Talk:Francisco Franco/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Franco during ww2?

Spain during ww2? Connections with hitler? I wish i knew more of this to write about.. all i know is that hitler once came to visit franco in spain, where franco arranged it so that hitler had to wait two hours on the train station, later franco asked what will you do if you loose the war or start to loose, hitler replied i whould rather have all my teeth pulled out than that to happen. and that it probably was neutral? spain. but franco did supply axis with arms didnt he? Foant Why didnt spain enter the war to help turn the tide. What would have happened if they did. Why was Franco having a meeting with Hitler. Its obvious that they might have turn the tide faster to end the war. Spain should have went to war because Russia did the same. The made a treaty and the Germans broke that treaty, not just the Germans but Hitler. The reason that the Germans didnt attack Spain was because of the following: Stalingard was won by the Russians and Germany lost their position and figured they wouldnt be able to do battle with Spain as well, also that America entered the war and would have to set up a defence. Joshua Deleon 613mainstreet Cromwell CT

Afaik, hitler didn't have to wait that long for franco when the hendaya interview, probably franco arrived at the station as many as twenty minutes after hitler, take into account that the spanish convoy departed from San Sebastián, which is half an hour's journey time.

Franco decided to not join WW2 on the axis side because despite help from the Germans and Italians during the Civil War he felt that the country was not yet prepared. He did, however, offer to send a volunteer troop, La División Azul, (translated as Blue Division) to help fight the Russians.

What would've happened had he joined? Most probably the Axis powers would've still lost and Spain would've been invaded too. That could've lead to Franco's exile or destitution and reconstruction of Spain, POSSIBLY accelerating the onset of democracy in Spain. Ah, and Franco was officially neutral, though he did change the posture to "non-belligerent".

Germany, Austria and Italy lost some land after WWII so if Spain had joined the war then they too would have lost some land possibly to France. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.79.70.90 (talk • contribs) 8 July 2006.

What Hitler said is " I prefer to take out four of my teeth but not to see Franco again". Teutons and Galicians dont mix very well —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kim FOR sure (talk • contribs) 26 July 2006.

Consider that if Germany had access to Spanish territory, Gibraltar would have been German territory in weeks. That said, Germany would have had complete control of the Mediterranean, which means that Allied forces would not have been able to prevent fuel shipments to Rommel in Africa. And without Africa, Allied forces had no ground from which to invade Europe: Normandy was only possible after Axis forces were weakend in Italy. Also, the intention of sending the Blue Division to the Russian Front was to kill communists and not so much to aid Nazis. Also, another reason Hitler didn't invade Spain is because Spain itself would have required a significant allocation of men and resources. Also Franco told Hitler that the Spanish people would continue fighting and would not stop even after the army surrendered.

See Spain in World War II --Error 23:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Another Franco & Hitler connection? see Bombing of Guernica --Amontero 06:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Officially sanctioned kleptomania?

I would very much like to see a serious reference to this fact (I quote): "... who would later in life become known in Spain for her officially sanctioned kleptomania...". Because I very much doubt that there are records of it being "officially sanctioned." (though I have heard also the rumor as being general knowledge - and of her nickname). In the absence of such referrences, such sentence should be removed. Cheers.--Anagnorisis 00:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

A rather long critique to the article

Everybody knows how difficult is, even 30 years after his death, to make an objective assessment of Franco's figure, but i didn't expected an article of such a low quality. Too much gossip, tonge in cheek chatter and statements of intention in the main body Below i'll point in detail my critiques in order to better the article --Wllacer 16:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Naming Conventions

Franco's full name is given with four family names (Franco /Bahamonde /Salgado /Pardo de Andrade). FWIK it's not an unusual form in Galicia, but the general usage in Spain is only to use the first two. And the third name is in error, should be Salgado-Araujo

Franco's wife and daugther full names are given also in a, for a spaniard, weird form <personal name> <first family name> <second family name> de <husband's family name>. Attaching the husband's name to a woman in Spain was never a legal form and only used as as courtesy "short hand" and, at most, with the first surname. IIRC, and for this family, if used with Franco's surname the "Señora" (Franco's wife) was always called 'Carmen Polo de Franco'. I have no recollections of "Carmencita" (the daugther) ever addressed in the press as "de Martinez-Bordiu" (usually it was "Marquise of Villaverde") specially after Carmen Martinez-Bordiu Franco (the granddaughter) was born.

The kleptomania statement

I agree with a previous contributor that this statement should be erased. First because i think, as i have stated elsewhere gossip shouldn't come into the main body of a wikipedia article, and second because of the "officially sanctioned..." part, which borders libel.

FWIW, and for the sake of non spaniards or too young people, the story with "Doña Carmen" went this way. She was very fond of jewerly -specially pearls- and used to go shopping (specially in San Sebastian). As she never had money with her, she told the jeweller to send the bill to "El Pardo" (the official home of the Franco's) It seems that noone ever dared to do it ;-). It might be true (probably) or an urban legend, and the motivation of all involved might be discussed, but to elevate it to "her officially sanctioned kleptomania" ...

Hence, she was nicknamed La Collares. --Error 01:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

In this regard, one of the most surprising facts of Franco's dictatorship (especially due to his long tenure, and widespread corruption in the system) is that it seems he himself didn't build a (sizable) personal fortune. It even seems, IIRC, that he curbed more than once his son-in-law (which had a very dark reputation).

From the recent Arte documentary, Oliveira Salazar was more austere. --Error 01:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The story about the Carmen Franco's deep attachment to jewellery and antiques is common parlance. Another story (remembered from Preston's biography, perhaps?) was that only her dentist dared to submit his bill to El Pardo, which was duly paid, but he had to endure later a visit of the Spanish Inland Revenue Inspectors. Also, it is link to the rumoured unofficial agreement between Madrid and Oviedo jewellers to collaborate on covering their losses after a visit by "la Senora."

Regarding corruption, he might not have been personally that corrupted, but his family was and he never had any trouble on helping to hush their profitable deals. An explanation for that desinterest could be that he had absolute control over Spain's resources, meaning that the whole country could it be considered his kitty. Asturs 14:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Early years

The first paragraph is full of statements of intention which should be cleaned. It's well known that Franco's family was (to be mild) a disaster, but again, i don't get why it should be noted for no reason. Admision into the Navy Academy was closed from 1906 to 1913 [1], which is not clear from the context. Thus the comment about his short stature is off place.

Franco entered the Infantry Academy in 1907

Franco has an older brother Nicolás (1891/1977), navy engineer and officer, latter diplomat [stupidly blacklisted link http://www DOT guerracivil1936 DOT galeon DOT com SLASH bionac2 DOT htm]. and a sister Pilar

I write down that this Nicolás was the ambassador (1938 - 1957) to Salazarist Portugal --Error 01:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The following paragraphs about the first part of his military career should be cleaned upon stile.

About "el Biutz" incident, there is one thing that should be explained. Franco was denied the "Laureada" and given instead the "Cruz de Maria Cristina" (the actual "Cruz de Guerra con Palmas") and the advance to major (comandante). The "Laureada" is given only after a contradictory judgement and has severe requeriments (not unequal the Victoria Cross or the Medal of Honor), if they are not fullfiled, but there are merits, the second decoration is awarded.

From a military POV, the article should mention that he earned the "Medalla Militar Individual" (the second most important decoration in Spain) for the rescue of Melilla in 1921, and once again in 1927. Franco only won the "Laureada" as Commander in Chief, after the Civil War. The wound at "el Biutz" built part of Franco's myth. On one side, for the moorish soldiers, his survival gave him the status of a man of "Baraka" (good luck), and gave ground to much disingenius gossip years afterward.

