting and suitable. This could also be a complement to current Spain under Franco. The different revisionist ideas could also be included in that article and also their legacy nowadays. There is much bibliography and info about that topic on Internet, but of course, it's also an amazing huge task. Toniher 13:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
<end of original thread>
I think much more can be said on this article, but expanding it risks taking losing NPOV 195.57.80.67 22:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Should we really have the link for the documentary When Franco died we were 30? As far as I can see, the linked site has vey little information unless you are paying to view the film. - Jmabel | Talk 05:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that Spain under Franco needs to be merged with the Spanish State article. One of the Spanish series links to the Spanish State article, while the History of Spain series links to Spain under Franco. Are these two articles not about the same thing? I would do the merger myself, but I don't really know how to do it. Suggestions? Oscabat 21:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I bring some: what about the translation of the extracts after choosing (hey, native english speakers). I would like to know your opinion, may be other extracts, etc.:
I would change those sentences (per començar), that's about it:
-- Call me Elmo Sesame Street 00:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Owdki. The sources above prove the first of your proposals, which I don't oppose. You might add it. The third is also true, but I think it needs context, especially on the "as the constitution says" phrase (which will be explained below). The second one, I oppose on two grounds:
As to why using a constitutional term, "Estado Español" implies a nationalistic (not of the Spanish nation, but of the other purported "nations")? I don't fully understand. After all, it is also a constitutional term. So, no, I don't agree with the second point. -- the Dúnadan 04:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The chronological presentation makes it difficult to mention the gradual decolonization of Francoist Spain, contrasting it with the stubbornness of Portugal. -- Error ( talk) 19:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
In the section "Franco's regime", I've added a number of tags to statements that are vague, un-cited, or weasel-ish. I did not do this simply to be troublesome -- I honestly believe that these need to be addressed. -- 201.37.229.117 ( talk) 06:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The official name of 1936/1975 Spain always was the Kingdom of Spain (Reino de España).General Francisco Franco Bahamonde was a monarquic party (His Majesty Alfonso XIII was his nupcial´s testify) but he was his diferences with the spanish princes and princess . Also it is the modern name. But the spanish king, Juan Carlos I, is "Constitutional King of Spain" or "Rey Constitucional de España".
I am not sure about the fact that it was called officially "Spanish State" during the Franco period. Anyway, this name is the name given to Spain when talking about the official institutions, about the state, and this name is used nowadays, and it was used too in the times of the Second Spanish Republic. So it's wrong to monopolize it for its usage under the Franco regime. This article should be mixed with Spain under Franco, or at least it should go into a different article called Spanish State (under Franco), because, as I said, Spain has always been a state: it was the Spanish State under the republic (read its constitution), and it is a Spanish State by now.
That's it. It should be fixed.. Onofre Bouvila 23:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree. What sense does it make to call the Period under Franco Spanish State. Is not Spain a state right now. Or was before?
I think everybody in this discussion pages agrees. I am going to change it. ( Vbroto ( talk) 17:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC))
I think this sentence needs a citation, as I believe it is not accurate: "With the death of Franco and the dismantling of the Francoist regime, the denomination of "Spanish State" ceased to be official, being replaced by " Kingdom of Spain", in that the country was reconstituted as a democratic parliamentary monarchy, where the head of state reigns, but does not rule.".
The current Spanish constitution does not use the term Reino de España (Kingdom of Spain) in any of the articles nor in the addenda. [14]. Surprisingly the term Estado Español (Spanish State) is used in several articles, and the country is referred to, all throughout the constitution as el Estado and not el Reino (please refer to the list of articles mentioned in the above section).
While it is obvious that Spain is a kingdom (in that a king is the head of State), "Kingdom of Spain" is not -at least- a de jure constitutional denomination to refer to the country. As such, I think it is incorrect to say that: (1) the denomination Estado Español has been replaced, since it is still a de jure constitutional denomination (2) that it is a term used primarily by "nationalists"because it is rather a constitutional term. (For those users unaware of the nuances of Spanish politics, the term "nationalistic" is contradictorily not used to refer to those who defend the Spanish nation, but to the separatist regional movements of those regions that claim to be nations themselves).
