The last fascist: did Franco survive his other contemporaries?
If we are talking about Fascist related (I'll count some difference between Nazism and fascism, as while both are foul there are significant differences between Mussolini's and Hitler's regimes) dictators then Franco may have been the only one not deposed. Stalin however lasted until his sorta peaceful demise, and other dictators have as well.
So far as just the Fascist and Nazi regimes go, the obvious point is that Franco didn't lose the second world war. Germany and Italy (Romania could maybe be counted?) Managed to go to war with the three largest industrial powers in the world.
So far as just the Fascist and Nazi regimes go, the obvious point is that Franco didn't lose the second world war. Germany and Italy (Romania could maybe be counted?) Managed to go to war with the three largest industrial powers in the world.
Franco didn't rule from 1939 until 1975, he was the head of state but he left politics to his goons, to the point he used to say that one formulae to remain in power to long is to not care with politics
Taking direct control ruins your health and also makes you take blame for when something goes wrong, while if you leave a project to a minister and the project fails you can blame on him and fire him on spot, gaining some prestige for "putting him in his place!"
Franco remained neutral in World War 2, and post-war he played nice with the Americans, though he did support Castro's Cuba. That's how he did it.
Franco managed to stay in power by:
* Not hitching his wagon to Hitler too tightly, and stayed neutral in WWII
* Didn't piss off either the US or the USSR after the war ended
* Spain not being important enough geopolitically after the Civil War
* Not hitching his wagon to Hitler too tightly, and stayed neutral in WWII
* Didn't piss off either the US or the USSR after the war ended
* Spain not being important enough geopolitically after the Civil War
Disagree about Spain not being important, the US expended a lot of effort to get Spain on its side during the Cold War.
He kept enough repression going to ensure no one could become strong enough to overthrow him, but enough freedoms and development that not enough people were willing to try. He knew when to back down, when to be ruthless and always have lighting rods he could blame.
I have often wondered if Franco was the inspiration for Palpatine.
He kept enough repression going to ensure no one could become strong enough to overthrow him, but enough freedoms and development that not enough people were willing to try. He knew when to back down, when to be ruthless and always have lighting rods he could blame.
I have often wondered if Franco was the inspiration for Palpatine.
Last edited:
Still some debate over whether the Estado Novo should be considered "fascist", or simply an authoritarian, corporatist, conservative regime... I'll leave that for the Portuguese here on the site to argue over
There are a variety of reasons, some being:
-Spain is an utterly irrelevant, poor, and war-ravaged country with no resources nor industry. There's no external pressure on them.
-Franco got rid of most of his potential rivals early in the war, the deaths of both Emilio Mola and José Sanjurjo in plane crashes in the early stages of the war can't be called an accident.
-He was very popular among his men, being a great colonel or subaltern, also gained a lot of prestige by relieving the siege of rebel troops in the Castle of Toledo.
-Franco did not mess with the exact policies, he was more of an arbiter figure, relegating the matters of government to ministers that he could replace whenever something didn't work.
-Franco's anticommunism made him approach the western camp during the Cold War. His positioning with the western block translated into a collective "hey, at least he's not a communist".
-The regime dropped most totalitarian and fascist aspects early, by the 50s fascist ministers were replaced with conservative technocrats, Spain stopped being a fascist-run country in the 50s, to become a military/conservative dictatorship.
-Franco was always a very careful man when it came to diplomacy, constantly replacing his foreign ministers according to the tide of WW2, switching from germanophiles to anglophiles, always trying to be with the winning side. This allowed Spain to survive WW2 by being close to the Axis but with no intent of ever joining the war against the west, albeit he could have joined only against the USSR in different circumpstances. Also, Spain was supporting the Allies against Japan, they came close to delcaring war on them but ultimately didn't.
-Republican exiles that could have toppled the government in a foreign-sponsored coup were very leftist and the US would not rather have a government full od communists that close to Western Europe.
-Franco didn't push international reclamations and usually commited to international agreements even if it took some convicing like in Equatorial Guinea.
-Spain is an utterly irrelevant, poor, and war-ravaged country with no resources nor industry. There's no external pressure on them.
-Franco got rid of most of his potential rivals early in the war, the deaths of both Emilio Mola and José Sanjurjo in plane crashes in the early stages of the war can't be called an accident.
-He was very popular among his men, being a great colonel or subaltern, also gained a lot of prestige by relieving the siege of rebel troops in the Castle of Toledo.
-Franco did not mess with the exact policies, he was more of an arbiter figure, relegating the matters of government to ministers that he could replace whenever something didn't work.
-Franco's anticommunism made him approach the western camp during the Cold War. His positioning with the western block translated into a collective "hey, at least he's not a communist".
-The regime dropped most totalitarian and fascist aspects early, by the 50s fascist ministers were replaced with conservative technocrats, Spain stopped being a fascist-run country in the 50s, to become a military/conservative dictatorship.
-Franco was always a very careful man when it came to diplomacy, constantly replacing his foreign ministers according to the tide of WW2, switching from germanophiles to anglophiles, always trying to be with the winning side. This allowed Spain to survive WW2 by being close to the Axis but with no intent of ever joining the war against the west, albeit he could have joined only against the USSR in different circumpstances. Also, Spain was supporting the Allies against Japan, they came close to delcaring war on them but ultimately didn't.
-Republican exiles that could have toppled the government in a foreign-sponsored coup were very leftist and the US would not rather have a government full od communists that close to Western Europe.
-Franco didn't push international reclamations and usually commited to international agreements even if it took some convicing like in Equatorial Guinea.
He was a authoritarian conservative, like Franco was. Franco was basically a military dictator that was pro fascist and not a fascist per se.Still some debate over whether the Estado Novo should be considered "fascist", or simply an authoritarian, corporatist, conservative regime... I'll leave that for the Portuguese here on the site to argue over
In the future, they will say: A difference that makes no difference is no difference.
At the end of the day "fascism" is so empty that I made a thread about how bad Franco was.
The dude killed more people with his dictatorship than people who were clearly fascist like Ante Pavelic. If you are curious you can check the thread here.
Regardless of what we think of his ideology, he killed about 300 000 people and is one of the most disgusting and corrupt leaders of the 20th being at the very top of worst people to rule a nation back then.
Last edited: