Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    02 Jan '18 23:27
    A poster here claims "no" in another thread and claims I was "ignorant" for saying it was.. Not wanting to derail that one, I thought I'd give that question its own thread.

    First, here's the Merriam Webster definition of Fascism:

    fascism
    1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

    Here's a description of Vichy France:

    On July 9, 1940, at Vichy's opera house, in a national mood of self-flagellation, parliament voted 569 to 80 to abandon the Third Republic: social benefits gained during the 1936 popular front were eliminated and a new French fascism controlled all forms of life. The constitution was dissolved and the French Republic was no more. The Church supported Pétain. In Lyon, Cardinal Pierre-Marie Gerlier exclaimed, "Pétain is France. France is Pétain!"

    American historian Robert Paxton, in his book Vichy France, writes of the many who repudiated the liberalisation of the Third Republic that had supposedly weakened France: "Each had his own diagnosis of the rot... jazz, alcohol, Paris night life, short skirts, moral depravity among the young, birth control. Enjoyment itself was blamed for softening the nation." The Republic's liberté, égalité, fraternité was replaced with Pétain's travail, famille, patrie (work, family, fatherland). Not that Pétain was the sole instigator of this puritanism. The ground was prepared by fascist writers such as Charles Maurras, the anti-semitic Louis-Ferdinand Céline and Jacques Benoist-Méchin.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1940, a majority of politicians of the right and left agreed with the new French fascism. As Paxton says, "Never had so many Frenchmen been ready to accept discipline and authority." Defeat and occupation by the Germans in 1940 had to have a cause. Those judged responsible were the Jew, the communist, the socialist and the freemason. For France to be regenerated after the freedom of the Third Republic, the "guilty" had to be stripped of their possessions and civil rights. This regime of vengeance operated on every level: employment, the legal system, education and the persecution of foreigners and French nationals. Guardian journalist Paul Webster, in his landmark book Pétain's Crime, quotes SS Obersturmführer Helmut Knochen, head of the security police in France: "In 1947 he said, 'We found no difficulties with the Vichy government in implementing Jewish policy.'" Thousands of Jews and other "enemies of the state" began to disappear. Children had to sing a daily hymn to Pétain: Maréchal, nous voilà! Mail and phone calls were intercepted. This was a police state that affected every single life.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/11/france.weekend7

    Gee, sure sounds like a "centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" to me.
  2. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    02 Jan '18 23:36
    In the 90s Jacque Chirac apologised for France's roundup of Jews.
    The Vichy government was certainly anti-Semitic although the policy was not that popular with the people.
    More French people than any other nation won Israeli medals for their work during WW2.
  3. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    02 Jan '18 23:42
    Originally posted by @wolfgang59
    In the 90s Jacque Chirac apologised for France's roundup of Jews.
    The Vichy government was certainly anti-Semitic although the policy was not that popular with the people.
    More French people than any other nation won Israeli medals for their work during WW2.
    Of course, I am referring to the government of Vichy France and its policies and not suggesting they had wide support. Hence, the "autocratic" part.
  4. 03 Jan '18 00:09
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    Of course, I am referring to the government of Vichy France and its policies and not suggesting they had wide support. Hence, the "autocratic" part.
    LMFAO...you are an egomaniac!
  5. 03 Jan '18 00:21 / 1 edit
    The opinionated lawyer No1Marauder prefers to argue with non-historians.
    (Historians tend not to use general dictionary definitions intended for laymen.)
    As usual, No1Marauder loves to 'cherry pick' bits of evidence while completely ignoring
    or dismissing all evidence that does not suit his fanatical ideological dogmas.
    That's how a lawyer acts in an adversarial system, but it's not how a scholar acts in seeking the truth

    "Vichy France was run by Fascists who's [sic] internal policies ..."
    --No1Marauder

    No1Marauder shows more of his ignorant cartoonish stereotypes of the Second World War.