I think the introduction needs to change accordingly. -- the Dúnadan 23:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
This has been changed twice from the version I preferred. For non-Spanish languages spoken in Spain, I prefer "unofficial;" some IP addresses prefer "prohibited from public use." See this diff
First off, it's an infobox, brevity is preferred. Second of all, "prohibited from public use" is unclear. Does it mean "public" in the sense of "in any public space?" I don't believe it was illegal to hold a conversation in non-Spanish in the street. If it means the "prohibited from government use" sense of public, well, "unofficial" gets that point across just as well. I mean, sure, there's "suppressed" as well, which would be accurate but perhaps a bit overdramatic for the infobox.
I definitely prefer "Unofficial," or even just nothing at all - an official note on Spanish, and then list the rest. Franco's language policy can be discussed more fully in the article. SnowFire ( talk) 00:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what is best for an info box, as I rarely edit those, and am unsure as to what would be appropriate there, however "suppressed" at least for Basque would be an accurate discription, at least, if memory serves. according to Compton's encyclopeida from 1960. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.184.48.237 ( talk) 03:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
This article is named incorrectly. This is an article about a historical period of Spain. I think this article has been created to manipulate information on the Kingdom of Spain, for propaganda purposes, because the main article is locked. ..Joe.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.67.143 ( talk) 08:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The redirect http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Spanish_state&redirect=no links to Spain article and is very explicitly and clearly wrong!
This page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_State relates to The Spanish State (Estado Español) was the formal or legal name of Spain from 1939 to 1975 under the authoritarian dictatorship of Francisco Franco. This can now only be reached by searching something like "franco spain"
The redirect page should be renamed The State of Spain or Spanish Nation, since Spain (target article) may relate to various kingdoms (including the current 'democratic kingdom' of Juan Carlos I of Spain) plus a couple of dictatorships: Primo de Rivera (1923 to 1930) Franco (1939 - 1975) or either of the two republican governments (1873-1874) or (1931-1939) Timpo ( talk) 17:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Given that between 1947 and 1978 (31 years) Spain was a kingdom known as the Kingdom of Spain, and that before from 1939-1947 (8 years) it was known as the Spanish State, it would seem more proper and notable for the article not to be named Spanish State but Kingdom of Spain. The best way of doing so would seem to have it be "Kingdom of Spain (Francoist)". Is there anyone who would be opposed to this move? Lt.Specht ( talk) 08:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
"Franco's Spanish nationalism promoted a unitary national identity by repressing Spain's cultural diversity. Bullfighting and flamenco[17] were promoted as national traditions while those traditions not considered "Spanish" were suppressed. Franco's view of Spanish tradition was somewhat artificial and arbitrary: while some regional traditions were suppressed, Flamenco, an Andalusian tradition, was considered part of a larger, national identity." The whole paragraph is utterly false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.146.149.53 ( talk) 14:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv ( talk) 09:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Spanish State → Francoist Spain — The Spanish State was the formal name of Spain from 1936/9 to 1947 (eleven/eight years depending on whether the Spanish Civil War era is counted), whereas this article also covers the period 1947 to 1975 (twenty-eight years) during which Spain was formally called the Kingdom of Spain.
Francoist Spain is the much more widely used terminology used by both contemporaries and historians alike to describe Spain through the entire dictatorship of Francisco Franco. Compare this with Vichy France, which was formally called the French State throughout its entire existence but is likewise known much more widely by an alternative name. East Germany, or the German Democratic Republic, is another example. The Celestial City ( talk) 14:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Support This article appears in practice to be already about the whole Franoist period, not when it formally changed its name, which is not a marked divide in practice. To complicate matters, some people use the term "Spanish state" in a current political context. PatGallacher ( talk) 11:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
As far as my knowledge of Spanish history is concerned, the actual end of the authoritarian regime in Spain should be considered to take place in 1977. At any rate, in 1976 Spain was still roughly the same state it had been for the previous forty years. Franco's death occured in November 1975 but it's not that it restored democracy just like that. The referendum on political reforms was held no sooner than at the end of 1976. Anyway, it was not until 1977 that the PSOE was allowed to return to the country and thus a multiparty system was restored. But till that, the country was still under complete control of the Francoist party. -- Jaro7788 ( talk) 18:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Spanish State currently redirects into this article. Spanish state (lowercase state) redirects into Spain. AFAIK, I have never heard anyone the modern country of "Spain" as the "Spanish state". it's always "Spain". Someone reconcile the two redirects, please. hbdragon88 ( talk) 04:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence of "right wing" or anti-communist politics in the article, although in half a dozen places Franco is called (strongly) anti-communist. What did he do? Ban the Communist Party? (He banned all other parties.)