I don't know if it should be included, but Franco's best man (padrino) at his wedding was the King Alfonso XIII. This and other shows of royal favor upon him, marked Franco's image during the II republic as a monarchical officer, more than his own behaviour.

Rise to Power

I'd delete the statement about "the cadets where taught ...". It might be factually inacurate

Franco's position at the coming of the II Republic, seem to have been the same of the majority of the military: wait and see. But it's also clear that the relationship between Azaña (then Defense Minister) and him deteriorated fast, coming to a total clash after Franco's last speech to the cadets of the Academy [2]. Franco was then left without command for eight months, till his appointment to Coruña. The subsequent appointment to Baleares was a little strange as it was a place for a two stars general while he only was a brigadier.

The statement about the seniority means, that due to revisions to the promotions by merits granted in the 20's Franco was placed, after January 1933, from the 1 place of the brigadiers to the 24th

Anyhow, Franco didn't participate in the "strange" Sanjurjo coup in 1932, and it seems that by then he was opposed to political adventures.

Upon the Asturias Uprising (October 1934 revolution), Franco, then assesor to the Minister, was made by the government acting Chief of Staff, and thus directed the operations from Madrid, with general Lopez Ochoa as commander on the field. The statement "employed the same tactics that had been used against the tribesmen in Morocco, tactics that saved Spain again", ought to be changed. It was irregular warfare/police operation against a very determined, and not badly armed, enemy, and it's true that the main force of operation was constituted by the Legion (I can't recall if there were also "regulares") and in this sense there must be a similarity. But the statement sounds politically laden.

Franco was only made Chief of Staff some months later, in between he commanded the spanish forces in Africa.

Although it belongs more properly into the civil war article, i think it should be worth to point into this article the management of the crossing of the african forces into the mainland (July-August 1936), a Franco's personal achievement, as it was the movement which converted a failed coup into a full blown civil war.

Spain under Franco

Some notices about German/Spanish relationships during WWII (from the german point of view) can be found at [3] I got the link from the German De:Franquismus article, which I recommend to everybody who can read german. The Hendaya rendevouz has been recounted by, at least, both translators (the german and the spaniard). If somebody is interested I'll try to pick up the references

The members of the "Division Azul" were volunteers. The only hook was that if a commanding officer decided to march into, it was very difficult for the people under his command (at least the profesionals) not to join, in order not to "lose face". As an anecdote, I was told by my father (then a "complement" leutenant ) that in 1950 it was rumored that Franco would send another Division to Corea, and that everybody was praying his superior officer would not join ... On a more serious note, the Carlist rejected (as a group) to join the Division. even their hate to Communism, didn't allowed them to join "pagan" nazis

Wasn't Carlos Saura or some other leftist filmmaker a "volunteer" that tried to clean a leftist past?

For sure not Carlos Saura (he was born in 1932). See [4]. Problably Berlanga is one such case (his father was a republican deputy). In any case, there has been a lot of "whitewashing" of biographies lately, so the explanations of known people why they joined the "Division" have to be taken "cum grano salis". See for instance in [5] the conversation between Jose Luís López Aranguren and Jose Luís Pinillos--Wllacer 09:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I read recently that Franco sent a discreet team of military doctors to the Vietnam War. Apparently the Vietcong respected their professional treatment of any combatant.

--Error 01:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The grade of Captain General (four stars general), is not a royal prerrogative, but since the late XIX century, was a very rare honorific degree. (usually conferred upon retirement). During our actual monarchy (and some years back) no active official has held this grade but the King. A four stars general grade (NATO compatible) has been created recently, but the grade of Captain General has been rised to a five stars one.

As somebody else pointed prior, the "Guardia Civil" is the pervasive rural policy (in cities and big towns the uniformed police was the "Policia Armada") and exists since 1845. During Franco's regime it proved very effective in quelling the focus of "guerrilla" activities called "maquis" and a general mean of control of the population. You'll be surprised how much, even today, a rural "guardia civil" knows his environment. I think the statement about it, although well into the popular imagination, doesn't fit into the article.

The same about Franco's fancy for reservoirs, and the endless jokes even kids made back in the 60's. I laughed reading it in the article, but does it belong here ?

Popular impressions should be noted (bracketed with their reliability) in an encyclopedia. It would be like not mentioning Pepe Botella in Joseph Bonaparte or idus martii in Julius Caesar.

--Error 01:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Point for you. Maybe a special section could be added with, for instance, his fondness for hunting and fishing, and even the "Collares" affair (with a different redaction). I have though a problem, contemporaneous perception about Franco varied with time. As I was a teenager when Franco died, so my recallings are limited to his late image, and due to the political environment now in Spain, recent information about Franco is too biased to be worth--Wllacer 09:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

¿Sources for the "bajonetes and blood" quote? Unless it's from the early 40's

As of today (23 of November 2005) a new status of the Valle de los Caidos is still undecided. As almost everything else, who and under which conditions the Valle was built is still under controversy

Other comments

One warning about the link related to the execution of Franco's cousin. (I didn't knew of this particular detail) [6] I have only checked it cursorly, but I have found one reference to the "Orgiva fosse", where presumabily some 2500/5000 victims of Franco's represion where interred, which misses a particular detail. It was found the 30 of August of 2003. Two days later the Forensic Departament of the university of Granada stated that the remains were from animals [7]. This fact is even difficult to ascertain via Google (only a few of the more than 300 references found made it explicit). I point to it just to warn (especially to non spaniards) that ALL sources related to Franco and his regime should be carefully doble-checked

Suggested biblography

For the english reader i'll suggest both Preston's "Franco: a biography" or S.G.Payne's "The Phoenix.Franco Regime". Both historians hold very different views, so it is worth to balance. If I can add a personal comment, i view with extreme caution Preston's thesis of Franco as a case of extreme and prolonged serenpidity.

For a short introduction (in spanish) of different historian's view see [8]

Good points above

I think user Wllacer makes some very good and valid comments. Perhaps he (?) or someone else with real good knowledge (not me) can carry on the suggestions he makes. I can only make a couple or two (the things I know about). --Anagnorisis 18:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Invasion of Portugal

As a note in case somebody writes on Pan-Iberism and Portuguese-Spanish relations: according to the Arte documentary of 26 November, Franco's graduation thesis (at Toledo?) was a plan to conquest Portugal in twenty-something days. --Error 01:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Strange, did they gave any reference?

I'm in the dark regarding educational plans in 1910 at the Toledo Infantry Academy, but this kind of theoretical plans look more appropiate for a Estado Mayor (General Staff) school, not for the education of an Infantry Lieutenant. Up to the 30's at least, Estado Mayor was a separate branch, you could transfer beeing a Captain. AFAIK Franco never did (It's easy to check for Spanish EM Officials, they wear a 5 pointed star above/instead the branch insignia in the collar). One of the reasons behind the creation of the unified Academy at Zaragoza was to better the theoretical education of the cadets, found by then deseseperately lacking.

In 20 something days? Before mechanized war (WWII) that sounds impossible. And spanish military experiencie regarding Portugal does not make it any more plausible. If this history is true, Franco and/or their examiners were "under influence" ;-)

Another strange thing is, that except for Doctor's degree, in Spain, educational curricula were traditionally closed with an exam, nor a thesis,

Anyway, just in 1910, monarchy was overthrown in Portugal, so it would be normal for any neighbour to prepare plans "just in case". --Wllacer 08:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh. I don't remember references. Anyway the documentary was (the Spanish dubbing of) Franco et Salazar : Voisins et complices. The bibliography is all about the Portuguese aspects.