    It's wrong to claim that all of Vichy France's political and military leaders were Fascists.
    Vichy French leaders collaborated with Germany for various reasons, including opportunism
    or antipathy toward the UK (which had attacked the French fleet, killing many sailors).
    Admiral Darlan, head of the Vichy French Navy, defected to the Allies when expedient.
    (No1Marauder ignorantly conflates conservative French nationalism with Fascism.)

    There were French Fascists (such as the Parti Populaire Francais) who approved of
    allying with Germany for ideological reasons, and they held much influence in Vichy France, but
    they were NOT Vichy France. Vichy France was supported by many people other than Fascists.

    Was Petain, the leader of Vichy France, himself a Fascist? Not quite, though his regime
    adopted some pro-Fascist aspects, and he tended to rule like a de facto military dictator.

    "Pétain was reactionary by temperament and education, and quickly began blaming the
    Third Republic and its endemic corruption for the French defeat. His regime soon took
    on clear authoritarian—and in some cases, fascist—characteristics. ...
    rejected much of the former Third Republic's secular and liberal traditions in favour of
    an authoritarian, paternalist, Catholic society. ... Pétain championed a rural, Catholic
    France that spurned internationalism."
    --Wikipedia

    An "authoritarian paternalist Catholic society' is NOT the same as a Fascist state.
    (How different was Petain's vision for France from Eamon de Valera's vision for Ireland?)

    Jean Bichelonne was a brilliant (he had the highest marks ever at the Ecole Polytechnique)
    minister of industry for Vichy France. As far as I know, he was much more of a relatively
    apolitical technocrat rather than a dedicated Fascist.

    There were French Fascists who held much influence in Vichy France.
    (No1Marauder may 'cherry pick' one Fascist and claim that he must represent all Vichy France.)
    But Vichy France was essentially a reactionary French Catholic nationalistic state, not
    a Fascist state, though reactionary nationalism and Fascism shared many enemies.
    No1Marauder fails to comprehend that one may collaborate with Fascism without necessarily being Fascist.

    No1Marauder also wrongly apparently attempts to argue that anti-Semitism in Vichy France
    was proof of its Fascism. In fact, anti-Semitism was thriving in France long before Fascism.
    Would No1Marauder claim that Dreyfus was persecuted due to a Fascist conspiracy?

    No1Marauder has a misguided extremely primitive notion of what Fascism means.
    If Petain had been really an ideological Fascist, then it's extremely odd that he never joined
    (he was born in 1856) a Fascist party in his 83 years before the Second World War.
    As far as I know, the academic historians' consensus is that Petain was not a Fascist.
    Petain was a reactionary nationalist like Hindenberg. Although HIndenberg foolishly
    helped HItler gain power, no historian seriously believes that HIndenberg was a Nazi.

    Contrary to No1Marauder's cocksure belief about Franco being a Fascist:
    "Stanley Payne, a scholar of fascism and Spain, notes that "scarcely any of the serious
    historians and analysts of Franco consider the generalissimo to be a core fascist."
    --Wikipedia

    And I would submit that Franco, who took power through a revolution and civil war,
    was a more likely candidate than Petain to be regarded as a Fascist.

    No1Marauder would like to set up the false dichotomy that Vichy France must be ALL Fascist or ALL non-Fascist
    and then argue that because some Vichy French were Fascist that proves they all must have been Fascist.

    While Vichy France adopted some aspects of Fascism and some Fascists had influence,
    it essentially was more of a reactionary nationalistic Catholic society than a populist
    radical right-wing one, which the French Fascists hoped that it could become.
  6. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    03 Jan '18 00:27 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    The opinionated lawyer No1Marauder prefers to argue with non-historians.

    "Vichy France was run by Fascists who's [sic] internal policies ..."
    --No1Marauder

    No1Marauder shows more of his ignorant cartoonish stereotypes of the Second World War.