While we're at it, are we calling him "fascist" as a synonym for "anti-communist" (which is how leftists use the term facscist) or because his government met some or all of the aspects of fascism as typically defined?
In other words, a police state like the "left-wing" USSR?
Try not to use words that mislead. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 23:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I didn't really understand that mish mosh, and there were some personal remarks and other distractions. Perhaps we need an article on Fascism and communism so we can tell the difference between the two things, as well as what they have in common.
But my real question was not WHO called Francoist Spain fascist or right wing but rather WHY. Which elements of Fascism did his regime exhibit or support?
Or if "fascist" in this context only meant anti-Communist then how did Franco oppose communism?
I just want a bit more detail. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 14:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
It is true that Truman was opposed to Catholic Spain. In the article it says that he was a Baptist and a Freemason. It is not noted that he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, an organisation noted for its anti-Catholicism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.57.228 ( talk) 12:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Please, don't cite anymore negationism authors like Payne. Aren't there any other experts in the Spanish history you can cite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.224.130.5 ( talk) 08:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe that Spain under Franco was indisputably fascist, in spite of what the article states, so I requested citation stating that Spain under Franco was not a fascist state and why it was not.-- LTsereteli ( talk) 00:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Here's a Wall Street Journal article that frequently references Franco as a "fascist." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123594813501604681.html?mod=rss_topics_davos
So Franco used some aspects of fascism, but used traditional conservative authoritarianism more. Plumber ( talk) 01:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, Franco's Falange party was indisputably quite fascist. How Franco can be a member of a fascist party and not be a fascist is very perplexing.
I think that the reason it is important to get this right is because there are still a lot of apologists for Franco's regime in Spain and elsewhere, and a lot of rabidly anti-communist far right-wingers who are supportive of Franco's historical legacy. You did provide a citation, but the reasons given for Spain not being a fascist state under Franco are simply counter-factual. Franco led a revolution against a democratically elected government to transform Spanish society and impose a Falangist ideology on the whole of Spain. If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck, no?-- LTsereteli ( talk) 14:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that "fascism" has many meanings, ranging from movements and regimes self-identifying as such to simply ultra-conservatist regimes. The Falange was undoubtedly fascist, but after José Antonio Primo de Rivera died it was merged in the Falange Española Tradicionalista y de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista (later Movimiento Nacional). If Primo de Rivera jr, and not Franco, had taken power, there would be no ambiguity, but what I always learned and read was that Franco himself was not, ideologically speaking, a fascist : he was more of an arch-conservative who used the spanish fascist party for his own means while not really caring himself. His regime is, IMHO and according to all the teachings I received at school and college, best described as an authoritatian, conservative and militaristic regime with some fascist undertones. Jean-Jacques Georges ( talk) 11:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Again an editor has deleted language saying that the Spanish State was not fascist. The editor then claimed that the cited sources supported his position that it was fascist. This is incorrect. All the cited sources say either or both of the following: Franquist Spain was not fascist, Franco was not fascist. A sampling of the sources verbatim: Laqueur - “Twentieth-century didctatorships may be detestable but they are not necessarily fascist. Japan in the 1930s was not a fascist country…nor Spain under Franco.” Payne: “scarcely any of the serious historians and analysts of Franco consider the generalissimo to be a core fascist” at p. 476 and “the new regime was not so much a revolutionary fascist state as a rightist authoritarian system flavored with fascist rhetoric.” at p. 347. I am reverting to restore the language saying that the state was not fascist. Mamalujo ( talk) 21:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The edit NEVER said that Francoist Spain was Fascist. My position was not that it was fascist. The comment did, however, state that it was fascist until 1943. Should we list all the other forms of government that Francoist Spain wasn't? Should it read "Spanish state was not a fascist state, nor was it Direct democracy, nor was it Representative democracy, nor was it a Theocracy, nor was it Communist state etc."? People read an encyclopaedia article to find out what something was, not what it wasn't. If the article had been changed to stay "Spanish state was fascist" then the revert would have been justified as for much of its history, Spanish state was Francoist (a sui juris), not fascist. However, that still doesn't mean the article should say "Spanish state was not fascist", as that doesn't add any information to the article. Instead it should state what the state was "authoritarian, right-wing". Later on in the article it states are "not generally considered to be fascist" stating that it differs from fascism due to Francoism social conservatism vs fascism's social revolutionist aims. This is a more appropriate location for the "Francoism vs fascism" discussion as deeper into the article were more detail can be given to the discussion. To simply state that "Spanish state was not fascist" in the introduction does not do justice to the nuanced ideological details of the Spanish state under Franco.