--Error 23:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks for the link. Portugal is one of this things i always wants to know more. Franco's "thesis" is just minutiae, but if true would give an interesting glimse at how spanish military was educated by then. Btw., and on our subject, I found a reference in Franco's bio at [[9]] that he tried to enter the General Staff school (la Escuela de Guerra), but hw was rejected because he already had been made a Major --Wllacer 11:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I mentioned it as an illustrative example of one of the Spanish attitudes about Portugal. --Error 01:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Evolution

Another bit from the documentary is that, around the entry of the technocrats, Franco takes a more hands-off attitude. He hunts, fishes and enjoys life. He later allows a prime minister. From Caudillo of the Spaniards, he becomes a grandfather of the Spaniards (or similar words). (I however contrasted this with the continuation of his signing of death sentences, which means involvement in the ruling of the country.) --Error 01:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, this attitude has perhaps more to do with the Propaganda image that with real behaviours. In the early 60's, when Spanish economy started to boom, and coinciding with the 25th aniversary of the end of the war, presenting Franco as the "Nation's old Grandpa" was fitting, and really caught on. But as the Matesa affair and the final play in the naming of the future king showed, in 1969 he still hold the helm firmly, despite the clear signs of age and Parkinson's disease

At least from 1962 (the execution of Julian Grimau till 1974, the number of executions be because of political/terrorist cases was very rare (I'm not sure, but I can't recall any). In 1970, in the Burgos process, no less than 6 death penalties on ETA activists where given, but all had them commuted. But in 1974, two anarchists (Puig Antich and a german called Heinz, IIRC) were executed, and in 1975 came the execution of three FRAP and two ETA terrorists. So they were exceptional in a sense. Franco had to sign the enterado before the executions, but at least in the last case, a couple of months before his death, I doubt it very much he was even half aware (is not "whitewashing", simply i have experience with advanced Parkinson, and i DO remember Franco's last public appearance).

Things had changed a lot in those five years. Franco was now severelly ill (and probably incapable most of the time). The planed path of succesion was in disarray (due to the deaths of Luis Carrero Blanco and Fernando Herrero-Tejedor). And for the first time since the 50's, the regime faced serious threats (the emergence of terrorism, capable of killing a prime minister) and the Carnation Revolution in Portugal. And what is no less important, the government led by Carlos Arias Navarro -a hardliner-lacked sustantive support even inside the "movimiento".

The separate post of of the Government (prime minister) was only recreated on 1967, and Luis Carrero Blanco President was promoted to this post only in 1973 --Wllacer 09:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

About the awareness, his doctors and surrounders have been saying these days that some of the factors that made Franco's last months tougher were the Green March and the international backlash over the executions, especially that from the Pope (Paul VII?). --Error 02:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Pope Paul VI. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

For sure the Green March didn't. It was orchestrated, in a bold and magistral move, by Hassan II(another man of baraka) when Franco was already in his deathbed. Pope Paul VI relations with the Franco regime were difficult if not plain bad from much earlier. I have few exact data why, but already before 1970 the pope was considered a fiend of Spain (i.e. the regime. BTW. I just got hold of Franco's phisician book about his last months. I don't expect him showing Franco incapacitated, but i'll try to read it and report my findings --Wllacer 02:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree again. Franco said at least once that without Africa and the moroccan conflict, he barely would understand himself. His attachment to the colonial territories could have been sentimental but nevertheless was there. I would imagine that the same rung true for most of the Spanish Army top ranks, even if they were retired or near retirement by 1974/5. The conflict over the Sahara started around 1971 but only deepened after 1974. Historia 16 published almost 20 years ago an article by an army officer and historia, which put forward the thesis that the conflict deepned by 75 because Santa Cruz, the Spanish Foreign Office, was frightened by the international repercusion into complete inaction - the Army, on the other hand was ready stop the March and to invade Morocco if necessary, which ran against the USA sentiments.

As the book by his last doctor, Vicente Palacio?, makes clear, he was incapacitated to rule but he was aware of all the things going on around him. It was a medical miracle that he survived for so long after the last public demostration at Madrid's Royal Palace Square.

Regarding Paulo VI's hostility towards Francoism. Cardinal Giovanni Montini developed most of his career at the Vatican's Segretaria di Stato. He distinguished early on for his mischievings about the regime, I think on the same grounds as Cardinal Vidal i Barraquer, which were the corrupted, violent and vindictive nature of Francoism and the unwise attitude of Spanish Catholicism of tying its future to such regime. What is more, later as Cardinal Archbishop of Milan, wrote a letter in favour of sparing the life of Julian Grimau. Montini was the least favourite candidate of the Spanish Gouverment to the Vatican throne. I think that XX Siglos, a journal published by Comillas has a issue where it deals with this subject. Asturs 14:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Asturias Uprising and anarchism

User:Jmabel has put a reference to spanish anarchism regarding the October 1934 revolution. I have to check my sources, but IIRC, one of the reasons why it failed so miserably (except in Asturias) was the lack of support from the CNT (the spanish anarchist union). And I don't know by hand how the relative strenght of socialst and anarchist unions where in Asturias, or the later's degree of integration during the revolt. ¿Anyone can provide more data? BTW. I think a separate article on the topic would be worth (taking the spanish one for a start) --Wllacer 09:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Separate article on which topic? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• I'm pretty certain that the Asturian miners were rather predominantly anarchist, but I don't have citation at hand. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. the article should deal with the October 1934 revolution in Spain aka Asturias Uprising --Wllacer 21:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. All we have so far that I'm aware of is Anarchism in Spain#Asturias. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, I disagree with your statement; I think that the asturian miners were affiliated mainly to the socialist SOMA. Mind you, it is possible that Gijon was an anarchist strong point. Anyway, I would suggest Adrian Schubert's PhD thesis published under the title "The Road to Revolution in Spain: The Coal Miners of Asturias, 1860-1934" (Asturs 14:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC))

Not something on which I am expert. Does someone have something citable? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for Help

Following my plan to rehaul the article, i've arrived to the worst part of it, to deal with the repression during and after the civil war. My idea is to ponder repression on both sides and somehow reflect it on the article. I confess it's a much disgusting task (the difference of meanness on both sides was just of a matter of degree, time and style). The numbers vary so wildly (from 30.000 to 70.000 killed by republicans, from 60.000 to 150.000 killed by the nationals, of which about 20.000 to 80.000 were executions after the war, ...) that it's really difficult to trust anything. I know i should read at least Santos Julia's book (Victimas de la guerra civil) and Martin Rubio's (Los mitos de la Represion..) but i'm not in the correct mood ...

I got an online source [10], but, for many reasons (some of them evident) it shows a honest but clear bias. Despite of this, and for reasons not related to wikipedia, I've tried to make some sense of the data [11], and i have ended even with more doubts.

Can anyone of you provide me with new series of data? Or at least a, as little biased if possible, resume ?. Thanks in advance.--Wllacer 17:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverted changes

1. User:Earvaldes. Contri belongs to other articles. Anyhow, primary education level of history. FYI. Is mostly certain that the International Brigades where a Komintern affair, not a Hollywood lefties'. To their honor, the ONLY party of the Popular Front, which at a given time tried to curb the religious persecution was the Communist Party (it was only in 1938, and caused by tactical reasons, but nevertheless) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wllacer (talk • contribs) 16 Dec 2005.

well, that is nice but where do u leave a Manuel de Irujo, Basque MP, PNV member and Republican junior minister (ministro sin cartera) who was in charge of Religious Affairs? According to Hilari Raguer, Helen Graham and other authors, many republican, including Dr. Juan Negrin, tried to normalise the situation with the Catholic Church and reopen the churchs on the Republic's controlled areas to public cult as soon as was possible. The Vatican was opposed to this reopening; I imagining that not only on safety grounds but also to not afford a much needed help to a secularising regime. Asturs 15:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, PNV was never in the Spanish Popular Front. --Error 23:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I can sadly devote now very few time to Wikipedia, but ... In general the religious persecution during the Civil War, is by many parameters, the area best studied of "behind the lines" violence, if only because the potential status of "martyrs of the Faith" of the victims. And Asturs comments are basically untenable (to be mild). Only a couple of short comments: The position of Irujo was more than unconfortable, and that is well known. The "normalization attempt" is around mid 1938 (two years into the war), and on instance of the Soviet Embassy.