    It's wrong to claim that all of Vichy France's political and military leaders were Fascists.
    Vichy Fren ...[text shortened]... I know, he was much more of a relatively
    apolitical technocrat rather than a dedicated Fascist.
    The policies adopted by Vichy France were Fascist as even your sources concede. Whether their leaders had previously described themselves as "Fascists" is irrelevant; as I pointed out in the other thread, Franco was not a member of the Falange (Spanish Fascists) before the Spanish Civil War , but when the Right prevailed in that war he adopted Fascist policies.

    Pointing out a few technocrats in the administration weren't Fascists no more makes the regime non-Fascist than the fact that Hjalmar Schacht was a non-Nazi who held critical economic posts in Germany in the 1930's makes the German government non-Nazi.
  7. 03 Jan '18 00:40 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    The policies adopted by Vichy France were Fascist as even your sources concede. Whether their leaders had previously described themselves as "Fascists" is irrelevant; as I pointed out in the other thread, Franco was not a member of the Falange (Spanish Fascists) before the Spanish Civil War , but when the Right prevailed in that war he adopted Fascist p ...[text shortened]... who held critical economic posts in Germany in the 1930's makes the German government non-Nazi.
    No1Marauder seems incapable of grasping nuance--everything must be 'all or nothing'.

    No1Marauder has the cocksure beliefs that Franco and Petain were Fascists.
    I expect that only a small minority--at most-of specialist academic historians share his belief.

    In fact, after he took power, Franco had some concern about a potential coup d'etat
    from the Falange (or disaffected people within it). Franco diverted many of the most
    zealous Falangists by encouraging them to volunteer to fight in the Azul division in the USSR.
    After Hitler had become displeased enough with Franco, Hitler hoped that the Azul division's
    commander (who was a more zealous Fascist than Franco) could replace Franco as Spain's leader.
    Of course, Franco perceived that potential threat and took steps to preempt it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falangism
  8. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    03 Jan '18 00:51 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    No1Marauder seems incapable of grasping nuance--everything must be 'all or nothing'.

    No1Marauder has the cocksure beliefs that Franco and Petain were Fascists.
    I expect that only a small minority--at most-of specialist academic historians share his belief.

    In fact, after he took power, Franco had some concern about a potential coup d'etat
    from the ...[text shortened]... d that potential threat and took steps to preempt it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falangism
    You keep being dishonest; I explicitly said that Petain and Franco were NOT originally Fascists and you keep saying I am claiming they were.

    I say that the policies adopted by Vichy France and Franco's Spain were Fascist as defined. You haven't yet produced a shred of evidence to the contrary and you know it.

    Franco became the head of the Falange (FET) in April, 1937 when he ordered it to be merged with certain other groups primarily the Carlists. Source: Anthony Beevor, The Battle for Spain.

    So was Franco not a Fascist when he was their head?

    EDIT: I see you're back to the Humpty Dumpty argument that you can create your own definitions rather than using standard ones. Needless to say, I again find such disingenuous tactics unconvincing in the extreme.
  9. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    03 Jan '18 01:08 / 1 edit
    This analysis is pretty compelling as regards Franco:

    In the sphere of political practice, it is clear that the programme of the FET y de las JONS were rooted in the same desire to defeat the organised working class as Italian and German fascism. It carried this programme out in such a repressive manner that it attracted the admiration of the Nazis themselves; its economic policies were modelled on and harmonised with those of fascist Italy and Germany. The FET y de las JONS was considered fascist by its opponents with good reason, and Francoist Spain was openly identified with fascism by Franco himself, and was admired by ‘old Falangists’.

    To return to the question, it is indeed the case that Franco imposed a fascist state and identity on Spain. He did this primarily through a bloody and ruthless victory in the civil war, but he was also able to mobilise and reward his own popular base in support of the regime in the post-war period. There can be little doubt that Franco’s regime was imposed from above, but like all governments, it sought to maintain and legitimise its rule by actively encouraging its supporters to participate in its implementation.