In my opinion, it all depends on what you qualify as Fascism. If you want to use strictly official terms, only Musollini's regime should be considered fascist (or Nationalsyndicalist). In that case, it would be inappropriate to talk about the rise of "fascisms" in Europe and Franco's regime should be labelled as falangist (or Nationalsyndicalist aswell). Any further extension of the term "Fascism" should certainly include Franco's dictatorship.-- John Caves Goldenbear ( talk) 09:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
A statement reads "From 1954 onwards, homosexuality, pedophilia, and prostitution were criminal offenses,[37]" Why from 1954? They were criminal offenses nearly everyplace else in the world. Only sodomy is legal today. Why is this relevant to the article? Student7 ( talk) 02:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC) I completely agree with you. I think that it would be good to include your point.-- John Caves Goldenbear ( talk) 19:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I think this article portrays Franco's dictatorship in a very good light. Executions (with and without trial), tortures, depurations, disappearences, ethnical repression, state-terrorism and fear pocicies are severely downplayed. Moreover, the extreme political corruption isn't even mentioned. The social inequality and the conditions of extreme poverty of a highly significant part of the population is nearly ignored, so is the extreme militarism of the ditatorship.-- John Caves Goldenbear ( talk) 19:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Under the WWII section, it says ...Franco did send volunteer troops to fight communism joining the Axis armies on the Eastern Front against the Soviet Union.... For someone to make this statement, which I highly doubt is true, they should cite it at least. I feel that this wasnt the case, since communism wasn't a big thing during the second world war and this phrase compromises the neutrality of the article. I suggest changing the word communism into Russian Army or something in that sense. Also, there should be a comma before the word "joining". JasonDomination ( talk) 19:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Communism was "a big thing" during the Second World War. The Soviet Union was around since 1922, and much of the Nazi's rise to power can be credited to the Nazi party's anti-communist stance (along with its anti-Semitism), which allowed them to gain some support from German conservatives fearful of the communist revolution in the Weimar Republic. Furthermore, the fact that the USSR was a communist state meant that it was not friendly with the US or UK or other western powers until after Operation Barbarossa (Nazi invasion of Soviet Russia). (Furthermore, in Asia, the Chinese civil war had started before the Japanese invasion, meaning that Chinese forces were split in different factions (though, mostly during the invasion, there factions were (mostly) at a truce until after the war). As for Franco allowing people to volunteer to fight communism under the command of the Nazis, this is well documented. See the article on División Azul (Blue Division) for more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.184.48.237 ( talk) 03:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that the statement sayin that the Blue Division was sente to "fight against communism" sounds toomuch like the post-war Francoist propaganda and its attempts to hide an undeniable, objective and solid fact. The Blue Division was sent by the Spanish government to fight along the Axis in WW II. Consequently, Spain was not only not-neutral, bu also belligerent. John Caves Goldenbear ( talk) 11:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I've added some minor details to the article. However, I don't take back what I've said above. I think this article should be labelled as not-neutral (with that icon of a set of scales, you probably know what I mean). As I'm new to Wikipedia, I don't know how to do it. Thanks in advance. John Caves Goldenbear ( talk) 11:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC) My changes have been reverted due to informatical and technical problems, but I don't take back what I said. This article needs to be labelled as partial. John Caves Goldenbear ( talk) 12:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot!!! John Caves Goldenbear ( talk) 16:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