In my original comment i forgot the PNV, a then catholic integrist party, which obviously avoided most religious persecution in the area under its control, and saw some 20 priests, -militants of the party- executed by the Nationalists. And Error is right ;-) The PNV was not a member of the Popular Front, and only after their decision not to join the Nationalist side (after the 18 July) collaborated (in a way) with them--Wllacer 03:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

"Maquis" and Val D'Aran

The [Val D'Aran] invasion during fall 1944 is exceptional in the "maquis" phenomenon. The PCE thought they could create there a liberated area profiting of its islolation and the international situation, so they sent a column 3-6.000 man strong. They were wiped out, in a short military operation. AFAIK there were no further operations there.

The maquis operated mainly - as usual in Spain with guerrilla- in mountain areas, in the form of small partidas. The Teruel and Asturias foci are well known, and operated up tho 1950. (see, for instance [12], or [13]) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wllacer (talk • contribs) 22 Dec 2005.

Death date

This recent edit changes death date without citation. Does someone have a solid citation on death date? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

El certificado de defunción, cuyo original entregó el Doctor Vicente Pozuelo Escudero al ministro de Justicia, notario mayor del Reino, para ser incluido en el Acta, lo firmo el Doctor alrededor de las seis de la madruga. Is this enough? --Error 02:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

That makes it clear that he was dead by 06:00 on the 20th, but doesn't really guarantee that he was still alive six hours earlier. The reproduction is really illegible; do you know if it states a time of death? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The actual certificate: From what I can decypher out of the physician's writing:

[...]Certifico la defunción del Excmo. Sr. [two letters]. Francisco Franco Bahamonde, Jefe de Estado que ocurrió a las cinco veinti[mumble] horas del veinte de noviembre de mil novecientos setenta y cinco en la Residencia de la Paz, Seguridad Social[...]

--Error 19:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

That should settle it! Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

SNL, etc.

5 January 2006 - removed vandalism 159.53.78.141 16:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the line "His death became a running gag on "Saturday Night Live." Chevy Chase would begin the "Weekend Update" segment by saying "This just in . . . General Francisco Franco is still dead." I have no doubt that it can be considered as trivia, but i would support to contextualize and keep it. Another wkp member was asking how Franco's dead was perceived then; well, this joke is part of the answer; the fact that the passing of an elderly, "friendly" dictator made it into SNL, an american show, together with other facts such as Michel Foucault choosing to articulate part of his final series of Lectures @ the College de France on the lenghty agony of Franco and its regime attempts to self-perpetuate, and that a late 1990s' Swede film, "Together," chooses the news of Franco;s death as the opening the movie, means that it was seen then as an epochal moment; the passing away of Europe's last Fascist dictatorship. Asturs 15:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, bringing these together & contextualizing would give it context and make it worth describing. The SNL thing without that context comes off as trivia. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

IMO the "Saturday Night Live" reference is relevant and not trivial. 1975 was a long time ago, and the first thing I remember about SNL is the running Franco gag. I believe the reference to be culturally significant. Joeylawn 23:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I put it back in there, with context. - Jmabel | Talk 03:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Was Nixon really this stupid?

Did Nixon really say this? [Blacklisted link http://snltranscripts DOT jt DOT org/75/75fupdate.phtml]

Sounds like roughly what he said at the time, but since this is from the transcript of a fake newscast on a satiric program, they would have equally happily used a real quotation or made one up. - Jmabel | Talk 17:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It is likely that he gave Franco praise, mainly because Spain/Franco was a staunch Cold-War ally to the USA, in spite of the internal repression of the Franco regime. The USA did tend to 'look the other way' on such matters, as long as they were anti-Communist. This, right or wrong, was typical of the era. Joeylawn 00:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Umm, no. STupid people are ones that support pinko's like some who discuss things on wikipedia yankeeroman(24.75.194.50 17:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC))

So what if he praised Franco. There are many dictators today like Castro who is praised by leaders like the current Spanish leader. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.79.70.90 (talk • contribs) 8 July 2006.

Well, nice to see that the intellectuals have dropped by to join the debate. It would be nice if comments related to the issues of the articles, rather than emphasising a particularly partisan POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.76.5.89 (talk • contribs) 13 November 2006.

Removed paragraph from User:195.93.21.102

A great general he was not. As a junior officer in Morocco, he had acquired a name for bravery and resourcefulness. And later as Head of State, he survived for an incredible thirty-six years through a gift for secrecy and guile that might be called soldierlike. But as a commanding general in wartime, he was notably plodding and unimaginative, almost asking to be wrong-footed by a more nimble tactician on the other side. Yet none was forthcoming.

For the regular army had been in a hopeless state for years, a top-heavy gaggle with hardly a battalion fit for action. In fact, it had become little more than a dining club for suave socialites who looked good in uniform (‘drawing-room officers’), much in the style of the charming but ineffectual King Alfonso.

It's too POV and unreferenced and was badly placed. --Error 02:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

bad link to wikisource

in the section Spain under Franco, there are some links to wikisource. One is to the spanish document, Condecoraciones otorgadas por Francisco Franco a Benito Mussolini y a Adolf Hitler. this link for me, directs to the en.wikisource where the document does not exist. I dont know how to link to another language, so... I may look into it, but maybe somebody that knows how wants to fix it

Jews

"During the war Franco's Spain also proved to be a safe haven for 350,000[citation needed] European Jews fleeing deportation from occupied France to concentration camps." I sincerely doubt this, and think [citation needed] is putting it mildly. This is off by about a factor of 30 from the highest numbers I've ever seen for this. If no one has a citable number, I intend to replace this with "several thousand". - Jmabel | Talk 17:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I have changed it. From the Arte Agustín Remesal documentary I saw, I remember that the idea was that the Jews passed through Spain "leaving no trace". I think there was even a maximum number of Jews in transit. --Error 00:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't provide exact numbers but the last i heard (from a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem at a conference at my elder daughter's highschool early this winter) it was on the order of tens of thousands. The line is also in factual error. Most of the jews saved with a spanish passport were East European jews, not french, and very few indeed even travelled to Spain. What Franco really did, was twofold. He let his diplomatic service make use of a Primo de Rivera's law, which granted spanish cityzenship to all sepharaditic jews (i'll search for it), and succesfully moved the Germans to recognize the passports thus issued. Many diplomats, with tacit consent of Madrid, extended this -mainly after 1943- to all jews. The case of the spanish consuls at Budapest (who is said to have issued IIRC at least 6000 such passes) and Viena are well publisized.

The same law was used at least once more: after 1967, when moroccan jews were expelled after the "six day's war"

It's possible that the overland route (thru Spain into Portugal and elsewhere) was used also by many, but, at least until 1942, it was not considered "safe", nor where uniform policies applied.

