Franco: The dictator's legacy to modern Spain

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

End results weren't much different. I think the difference is closer to chocolate vs fudge then chocolate vs carob.

I always thought Franco did alright, but that's just me.

I look at it like this:

You have two bowls of vanilla ice cream, one has nothing on it, the other has sprinkles. The sprinkles being Nazism. You essentially have the same thing, one has more flavor to it.

Nazism is to fascism what Stalinism is to communism. A radical extreme.

[HoreTore]

I always thought Franco did alright, but that's just me.

Yes, that must be just you.

[Kralizec]

Maybe we should start a new thread to debate the philosophy and merits of fascism vis-à-vis national socialism?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Yes, that must be just you.

HoreTore, with the deepest respect, I wouldn't have expected it to be you.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Franco 'did alright'? He is to Spain what Mugabe is to Zimbabwe.

Ah well, we all have our political preferences. Some admire Mugabe for his succesful policy of land reform and driving out the minorities. Some will admire Franco for his torture of political opponents and his turning Spain into a backward hellhole of extreme Catholic conservatism.

War, destitution and backwardness. That is what Franco wrought. It only took Spain thirty years to turn Franco's hellhole into a flowering liberal, wealthy and democratic country. Spain is where's it's at for art, architecture and gastronomy. The hippest place in Europe. I've got a long standing bet running, to expire in 2015, that Spain will overtake Italy, France and Germany for GDP per capita within a decade. They're well on their way.

I can understand bitter, spiteful old Spanish Catholic creeps still lamenting old Spain. Back when you could simply report those of different opinion to somebody in some uniform, and that was that. Franco is for those born before 1930. And for those stuck in a perennial mental 1930's.

Communism is a radical liberal ideology, yet still a liberal ideology.

Indeed it is. The roots of some of communist's core ideas can be traced to a radicalisation of liberal ideas.

No matter what dilettantes of the history of ideas say on wiki.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Franco 'did alright'? He is to Spain what Mugabe is to Zimbabwe.

I strongly disagree with that. I'll just give out some good points.

1) He stopped a communist takeover of Spain.
2) Centralization, including that of language.
3) Actively protected Jews during WWII.
4) The recovery of the economy was slowed in large part because of the United Nations trade embargo. This caused the economy to improve over the next two years and more.
5) El Milagro Español - surprised you missed that one, actually. That's a pretty big one.
6) Transitioned Spain to democracy.

The only downside I can think of with Franco's regime is executions, in which case there would've been little difference between him and the communists, and less likelihood of a good transition to democracy. Franco was not Spain's Mugabe in any way at all.

[Louis VI the Fat]

5) El Milagro Español - surprised you missed that one, actually. That's a pretty big one.

The Spanish miracle? Gah!

And how, pray, did the democratic European nations fare economically in this period? To answer my own question: they had post-war econic miracles of their own. Each one far surpassing that of Spain. Did I say far surpassing? That's not true. It's beyond that. True is: Free Europe experienced an economic explosion unique in its history. The German and Austrian Wirtschaftwunder, the French Trente Glorieuses, Italy's extraordinary boom into an industrialisation Great Power.

Whereas Spain under Franco moved from 'starving hellhole' to simply 'backward'. And I shall not even mention that Franco himself was to no small extent responsible for the first part, the 'starving hellhole'.

Nope, I'm afraid that I didn't miss it. I count it as one of the many near criminal legacies of Franco. Because of Franco, Spain performed much, much, much worse than the comparable free nations of Europe during this time.

Franco's 'economic miracle' is comparable to the East German post-war 'economic miracle'. Another one of those closed societies. Another society whose citizens subjects and fellow travellers were led to believe, or strangely still believe, that some economic miracle took place.


This subject frustrates me to no end. It is so glaringly obvious that the democratic European nations after WWII economically drastically outperformed both the Communist and the authoritarian regimes. Yet, fellow travellers of both kind persist and persist and persist in singing the praise of the economic miracles of the dictatorships. They did it in 1958. And in 1968. And in 1978. And in 1988. And in 1998. And in 2008.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

And how, pray, did the democratic European nations fare economically in this period? To answer my own question: they had post-war econic miracles of their own. Each one far surpassing that of Spain. Did I say far surpassing? That's not true. It's beyond that. True is: Free Europe experienced an economic explosion unique in its history. The German and Austrian Wirtschaftwunder, the French Trente Glorieuses, Italy's extraordinary boom into an industrialisation Great Power.

Whereas Spain under Franco moved from 'starving hellhole' to simply 'backward'. And I shall not even mention that Franco himself was to no small extent responsible for the first part, the 'starving hellhole'.

Nope, I'm afraid that I didn't miss it. I count it as one of the many near criminal legacies of Franco. Because of Franco, Spain performed much, much, much worse than the comparable free nations of Europe during this time.

Louis, there was a little thing called a near-complete trade embargo following a long civil war. It's a miracle that Spain got to where it did. Remember, in most of Europe we had the Marshall Plan to help us, free money, etc. Spain got none of that, but still had to rebuild after a massive war. It's no wonder that Spain was backwards, and it says a lot for Franco that Spain did as well as it did.

This subject frustrates me to no end. It is so glaringly obvious that the democratic European nations after WWII economically drastically outperformed both the Communist and the authoritarian regimes. Yet, fellow travellers of both kind persist and persist and persist in singing the praise of the economic miracles of the dictatorships. They did it in 1958. And in 1968. And in 1978. And in 1988. And in 1998. And in 2008.

Naturally the democracies did better, and probably in a good part because of the free market, yes. But there were other factors as well.

[KarlXII]

6) Transitioned Spain to democracy.