    To conclude, Gallego is correct when he says that Spain was one of the most prominent examples of fascism. Not only in its capacity for ‘exerting violence against its own population and uniting its patrons into a single party under propitious civil war conditions,’ but also for its ability to incorporate the fascist purpose behind the civil war into the identity of Spain beyond the war.

    https://jodebloggs.wordpress.com/2016/03/13/was-francoist-spain-a-fascist-state/

    I also like this part:

    Renton instead insists that ‘Fascism should not be understood primarily as an ideology, but as a specific form of reactionary mass movement.’

    This dovetails with Leon Trotsky’s definition, which is best summarised in the following passage: ’The historic function of fascism is to smash the working class, destroy its organizations, and stifle political liberties when the capitalists find themselves unable to govern and dominate with the help of democratic machinery.’
  10. 03 Jan '18 03:49 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    You keep being dishonest; I explicitly said that Petain and Franco were NOT originally Fascists and you keep saying I am claiming they were.

    I say that the policies adopted by Vichy France and Franco's Spain were Fascist as defined. You haven't yet produced a shred of evidence to the contrary and you know it.

    Franco became the head of the Falange ...[text shortened]... ndard ones. Needless to say, I again find such disingenuous tactics unconvincing in the extreme.
    "You keep being dishonest; I explicitly said that Petain and Franco were NOT
    *originally* Fascists and you keep saying I am claiming they were."
    --No1Marauder

    No1Marauder keeps lying about what I wrote. Can he quote me ever using the term 'originally'?

    "Contrary to No1Marauder's cocksure belief about Franco being a Fascist:
    "Stanley Payne, a scholar of fascism and Spain, notes that "scarcely any of the serious
    historians and analysts of Franco consider the generalissimo to be a core fascist."
    --Wikipedia"

    Please note that I wrote nothing about WHEN No1Marauder believes Franco was a Fascist.

    No1Marauder's far too close-minded and dishonest to participate in a historical debate.
  11. Standard member HandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    03 Jan '18 04:46
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    No1Marauder's far too close-minded and dishonest to participate in a historical debate.
    And you, madam, are exceedingly open-minded and faultlessly honest.
  12. 03 Jan '18 19:00
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    "You keep being dishonest; I explicitly said that Petain and Franco were NOT
    *originally* Fascists and you keep saying I am claiming they were."
    --No1Marauder

    No1Marauder keeps lying about what I wrote. Can he quote me ever using the term 'originally'?

    "Contrary to No1Marauder's cocksure belief about Franco being a Fascist:
    "Stanley Payne, a s ...[text shortened]... cist.

    No1Marauder's far too close-minded and dishonest to participate in a historical debate.
    I don't really have an answer as regards Vichy France, but I do think it's worth drawing a distinction between fascism and other authoritarian right-wing regimes. Roger Griffin, a British scholar of fascism, defines fascism as:

    "a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism."

    Griffin argues that this phenomenon is distinct from the rightist dictatorships of Franco, Salazar and others, which were basically authoritarian conservative regimes. By contrast, he considers fascism a radical modernist project.

    "In contrast to the parafascism of Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, or Dolfuss’s Austria, both [Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy] were committed to laying the foundations of an ultra-nationalist version of the “modernist state”, one dedicated to using extensive social engineering to lay the foundations of what was to be a healthy historical era stretching out beyond decadence under the perpetual sacred canopy of the revitalized ethnic community."

    I find "parafascism" an interesting term since it acknowledges connections between the two while also admitting the differences. As an example of the differences, consider the attitude to the past. Griffin writes:

    "A recurrent theme of the fascist mazeway [...] was the need to draw on the values of an idealized, largely invented, national past to regenerate the future. However, the spirit in which the Fascists drew on the Italians’ Roman heritage or the Nazis invoked the Germans’ supposedly Aryan past was [...] a “rigorously futural” momentum towards an alternative modernity."

    Consider, for instance, the attitude to the church. Both Hitler and Mussolini seemed to regard Christianity with contempt although they did occasionally make opportunistic use of religion. By contrast, Franco and Salazar, within certain limits, strongly promoted Catholicism and appear to have been personally devout.