Franco's regime attitude regarding the jews is at first approach inconsistent. Propaganda never gave up an antisemitic stance, and Franco (alone in West Europa) never recognized Israel and held and open pro-arab attitude; but on the other side, seems to have been sincere in his dissaproval of Nazi policy, and for the first time since 1492, during Franco's time a small jewish community could flourish again in Spain with no remarkable difficulties.--Wllacer 09:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

A couple of references to my former comment. The legal prextext for issuing spanish passports to sefaraditic jews is a decree of December, 20 1924[14].

We could make an article of the decree. --Error 01:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

A Decreto ley from December, 29 1948[15] was used to save the jewish egyptian colony after the first israely-arab war. My source about moroccan jews are personal communication from some of them. For a good first approach to the spanish charge d'affairs in Budapest see [16]

In the Remesal report, Shlomo Ben Ami himself remembered being custodied as a child by the Spanish Legion from Tangiers (?) to the Spanish port where a Israeli ship aliyaed them.

The right article for this kind of information is History of the Jews in Spain#Modern_times_.281858-.29. There are mentions of Ángel Sanz Briz and Giorgio Perlasca.

From memory, I remember an old Sephardi from Sarajevo with his startled family, being rescued from the Bosnian War to Spain by those decrees.

--Error 01:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The basic bibliographical reference to the behaviour of Franco's regime towards Jews during WWII is Federico Ysart's España y los judíos en la Segunda Guerra. Mundial (Barcelona, 1973) ISBN 84-7235-083-5. But as the publisher is long out of business it should be hard to find. AFAIK Shlomo Ben Ami has also published some works which incidentally touch this matter--Wllacer 23:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

División Azul

Jmabel removed the "against the comunism" bit from the División Azul sentence with "English grammar and usage; " against communism" for División Azul is editorializing, "on the Axis side" is objective)". I think that "against communism" is decisive. The volunteers were not fighting for Hitler, the Axis or Germany. They were fighting against Communism and the Soviet Union. The Wehrmacht just provided the opportunity.--Error 00:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, my understanding is that Franco's motivation was more anti-comunist than pro-NAZI --Woolhiser 03:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever his intent, these troops were put at the disposal of the Nazis. I don't imagine the Nazis scrupled to make sure that the División Azul was put into combat only against appropriately Red forces. - Jmabel | Talk 05:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This time you're wrong. The Division Azul (aka German 250 Inf. Div) was created solely on the purpose to fight in the Russian Front (the "return of the visit" as was called then), and this was explicitly and formally notified to all warring parties. Whatever Franco's original intents on the war, by 1942 he would not risk an open breach with the western powers. The division was manned and commanded (up and including the division general) exclusively by spanish nationals, with clear orders about their task. So it would had been not easy to make them fight elsewere.

Even the remaining volunteers after the withdrawal of the division only fought against soviet troops. --Wllacer 14:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. If that's the case, let us make it explicit in the article. I presume you have citation. - Jmabel | Talk 04:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"Generalísimo", not "Generalissimo"

I have minor-edited some occurrences of a misspelling of Franco's title ("generalissimo" isn't even spanish, the correct title being "Generalísimo"). I've left unchanged the wrong spelling when it's in the context of the "generalissimo is still dead" joke, as it seems to me that "generalissimo" is probably a common misspelling in english, and was probably used by the original joke. If somebody knows better, these "generalissimos" could also be corrected, or a "[sic]" added if the misspelling of the original joke is confirmed. - Algamarga 16:59, 13 May 2006 (CEST)

It's not a "misspelling", it's an Italian spelling, which somehow found its way into English as the most common, probably because the most common borrowed words with this ending in English are "fortissimo" and "pianissimo". - Jmabel | Talk 05:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The Spanish Legion

In this paragraph "That last year, Lieutenant Colonel José Millán Astray, a histrionic but charismatic officer, founded the Legión Extranjera, along similar lines to the French Foreign Legion." is mentioned the "Legion Extranjera" as the armed unit in Africa's spanish colonies similiar to the French Foreing Legion, however Legion Extranjera is the spanish translation for Foreing Legion, the correct name for this unit was only (and remains) LA LEGION or The Legion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skull13 (talk • contribs) 16 May 2006. (Foreing ==> Foreign)

What about Tercio de Extranjeros? --Error 22:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Franco & Frango

Can anyone explain to me the relevance of this piece of trivia? It is not even true, because by 1933 Francisco Franco's name was not known outside Spain. Could the person who inserted it on the entry to double check it, please? Otherwise, I will delete it within the next week. --Asturs 21:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I had heard this story, too, with different, more plausible dates and details, but now I think it's wrong. (Our article on Frederick & Nelson says they were Frangos from the outset and HistoryLink.org, usually a very good source on Seattle history concurs [17].) The mints were initially from Frederick and Nelson Company, a Seattle-based department store, which Marshall Fields bought in 1929 (not the best year to buy a department store). I'm sure I've seen somewhere a claim that the name originally came from Frederick and Nelson Co, but the quite citable HistoryLink says it was "Frango" from the outset. If the name was changed to avoid matching the Caudillo, I'm sure it was some time after the start of the Spanish Civil War. F&N closed their last store in 1992. Fields' Frangos aren't identical to the West Coast variety; the Seattle-based Bon Marché (later Bon Macy's and still later simply Macy's) took over the West Coast Frangos, but I think they are now made by an independent company, but that is getting a bit far afield. Anyway, I've removed it, pending citation. - Jmabel | Talk 21:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes

I don't have time to really go through this one right now, but I'd like to suggest that someone closely review recent changes. Here's an example of what I noticed on not much more than a skim:

His army was supported by troops from Nazi Germany (the Condor Legion) and, above all, Fascist Italy (Corpo Truppe Volontarie), but the degree of influence of both powers on Franco's direction of war seems to have been very limited. António de Oliveira Salazar's Portugal also openly assisted the Fascists from the start.

Became:

Unable to receive support from any other nation, his army was supported by Nazi Germany in the form of the Condor Legion, ironically Franco only asked for weapons and tanks and never for the air services of the Condor Legion. Principle assistance was received from Fascist Italy (Corpo Truppe Volontarie), but the degree of influence of both powers on Franco's direction of war seems to have been very limited. Likewise, Franco's direction of the Nazi and Fascist forces was limited, particularly in the direction of the Condor Legion. António de Oliveira Salazar's Portugal also openly assisted the Nationalists from the start.

At the very least:

1. "Unable to receive support from any other nation": basically true, but it seems to suggest that he would rather have found his support elsewhere. Is there any reason to think that Franco was unhappy with either the Italian regime? Or that he had any qualms about Nazi Germany prior to the Final Solution?
2. Apparently, comparing the first and last sentence, Portugal is not a nation other than Germany. (And, taking the grammar of that first sentence literally, neither is Germany).
3. "Ironically" in whose view?
4. Is there a citation for "Franco only asked for weapons and tanks and never for the air services of the Condor Legion"?
5. Presumably "Principle" ==> "Principal"?