The Legacy section starts with the sentence "In Spain and abroad, the legacy of Franco remains controversial". There is severe POV concern with this sentence, and trying to justify the numerous human rights violations carried out during Franco's regime. Neo-Nazis admire Hitler, and not all of them are fringes, in this way we can continue to add this kind of structure in all articles about mass-murderers. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 17:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
WORLD WAR II
If I well remember, Franco besides sending soldiers to fight against Soviets, sent also soldiers to fight against Japan in the Philippines. Is it true? If it is the case, it should be mentioned as well. Thanks Arnaldo Mauri. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnaldo Mauri ( talk • contribs) 06:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC) I had never heard of that before and, as far as I know it isn't true. However, he is believed to have offered some aid for the Korean war in 1953. Maybe that was what you meant. Hope it helped. Regards John Caves Goldenbear ( talk) 12:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Strong consensus. Andrewa ( talk) 08:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Francoist Spain → Falangist Spain – Is the title of the Nazi Germany article "Hitlerist Germany"? 67.166.194.80 ( talk) 04:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Reading the sentence "A woman was to be loving to her parents and brothers", I can't help wondering whether the omission of "and sisters" is deliberate, or simply due to the fact that the Spanish word "hermanos" can refer to siblings of either sex ("hermanos = hermanos y hermanas, herman@s") whereas the English word "brothers" cannot - a difference the writer of this article may not have been aware of. It might be more in keeping with Franco's other misogynistic policies that women were only to be loving towards their brothers (their sisters didn't matter), but in that case why both their parents and not just their fathers? 213.127.210.95 ( talk) 18:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Francoist Spain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I find the sentence "During the Second World War, its entry into the war on the Axis side was prevented largely by British Secret Intelligence Service (MI-6) efforts that included up to $200 million in bribes for Spanish officials." in the first paragraph a little misleading. The MI6 bribes might've played a role, but surely Spain's dire economic and military situation at the time, as well as disagreements between Hitler and Franco, contributed to it in a higher degree. A more comprehensive explanation is given in Spain during World War II. I feel like it would be better to reflect a more global vision, if Franco's entry into the war is to be mentioned in the first paragraph - the whole MI6 thing seems a little anglo-centric. 87.125.111.2 ( talk) 18:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
In answer to a query above, I reckon this matter needs a new section. Not sure if Spain did actually break off diplomatic relations with Japan following the Manila massacre but they certainly toyed with the idea of doing so and contemporary press reports mention it. As usual, however, it was a typical Franco propaganda bluff (No-Do had claimed the highly unlikely number of 50 Spanish consulate staff killed) and was clearly part of a strategy to be invited to attend the San Francisco Conference. Florentino Rodao, an expert in contemporary history at Universidad Complutenese, and author ofFranco y el imperio japonés (Plaza Janés, 2002), states the following: "Cuando Japón irritó a Franco" "According to a report by the OSS, based on the declarations of a high-ranking ministry official, Spain had offered to send two division of "volunteers", led by generals Agustín Muñoz Grandes and Antonio Aranda, to the Phillipines to fight againt the Japanese." Another version refers to a División Azul Marina. In either case, MacArthur obviously wasn't interested/impressed. Hope that helps. Cheers! -- Technopat ( talk) 17:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Francisco Franco established a totalitarian military dictatorship.
According to the generally accepted definition of totalitarism, Franco's dictatorship was not totalitarian at all. This issue was settled by Yale University professor, sociologist and political scientist Juan José Linz in his well known work Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes, Rienner, 2000.