    Both these authoritarian conservatives tried to promote and protect established institutions and traditions in a way which would have been anathema to genuine fascists, who aimed to re-create and re-invent a mythic past. While Mussolini evoked ancient Roman civilisation and the Nazis celebrated Germany's distinguished classical music tradition, neither the Caesars nor Wagner was part of the day-to-day existence of ordinary Italians and Germans in the way that the Catholic Church was and had been for centuries for ordinary Spaniards and Portuguese.

    It's surely also significant that both Franco and Salazar kept their countries out of World War II, preferring stability and autarky over transformation, aggression and expansionism.

    Roger Griffin - Modernity, modernism, and fascism. A "mazeway resynthesis" - Modernism/modernity 15:1 (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254958513_Roger_Griffin_-_Modernity_modernism_and_fascism_A_mazeway_resynthesis_-_Modernismmodernity_151 [accessed Jan 03 2018].
  13. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    03 Jan '18 21:09 / 3 edits
    wikipedia.org/wiki/Falangism

    Falangism (Spanish: falangismo) was the political ideology of the Falange Española de las JONS and afterwards of the Falange Española Tradicionalista y de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional Sindicalista (both known simply as the "Falange" ) as well as derivatives of it in other countries. In its original form, Falangism is widely considered a fascist ideology.[1] Under the leadership of Francisco Franco, many of the radical elements of Falangism considered to be fascist were diluted or abandoned altogether and it largely became an authoritarian, conservative ideology connected with Francoist Spain.
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    03 Jan '18 22:10 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by @teinosuke
    I don't really have an answer as regards Vichy France, but I do think it's worth drawing a distinction between fascism and other authoritarian right-wing regimes. Roger Griffin, a British scholar of fascism, defines fascism as:

    "a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism."

    Gri ...[text shortened]... modernism_and_fascism_A_mazeway_resynthesis_-_Modernismmodernity_151 [accessed Jan 03 2018].[/i]
    I find such a distinction unconvincing; in many ways, in practical terms Mussolini had a similar relationship with the Church as Franco. Mussolini granted the Church back some of the Papal lands taken from them by the Italian State in 1870 (this territory became the Vatican) and was in line with the RCC on many issues:

    historylearningsite.co.uk. The History Learning Site, 25 May 2015. 3 Jan 2018.

    Mussolini and the Roman Catholic Church
    Mussolini had to foster good relations with the Roman Catholic Church simply because, regardless of hisdictatorship, the Roman Catholic Church was such a powerful institution in Italy. While Mussolini governed the political side of Italy, the Roman Catholic Church governed the spiritual side. In this sense, Mussolini could not afford to anger the Roman Catholic Church.

    As a young man, Mussolini had shared his father’s opinion of the Roman Catholic Church. Mussolini senior, disliked the power of the Church and the young Mussolini referred to priests as “black germs”.



    However, once in power after 1922, he had to be more guided. Mussolini had recognised this as early as 1920 when the fledgling future leader of Italy had said that the pope “represents 400 million men scattered the world over…….(this was) a colossal force.”

    Once leader, Mussolini had to decide on whether to take on the power of the Roman Catholic Church in Italy or to work with it. He chose the latter. In this way, Italians did not have to have divided loyalties. Therefore, Mussolini worked to get the Roman Catholic Church to accept a Fascist state while he planned to offer the Roman Catholic Church what it wanted.


    To gain credibility with the Roman Catholic Church, Mussolini had his children baptised in 1923. In 1926, he had a religious marriage ceremony to his wife Rachele. Their first marriage in 1915 had been a civil ceremony. Mussolini closed down many wine shops and night clubs. He also made swearing in public a crime.