Anyway, at a glance, there is more like this, someone should probably look closely. - Jmabel | Talk 04:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

IIRC the original paragraph was mine. And I also feel that the current redaction is not good. I think can answer some of your questions:

1. The rebels tried, from July 20, simultaneously to get military aid from Great Britain, Italy and Germany, although only the last two finally agreed (I got this snippet of info from Pio Moa's "Mitos de la Guerra Civil", but in this sense, it is a tertiary source). It has to be remembered that the nationalist side was also a wide political "coalition", and that only started to get its fascist outward look, from 1937 onwards (with the rise of Ramón Serrano Suñer). So it was logical to demand aid from any non leftist Power. In the spanish right Musolini's Italy was generally looked simpathetically, but opinions on the Nazis were sharply contrasting, and remained forever so.
2. Gramatical errors -and acumulated editing- besides, the original redaction tried to single out the paper Portugal played on this "Big Game". It hasn't been as publisized as other powers', -my knowledge about is only rudimentary- but was critical, at least logistically, in the first phases of the war.
3. Not only there is no irony, it's a false statement, see below
4. What Franco needed from the start was air support, and this was his first and foremost demand (same source). The degree of autonomy of the Condor Legion and the CTV from the main nationalist "chain of command" the intermediate contributor suposses, is, at least, controversial. Wllacer 08:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

And now there are a bunch more additions in rather poor English. I don't have time for this one right now; is someone interested in taking it on, it's becoming a bit of a mess. - Jmabel | Talk 04:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Franco and the Jews

There are some parts of this article where two protogonists are relevant to the subject matter but the Authour has confused to names of the protagonists. i.e extending their protection of Sephardic Jews to include Ashkenazi Jews. The article implies that Franco was extending his protection to Sephardic Jews. Something which was already implied as the it is being Spanish in origin that makes them Sephardic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.10.12.179 (talk • contribs) 17 August 2006.

I'm not sure I've understood that correctly (the English is rather unclear) but as I understand the actual treatment of Jews by Spain during the war:

• Diplomatically, many places in Europe and especially in Southern Europe, Spanish diplomats attempted to intervene on behalf of Jews of Spanish descent, which is to say Sephardim.
• In practice, many Ashkenazim—at least several thousand, by all accounts—made their way to Spain, usually by smugglers' routes over the Pyrenees, though sometimes with legitimate travel documents issued by third countries. There are many documented cases of Spain allowing such people to stay, leading to their ultimate survival. In fact, I've never heard of a case of someone who made it past the border zone and was then handed back to the Nazi or Vichy French authorities.

- Jmabel | Talk 04:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverted but willing to discuss

I reverted these edits by User:Tetvs. Lots of bad English, and clearly intended to (depending on one's viewpoint) add or remove political slant. I think some of these edits are worth discussing, but this seemed like a lot of changes in one political direction at one time without prior discussion. Ignoring the issues of how things were written, the changes were roughly:

• Changed "dictator" to "ruler" in lead paragraph
• [Juan Carlos] "held liberal political views" ==> "held open-minded and dared political views" [I presume "daring"]
• "would continue Franco's policies" ==> "would continue Franco's Regime"
• "parties heir to the Republican side" ==> "left-wing and nationalist parties heir to the Republican side"; "arguing" ==> "reasonably arguing"; added "It has also been recently (2006) removed from the Militar Academy of Saragosa which Franco founded." (I presume "Military Academy of Zaragosa")
• "Francisco Franco was declared a saint by Clemente Domínguez y Gómez (self-declared "Pope Gregory XVII") of the Palmarian Catholic Church, a right-wing Catholic mysticalist sect and apparition site largely based in Spain. Franco's canonization is not recognized by the Roman Catholic Church and the Vatican." ==> "Francisco Franco was declared a saint by Clemente Domínguez y Gómez (self-declared "Pope Gregory XVII") of the Palmarian Church, a mysticalist sect and apparition site largely based in Spain."
• "Very recently (2005) an almost systematic search has started on mass graves of people executed during his regime by the present socialist government in Spain…" ==> "Very recently (2005) a systematic search has started on mass graves of people executed during his regime by the present socialist government in Spain (a movement called Recovery of the Historical Memory)…"
  • Assuming that name has a basis—there was no citation for the name, and it reads oddly in English—I basically agree with this one, though the wording is still poor. How about "Under the aegis of the present socialist government in Spain and a project called Recovery of the Historical Memory, a systematic search started in 2005 for mass graves of people executed during his regime…" - Jmabel | Talk 06:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Added "All these maneuvers shows that resentment still exists towards the figure of the Caudillo, especially from the communist and socialist parties (the same ones that Franco defeated in the Spanish Civil War)."

- Jmabel | Talk 06:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Joe, the wording of User:Tetvs might be biased (it its), but all the stuff about the Historical Memory is factual, and includes fairly recent events. What's more, this fall, a Ley de Memoria Historica (it will not be it's official name, but everybody refers to it under that name) ought to be discussed in the Spanish Parliament.

Just google for "memoria historica" and today there are more than 2.5 million hits, the first one beeing a "Asociacion para la Recuperación de la Memoria Historica" (Association for the recovery of the Historical Memory)

Franco's Regime is a customary -and rather neutral- term for the state and society model back then (f.i. it's the title of Payne's book about Franquismus ). I think you overcorrected this time ;-)

Wllacer 08:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd be glad to see that in there, with citation. But nothing was cited, and some of it ("arguing reasonably"?) was just plain inappropriate. I'd be glad to see you work some of this into the article more appropriately. - Jmabel | Talk 04:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Unique Weasel words

"It was later said by Germans"? Citation needed. - Jmabel | Talk 18:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is a citation of "Hugh Tomas": I presume this is Hugh Thomas, and the original English work should be tracked down instead of citing the French translation of an English-language work. - Jmabel | Talk 18:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Dubious Statements

There are quite a few contentious and unsourced statements in this article. How long do they remain before being excised? White Guard 01:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Just for clarity, the following are the statements for which citation has so far been requested and not supplied. In all fairness, a few of these seem to have been marked within the last 24 hours, so it is not surprising that citations have not been provided for those.

1. Despite Franco having no money while the state treasure was in Madrid with the government, there was an organized economic lobby in London looking after his financial needs with Lisbon as their operational base.
   • I strongly suspect this is true; does anyone have a citation? - Jmabel | Talk
2. Unable to receive support from any other nation, his army was supported by Nazi Germany in the form of the Condor Legion, ironically Franco only asked for weapons and tanks and never for the air services of the Condor Legion.
   • I presume that the request for citaton is only for "ironically Franco only asked for weapons and tanks and never for the air services of the Condor Legion"? Or is more of this in question? - Jmabel | Talk
3. Franco was receiving many and frequent supplies from both dictators while the Republicans had tremendous difficulties to buy anything modern and even Russia stopped their supplies after a certain period.
   • This one is patently true (other than referring to the USSR as "Russia"); can anyone suggest where to cite it from? I'd really hope that, even if not, we could leave it in the article with a note that it needs citation (not something I feel we need to do with any of the rest of this). - Jmabel | Talk
4. The Falangists movement slowly moved away from its Fascist ideology after negotiations with Hitler revealed that Germany wanted Spain as a pawn and did not care about Spain or the Falange.
5. Franco himself said, "I am ready to execute half Spain to do away with the reds…"
   • Looks like it is not verbatim, but here is something I believe is citable to that effect, on a site I would consider reliable: “El general Franco insiste en que vencerá. ¿Tendrá que matar a lo mitad de España? "Triunfaré cueste lo que cueste”. Entrevista con el jefe rebelde español, News Chronicle, 29 July 1936. Spanish-language translation of an article originally published in English, accessed online at historiasiglo20.org, 4 September 2006. (Obviously, it would be better if someone can actually track down the actual English-language original.) - Jmabel | Talk 18:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Recent searches with parallel excavations of mass graves in Spain estimate that the total of people executed after the war may even arrive to a number between 350,000 to 500,000.
   • At worst, the numbers should be changed; can someone provide a decent, recent source on this? - Jmabel | Talk
7. Furthermore, any Jew who made it to a Spanish Embassy was granted Spanish citizenship on the basis of being a Sephardic Jew, even if there was no evidences of Sephardism.
   • I strongly expect a gross exaggeration here. Even the Ashekenazic Jews who physically made it into Spain were not generally granted citizenship, though they were taken in. Can we just delete this one now? - Jmabel | Talk

That's it. With the one exception that I've remarked is patently true and that I think we should keep in the article pending citation, I'd be glad to remove the rest of these if no one can cite in the next week. How do others feel on this? - Jmabel | Talk 18:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of the recent citation requests were put in by me. I really just wanted to know how long I sholuld leave them before taking further action. I have real concerns about item four, which I believe to be pure invention. White Guard 22:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Re. point 1. There are a lot of references about Juan March Ordinas's financing the preparation of the coup (esp. chartering the flight which brought Franco to Morocco), which is probably what is here refered

Re. point 2. A blatant false statement.