See also Authoritarianism
May I therefore reword that sentence in this way?: Francisco Franco established an authoritarian military dictatorship. -- 46.27.119.30 ( talk) 10:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Fully agree-- Havsjö ( talk) 15:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Labelling Francoism a "constitutional monarchy", is frankly, bluntly speaking, oxymoronic. The notion of 1947 (in terms of form of "government" as the infobox implies) being a breaking point is also somewhat dubious (the notion of being "totalitarian" before 1947 and "not totalitarian" after 1947 doubtlessly looks like the opinion of some Wikipedia user). It certainly brought no "constitution", ffs! For the rest of descriptors other than dictatorship, while not all of them being exactly oxymoronic, they are haphazard, and condensing them in the infobox in two or three words is not an improvement (not the least the "Francoist regime" being a "Francoist regime", a rather circular statement if you ask me particularly as the Francoist regime does not seem to have developed into a class either). For an actual up-to date commentary on the elusive characterization of the dictatorship by commentators, see Gil Pecharromán (2019) [16].--Asqueladd ( talk) 15:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
“Francoist Spain ... is the period of Spanish history” – this is how this article begins and it sounds rather absurd to me. A period is an interval of time, not a state. Examples of WP entries which can be defined as intervals of time are e.g. “ Triassic”, “ Roaring Twenties” or “ Age of Sail”. “Francoist Spain” does not seem to be in the same category to me.
Admittedly, WP has a problem with non-official state names serving also as titles of articles. There is little consistency, and various perspectives are followed.
1. name (or similar)
2. state
3. government
4. regime
5. time interval
6. no definition or tautological definition
Perhaps some board of WP pundits might fancy settling the issue once and for all and issue an appropriate policy. Until this happens, I would humbly suggest we no longer claim that “a state is a period” and settle for something slightly more sensible. I like the first option of these listed above, especially that it captures the “common/unofficial” ingredient, end hence my edit. regards, -- 89.76.22.216 ( talk) 18:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Why not mention on the infobox that Spain was de jure a monarchy from 1947 under a personalit totalitarian dictatorship, like Fascist Italy? The infobox does not describe Spain's government, but situtation. VevekVek ( talk) 04:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
If anything, Spain 1947-1975 was more like Hungary 1920-1944/46, in that it was a monarchy, but one without a monarch, rather than Italy under Mussolini.
And surely 'Kingdom' is just one type of monarchy, along with 'principality' (eg Monaco, Liechtenstein, Andorra), 'Grand Duchy' (Luxembourg) or 'Empire' (Japan). Just referring to the title of the monarch. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 00:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The following section is currently in the article:
The consistent points in Francoism included above all authoritarianism,[citation needed] Anti-Communism,[citation needed] Spanish nationalism,[citation needed] national Catholicism,[citation needed] monarchism,[citation needed] militarism,[citation needed] national conservatism,[citation needed] anti-Masonry,[citation needed] anti-Catalanism,[citation needed] pan-Hispanism[citation needed] and anti-liberalism[citation needed]—some authors also include integralism.[27][28]
Is the high amount of the "citation needed" tag really necessary? It disrupts reading the article. I understand all these things need verification but maybe one tag at the end would be better. Heyoostorm ( talk) 19:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
"Pan-Hispanism"Lol, someone wanted things that sound nice or something..--Asqueladd ( talk) 04:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi @ Asqueladd:
Could you further explain for us all why you introduced an awkward tag in the first sentence ? Your summary was quite strange.
If you doubt the status of the name, the Fundamental Laws of the Realm confirm that the country was legally called Estado español [18], Spanish State. Otherwise it is mentionned as Estado nacional, National State or simply Estado, State [19]. The word officially seems accurate for me.
Best regards, CocoricoPolynesien ( talk) 15:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello Beyond My Ken, could you please explain to me how "Francoist Spain" can refer to a historical period? I find it really strange to define "Spain" as an interval of time and not a country. It does make sense to say that something happened during the Francoist Dictatorship, but how does it make sense to say "during the Francoist Spain"? While connected, those terms do not refer to the same thing. To me it seems clear that Francoist Spain describes Spain -the country- during a specific historical period and not the period itself. Even the article itself links to List of people executed by Francoist Spain, treating Francoist Spain as a country (how could a period execute anyone?). Oqwert ( talk) 04:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)