    One of the reasons why Mussolini pushed the idea that women should stay at home and look after the family while their husbands worked, was because this was an idea pushed by the Roman Catholic Church. Mussolini voiced his disapproval at the use of contraception – an identical stance to the Roman Catholic Church. Like the Roman Catholic Church, Mussolini also wanted divorce banned in Italy. By doing all of this, Mussolini was trying to bring the Roman Catholic Church onto his side to get its support and give added credibility to his government. However, the relationship was not always harmonious.

    In particular, Mussolini and the Roman Catholic Church clashed over who should control education. To ensure that children grew up as good Fascists, Mussolini wanted the state to control this – as it did. However, the Roman Catholic Church felt that it should have this power. Both sides worked for a compromise. The attempt to settle this dispute started in 1926 and it took until 1929 for agreements to be signed. These were the Lateran Treaties. They covered areas other than education.

    The Papal States (the name given to land previously owned by the Roman Catholic Church in Italy) had lost all its land in the 1870 unification of Italy. The Roman Catholic Church received £30 million in compensation in 1929 and the Church was given 109 acres in Rome to create a new papal state – the Vatican. The pope was allowed a small army, police force, post office and rail station. The pope was also given a country retreat called Castel Gandolfo.

    Another part of the treaty was called the Concordat. This made the Roman Catholic faith the state religion – this was a fait accompli anyway. The pope appointed his bishops, though they had to receive the government’s blessing. Religion had to be taught in both primary and secondary schools. The Roman Catholic Church was given full control of marriage.

    When these agreements were signed in 1929, Mussolini’s popularity was at its highest. He had got what he wanted – the support from the members of the public who may not have supported the Fascists but who saw the Roman Catholic Church working with the Fascist government, and that by itself created a tacit acceptance of Mussolini’s government.


    Though Mussolini and the Roman Catholic Church were to quarrel in the 1930’s, these were invariably minor squabbles and were quickly patched up.

    https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-history-1918-to-1980/italy-1900-to-1939/mussolini-and-the-roman-catholic-church/

    There's little difference between fascist Italy's Concordat with the Church and Fascist Spain's:

    For Cardinal Gomá, primate of Spain, the only way was to impose “divine totalitarianism“, i.e. the imposition of Catholic values on all Spanish society. Franco was only too glad to help.

    The privileged status of the Church was granted immediately following the Civil War. A little later –in June 1941– its rights were outlined in an Agreement between the Vatican and the Franco government, and finally formalised in a Concordat signed in August, 1953. Amongst the provisions were: 1. recognition of Catholicism as the official religion of the country; 2. mandatory religious instruction at all educational levels in conformity with Catholic dogma; 3. financial support of the church by the state (paying the salary of priests and contributing to the (re)construction of church buildings); 4. guaranteed representation in both press and radio. To ensure that the Church hierarchy consisted of supportive members, Franco was granted the right to participate in the selection of bishops.

    (But the Church was kept in what Franco believed was its proper place -no1)

    But Franco did not let the church dictate the terms of their relationship, and Spain was in no danger of becoming a theocracy. The same Cardinal Gomá –who had favoured “divine totalitarianism“– was shocked when a pastoral letter of his, which questioned unlimited state power and favoured monitoring the regime’s religious orthodoxy, was banned. It was a sharp reminder that the Church enjoyed its privileges by the grace of Franco!

    http://www.spainthenandnow.com/spanish-history/franco-and-the-catholic-church/default_180.aspx

    Fascism is primarily a nationalist ideology and it is not surprising that its experience in different nation States would vary somewhat. But at its core it is marked by nationalism, opposition to democracy and worker rights, militarism, authoritarianism and extreme violence directed against any opposition. Under Franco there were approximately 500,000 political executions with most occurring after the Civil War; this is simply not compatible with a more run of the mill "authoritarian" State. I look more at Franco's policies then what his personal ideology may or may not been and find that his failure to join the Falange prior to the Civil War is unconvincing evidence of his lack of Fascist ideology; once in power it is extraordinarily difficult to find any major policy differences between Franco and Mussolini.