Re. point 3. [18] (needs registration), an online copy of Daniel Kovalsky's book "Stalin and the Spanish Civil War", is a good and up-to-date reference about soviet help to the republic.

Re point 4. Never seen this explanation. Better erase than

Re point 5. This interview has a history in itself, and should be treated with caution (look at [19], a comment about the paper from Orwell, and in his "Homage to Catalonia"). In short, the "News Chronicle" was seen as a Komintern outlet. The periodist (Jay Allen) had also a rather dubious record (Cf. Pio Moa "Mitos de La Guerra Civil", chapter about Badajoz)

Re. point 6. Even in the worst case the numbers should be halved. For the numbers of victims of the war, I usually refer to this page [20], but please see [21] for an statistical evaluation of its data. The first link, though openly biased, is the best on-line resource i've been able to find. The second (and previous posts) is the result of a summary statistical analisys of them, and points to some "anomalies" in the original data set, worth to be taken into account.

Re point 7. Yes, i think this sentence should be scrapped. For discussion about Franco and the Shoa, there is a previous thread named "Jews", and there are (I believe) all the references needed

Wllacer 09:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

On point 4, I agree. Drivel. Let's lose it. So can we agree right now to lose points 4 and the remark about Ashkenazim in 7? We can replace the latter with something more specific about the several thousand Ashkenazim who made it into Spain, which can be cited from Trudi Alexi's The Mezuzah in the Madonna's Foot, Marranos and other Secret Jews; I believe I can find something solid and citable there.

On point 5, for the moment: Yes, I know that piece ("Spilling the Spanish Beans"), it's pretty famous. I wish Orwell had specified which News Chronicle reporters he was referring to, but he didn't. I think few would argue with his remarks insofar as they apply to Arther Koestler, but I'm pretty certain Koestler wouldn't yet have arrived in Spain by July 29, 1936. The News Chronicle was generally associated with the UK's Liberal Party, but of course Koestler was a Communist at the time.

I'm guessing that the reporter at the time would have been John Cornford. I spent about an hour in the library last night trying to get something specific on the particular article, but failed. I've put in a request for microfiche, but that could take a while: British dailies from 1936 are not the easiest thing to come by on the West Coast of the U.S. - Jmabel | Talk 02:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Waiting for the results of your search, IIRC, Franco's interview is attributed to Jay Allen, of world fame as the man who got the scoop (or the inventor) of the Badajoz massacre (Chicago Chronicle, August 30 or 25 ¿?). If the Allen attribution is true, i would strongly advice against it's usage. To say the least he would fit in today's tabloid press standards. Wllacer 08:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Let 4 vanish into oblivion! White Guard 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

On point 5: Assuming it does turn out to be accurately quoted from the News Chronicle, I'm not sure it should be gone, so much as contextualized. In any case, though, there is plenty else of similar tenor from Franco and others around the start of the war; I'm sure we could track down something more solid. - Jmabel | Talk 16:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've now excised item 4; but can I ask again how long in general should unsupported statements be allowed to stand before being removed? White Guard 01:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

White Guard, usually we don't remove things that we believe to be correct just because they are poorly cited. (In this case, if we did that, not much of the article would remain.) We just mark them as in need of citation.

In particular:

• On point 1, I don't know a lot. I'd really appreciate if someone who believes they know more on this would weigh in. I suppose if no one can cite it, it should be gone.
• On point 2, I never got any indication of what part of this is at issue. Wllacer calls it blatantly false; I agree that the clause about not wanting air support is ridiculous and should be gone; but, Wllacer, in calling this "A blatant false statement" are you saying that he could obtain support from countries besides besides Germany and Italy? Or what?

Sorry for the delay. I was speaking about what aid the nationalist side wanted.

Could they have found other source of foreing aid ? We now that they, at least, tried it with the British during the first weeks, and Portugal's involvement (whose help IMHO is usually underestimated). Noticing that the majority catholic (and many other christian) public opinion worldwide supported the nationalist side (and not only), and it served at least to difficult (in France) or to block (USA) any attempt of aid to the republican side, things don't show up as "black and white". I'll try anyhow to get some more info about the international aspects of the war. Wllacer 08:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

So do you have a proposed alternative wording for this? - Jmabel | Talk 06:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Point 3 seems patently true. Yes, it would be nice to have a citation, but White Guard, are you actually saying that there is something here that, in good faith, you doubt?

• Point 4: already gone.

• Point 5: I have no objection to removing this for now, as long as we understand that we want to replace it eventually with something better cited expressing Franco's attitude at that time (and with a lot better narration of this crucial period).
• Point 6: clearly should not be simply removed. We need to find good citations and quote what they say. This shouldn't be too hard for someone with access to current Spanish newspapers. Would someone please take this on? I'm at a bit of a loss in Seattle.
• Point 7: kill it.

- Jmabel | Talk 04:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Another dubious statement. On the intro

During his rule he was called as "El Caudillo de la Última Cruzada y de la Hispanidad, El Caudillo de la Guerra de Liberación contra el Comunismo y sus Cómplices" ...

. I remember reading a few of such hyperbolic statements, but AFAIK never had any (semi)official status. I think the only one worth mentioning is the "Caudillo de España por la Gracia de Dios" (Leader of Spain, by the Grace of God) which stood on the coins till the last moment. It has to be noted that it mirrored the royal titulature in spanish coins Wllacer 08:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think that was a recent edit. Yes, I'd be happy if we revert it to just "…por la Gracia de Dios" - Jmabel | Talk 04:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Franco and the Jews - II

On point 7, the Jews, I have now added some quite citable material. It's probably too much for this article, and should be largely refactored, leaving one paragraph here. I just wanted to get this down while I had the reference handy. - Jmabel | Talk 07:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I see that all of this material, which I had carefully cited, has now been removed from the article. Has it been refactored elsewhere, or just tossed in the dustbin? In any case wherever it goes, I have an additional piece of material that should go with it: that after the war, Franco's regime was quite hospitable to those who had been responsible for the deportation of the Jews, notably Louis Darquier de Pellepoix, Commissioner for Jewish Affairs under the Vichy Régime May 1942 – February 1944. Citation: Nicholas Fraser, "Toujours Vichy: a reckoning with disgrace", Harper's, October 2006, p.86–94. The relevant statement about Spain sheltering him is on page 91. - Jmabel | Talk 03:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Since it was removed in an edit that contains such gems as " First, Franco promotes the idea of the JEWISH/MASONIC conspirationin in spain to bring down him.Franco and 'spanish right' never had recognized one JEWISH STATE since recognize that 'spanish left' PSOE," I doubt it was refactored.

I believe we could go either way on whether we should restore a paragraph on this here; we should handle it in detail in Spain in World War II. - Jmabel | Talk 04:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

And we should add...