Nope. With Franco's death, Juan Carlos I began the transition into democracy, and saw it completed, even though he was named the heir to Franco's rule.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Nope. With Franco's death, Juan Carlos I began the transition into democracy, and saw it completed, even though he was named the heir to Franco's rule.

Franco made the succession of Juan Carlos possible.

[LittleGrizzly]

Franco made the succession of Juan Carlos possible.

If we follow this down a slightly longer path of succession we get to the fact that Stalin lead russia to democracy through various successions only possible because stalin was leader...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

If we follow this down a slightly longer path of succession we get to the fact that Stalin lead russia to democracy through various successions only possible because stalin was leader...

No, we don't. Juan Carlos succeeded the throne of Spain because Franco wished him to take it. Juan Carlos owes his throne to Franco.

[PBI]

If it had been Franco's intention when naming his successor to name someone who would transform Spain to a Democracy, why did he not simply perform the transition himself?

Methinks you are giving credit where credit is not due.

[LittleGrizzly]

No, we don't. Juan Carlos succeeded the throne of Spain because Franco wished him to take it. Juan Carlos owes his throne to Franco.

That still doesn't give franco credit for the transition to democracy..

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

If it had been Franco's intention when naming his successor to name someone who would transform Spain to a Democracy, why did he not simply perform the transition himself?

Who knows? Perhaps he liked the power. Perhaps he didn't want to go through another upheaval in Spain in his lifetime. Nonetheless, Franco did facilitate the rise to power of who is now Juan Carlos I.

[PBI]

If the best that can be said of Franco is that he brought about the demise of his own regime it is hardly high praise.

Still, I maintain my original point: Franco appointed Juan Carlos as a successor to continue his regime, not a caretaker to oversee the transition to democracy. Clearly he did not choose very well since his successor promptly disbanded the regime he had been appointed to run. You are alleging good intentions where in fact there was only incompetence.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

If the best that can be said of Franco is that he brought about the demise of his own regime it is hardly high praise.

It was point five on a six point list.

[Adrian II]

It was point five on a six point list.

You forgot point seven: Stalin paved the way for the end of the Cold War.

[Banquo's Ghost]

This discussion has developed a life of its own, far from the borders of China, and thus deserves its own thread.

I trust I have moved all the pertinent posts.

Please continue.

[CountArach]

6) Transitioned Spain to democracy.

Yes, overthrowing a Democracy and putting in place a Dictatorship is truly the greatest way to transition a country into Democracy.

Seriously, that point had to be a joke, right?

[Mikeus Caesar]

The only downside I can think of with Franco's regime is executions, in which case there would've been little difference between him and the communists, and less likelihood of a good transition to democracy. Franco was not Spain's Mugabe in any way at all.

I'm guessing widespread political repression, repression of indigenous minorities, attempted cultural genocide of said minorities and usurping democracy in an attempt to seize power, thus causing a civil war that destroyed the country, ultimately resulting in Franco as the dictator and sole ruler aren't considered downsides?

[Ronin]

1) He stopped a communist takeover of Spain.

Yeah.... just like Salazar did in Portugal....they stopped the communist takeover by instituting repressive right-wing fascist governments....one is not an improvement over the other.....repression is repression and death is death no matter the political ideology of the one doing it.

3) Actively protected Jews during WWII.

Yes Spain didn´t go into WWII....they went through that lovely thing called the Spanish Civil war instead.

6) Transitioned Spain to democracy.

That´s like saying that the people that picked Gorbachev to be the head of the USSR knew what it would lead to and can somehow claim responsibility...utter bollox.

you go talk to the average Spaniard and ask them what they think of Franco....I would suggest you wear a helmet just in case they throw something at you.

[InsaneApache]

The fascists had the best uniforms by far. They are the Gaultiers, whilst the communists were more Bon Marche.

[Slyspy]

1) He stopped a communist takeover of Spain.

Before the civil war the communists were an insignificant part of the Republic. It was the civil war, started by Franco, which gave the communists more power and influence than they could ever have dreamt of. This was, of course, because with the facist powers openly aiding Franco and the democratic West at best ignoring the Republic the only ally to be found was the good old USSR. Through the medium of the Comintern the Republic came to rely utterly on the USSR and hence on the native and foreign communists. Shame for the Republic that the Soviet equipment was so poor, their doctrines terribly flawed and the supply lines so long and uncertain.

[KarlXII]

As stated before, Franco appointed Juan Carlos I as heir to his rule, he gave him the authority, and Juan Carlos used that to transition Spain into democracy. Franco was not the reason Spain became a democracy. If you used that reasoning, Oscar the Second was the reason Norway dissolved the Union.

[Louis VI the Fat]

If you used that reasoning, Oscar the Second was the reason Norway dissolved the Union.

Yeah, I was going to bring up Oscar the Second as well.


Can't believe all you people here overlooked such an obvious example. Tsk.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I'm aware of the reasons why Franco is considered a bad ruler by some, and while I don't think he was great, I also don't think he did badly. It is a matter of opinion.

[CountArach]

I'm aware of the reasons why Franco is considered a bad ruler by some, and while I don't think he was great, I also don't think he did badly. It is a matter of opinion.

Yes, but when your justifications for that reason are based on factual inaccuracies, then your opinion really has no basis in reality.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Yes, but when your justifications for that reason are based on factual inaccuracies, then your opinion really has no basis in reality.

Factual inaccuracies? While Franco was personally not responsible for the transition to democracy, Juan Carlos did owe his position to Franco.

[KarlXII]

Yeah, I was going to bring up Oscar the Second as well.


Can't believe all you people here overlooked such an obvious example. Tsk.

The only downside I can think of with Franco's regime is executions,

And the political, cultural, and religious suppression that is ever so present in Dictatorships.