Separately from anything we should remove: conversely, we should add much more to the "rise to power" section. Between July 17 and October 1, 1936, Franco went from being one more Spanish general to Head of State and Generalísimo. This deserves more than a paragraph. - Jmabel | Talk 16:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I tried, but I could only manage to get a few scraps of secure info (a series of dates of meetings from September,21) which decided the powers he would vest (from "simply" Commander-In-Chief, to temporary Head of State, to full powers, as it ended). The most detailed account I've found so far is [BLACKLISTED LINK http://www.galeon DOT com/razonespanola/r110-pal.htm] (or a retelling by the same author at [22]) The only sure fact, is that Franco was proposed as CIC by the "monarchical" party (Gen. Kindelan), and that besides Cabanellas' oposition to an unified command, there seems to have been no major disagreement by then. It's worth mention that, according to a widespread rumour in Spain, the removal of the time limitation of Franco's powers, was due to Nicolas Franco "tinkering" the decree before it went to the press.

I think the rest of the paragraph as now stands (from "It is speculated ..." to "... intervention in Spain") is too especulative for not an encyclopedia entry (even if it were tenable). I'm very reluctant to include "motivation paragraphs".Anyhow, a very different view of the motivations can be seen in Payne's book A History of Spain and Portugal chapter 26

The real leaders were Mola, in command of rebel forces in the north, and General Francisco Franco, who led the elite Moroccan units. Franco had been a hero of the earlier Moroccan campaigns and the youngest general in the Spanish army. He had been director of [653] the national military academy from 1928 to 1931, demoted by Azaña and then made chief of the general staff in 1935. He had more prestige than any officer in the army but had never before played an active role in politics. In reputation and authority he stood above all the other leaders, and it was his representatives who negotiated the first arrangements for German and Italian assistance. By September, it was clear that the civil war had become a bitter struggle that was likely to continue for some time and that a strong unified command was needed. Once the principle of the mando único was decided upon, it was almost a foregone conclusion that Franco would become commander in chief and head of government. When formation of a Nationalist government under Franco was announced on October 1, 1936, he assumed the title of head of state as well.

Wllacer 08:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you read Paul Preston's biography? It's a while since I looked at it myself, but I seem to remember a certain degree of German disappointment at the death of Mola and the ascent of the far less politically satisfactory Franco. White Guard 08:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no shortage of good accounts of this in print, but I don't have time to really do the research. We should be looking at what a wide range of sources have to say. I might try to do some "hit and run" research to gather some material, but it isn't going to be the comprehensive survey of the literature that this really deserves. - Jmabel | Talk 04:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Intro

I would like to expand the intro to include something about the fascist policies, execution, and repression under Franco, his relationships with Hitler and Mussolini, as well as Spain as a haven for Jews during WWII. But I cannot find hard facts in the article to summarize. Could someone more familiar with the topic help? -Pgan002 13:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Why "effective dictator" rather than just "dictator"? -Pgan002 13:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Repetition

Does not a later part of one of the paragraphs: "Yet, after the collapse of France in June 1940, Spain did adopt a pro-Axis non-belligerency stance (for example, he offered Spanish naval facilities to German ships) until returning to complete neutrality in 1943 when the tide of the war had turned decisively against Germany and its allies. Some volunteer Spanish troops (the División Azul, or "Blue Division")—not given official state sanction by Franco—went to fight on the Eastern Front under German command from 1941–1943. Some historians have argued that not all of the Blue Division were true volunteers and that Franco expended relatively small but significant resources to aid the Axis powers' battle against the Soviet Union..." essentially repeat an earlier part?: "...Franco's tactics received important support from Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini during the civil war. He remained emphatically neutral in the Second World War, but nonetheless offered various kinds of support to Italy and Germany. He allowed Spanish soldiers to volunteer to fight in the German Army against the USSR (the Blue Division), but forbade Spaniards to fight in the West against the democracies."

Quality of Discussion Contributions: Spelling Errors

Please check for spelling errors before posting!

Legión Extranjera

This unit was founded in 1920 with the name "Tercio de Extranjeros" but it was informally called "La Legión" or "La Legión Extranjera" because it was founded and modelled after the French Foreign Legion.

In 1925 the name was oficially shortened to el "Tercio" and in 1937 to la "Legión".

The sentence in the second paragraph of the article is incorrect: "The coup failed and evolved into the Spanish Civil War during which he emerged as the leader of the Nationalists against the Communist government." The Republican government, espcially at the time of the coup, was not "Communist". To say it was indicates the article's author is trying to justify Franco's attack on the democratically elected government. See The Battle for Spain by Anthony Beevor.

Franco was Fascist, see Fascism

Edit summary: Franco was fascist; see Fascism. This has been resolved there. Gave a lot of latitude to differences between his and Italian/German fascism.The whole matter should be expanded upon

Replaced: Although Franco and Spain under his rule adopted some trappings of fascism, he, and Spain under his rule, are not generally considered to be fascist; among the distinctions, fascism entails a revolutionary aim to transform society, where Franco and Franco's Spain did not seek to do so, and, to the contrary, although authoritarian, were conservative and traditional... Stanley Payne, the preeminent scholar on fascism and Spain notes: "scarcely any of the serious historians and analysts of Franco consider the generalissimo to be a core fascist".

with: Although Franco and Spain under his rule are considered fascist by mainstream political science, his regime was notably different from Nazism and Italian Fascism in many respects. These latter transformed their societies; Franco's Spain was considerably altered, but his focus was not on change; many aspects of his rule were conservative and even traditional.

Core fascist is a distinction whose explanation probably exceeds the weight it should be given in this article; I included a link to Fascism, where it can be seen/discussed in full.

Personally, I haven't seen a Stanley Payne cite yet that didn't treat the subject with the unshaken premise of Franco being a Fascist, with him then giving exceptions to that rule. To me, that means he was, Payne thinks he was, but Payne is at pains, sorry, to point out the differences. People who want to believe that Franco wasn't, all take this as proof that he wasn't. I personally think the whole concept is a little mad; cite one lot of people who call themselves something, draw parallels between them and other people...But that's the field. And the scholars in that field say, he was Fascist. Anarchangel (talk) 06:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Left all refs in. Worth a check.
Anarchangel (talk) 06:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you actually read what it says in the heavily sourced article fascism, instead of adding in unsourced assertions. It clearly states in the sourced article on fascism that Franco is not considered a fascist revolutionary by scholars, but instead a right wing authoritarian, his "ideology" if he even had one was National Catholicism not fascism. Please do not add in political motivated propaganda into the article. I know all are supposed to "assume good faith", but when an anarchist is trying to pin the word "fascist" to people such as Franco, Salazar and Pinochet the stench of bitter propaganda, reacting at these peoples thorough defeat of the far left is rife.- Autocralo (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Franco not a fascist?

The US did a deal with him for bases and since the US never deals with fascists Franco couldn't possibly be one, could he?

The article seems to me to serve as a brilliant example of US propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.99 (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Franco was not at all a fascist or a nazi. Only ignorance of history may suggest this idea. Of course this consideration does not change of one inch the judgement on him. Not all the bad dictators have to be necessarily fascist, i.e. Stalin was certainly not a fascist! Franco was just dictator with a conservative view in politics. --Deguef (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you consider a recent BBC history programme (still available under iplayer as of todays date) which, if true, seems rather to kick immense holes in arguments above based on sources which have become lately available. Amongst other things (if I have it right) the programme alleged that Franco's overtures to join the war were rejected in the first place by Hitler who saw no reason to share the spoils of his up-coming victory with a man whose pathetic demands he was going to have to consider. Some of Franco's generals were being comprehensively bribed by Churchill to use their influence to keep Franco out of the war.

Incidentally Franco's ready access to bombers from both Mussolini and Hitler of which film is available suggests a closer relationship between the fascist dicators than the article implies.

Drg40 (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)