    I simply don't agree with Griffin and the minority of historians who argue that Franco's Spain wasn't Fascist by standard definitions. You are essentially claiming the Carlists won the ideology war among the Spanish Right under Franco but the evidence is strongly to the contrary.
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    03 Jan '18 22:37
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    "You keep being dishonest; I explicitly said that Petain and Franco were NOT
    *originally* Fascists and you keep saying I am claiming they were."
    --No1Marauder

    No1Marauder keeps lying about what I wrote. Can he quote me ever using the term 'originally'?

    "Contrary to No1Marauder's cocksure belief about Franco being a Fascist:
    "Stanley Payne, a s ...[text shortened]... cist.

    No1Marauder's far too close-minded and dishonest to participate in a historical debate.
    Well, I don't know what a "core fascist" is but Payne's description of what Franco actually did is very much in line with what I have stated:

    Serrano Suñer was politically experienced and astute, much more sophisticated than the naval engineer Nicolás Franco, and he soon replaced him as Franco’s chief political adviser. Like most Spaniards of his era, Franco was strongly family-oriented, and in the uncertain early months of his dictatorship, he trusted family members more than anyone else. Increasingly, members of Doña Carmen’s extended Polo family came to the fore in his entourage.

    Earlier, Franco had been impressed by the idea of Catholic corporatism and in 1935 had carefully noted the updating of Carlist doctrine in Víctor Pradera’s El Estado Nuevo, which called for a new Spanish monarchy, but he concluded that these approaches were too right wing and lacked broad mass appeal. Something more dynamic and up-to-date was needed. By the time Serrano arrived in Salamanca, he found that Franco “already had the idea of reducing the various parties and ideologies of the movement to a common denominator. He showed me the statutes of the Falange on which he had made copious marginal notations. He had also made comparisons between the speeches of [late Falange leader] José Antonio and of Pradera.”1

    Unlike Nicolás, Serrano had a plan of his own, which largely, though never entirely, coincided with Franco’s own ideas, and he proposed to create what can be most simply described as a sort of institutionalized equivalent of Italian fascism, though it would be more identified with Catholicism than fascism, whatever the contradictions such an identification entailed. This would mean building a state political party, based on the Falange. As Serrano later put it, traditionalist, monarchist Carlism “suffered from a certain lack of political modernity. On the other hand, much of its doctrine was included in the thought of the Falange, which furthermore had the popular and revolutionary content that could enable Nationalist Spain to absorb Red Spain ideologically, which was our great ambition and our great duty.”2 It is doubtful that either Franco or Serrano had ever read the early-19th-century theorist Joseph de Maistre, but they implicitly agreed with his conclusion that the counterrevolution was not the opposite of a revolution, but rather was an opposing revolution. The revolutionary dimension of their counterrevolution would be provided by a kind of fascism.

    The Falange had swollen enormously from no more than 10,000 members to several hundred thousand, but its principal leaders were dead, slain by leftist repression in the war. The second rank who stepped to the fore lacked talent, prestige, or clear ideas and were divided among themselves. They realized that all indications were that the country was moving toward some kind of major new political organization, and in February they had negotiated terms of a possible fusion with the Carlists, the only other significant paramilitary and political force in the Nationalist zone. The Carlists, however, were ultratraditionalist Catholics, who were extremely skeptical of fascism, and a merger could not be achieved.

    While Nicolás continued to handle routine administration of political affairs, Franco decided—strongly encouraged by Serrano—to establish a partido único, a single, unified state party. Matters were brought to a head by turmoil in the Falangist leadership between April 16 and 18, as two dominant factions literally came to blows, leaving one dead on each side. By April 18, the sometime ship mechanic Manuel Hedilla, acting head of the party, was elected its new jefe nacional by a narrow vote. While that was going on, Serrano supervised the drawing-up of a decree of political unification, officially announced on April 19.

    This established the Spanish Traditionalist Phalanx (Falange Española Tradicionalista, or FET) as the new state party (a state party being standard “in other countries of totalitarian regime,” according to the decree), arbitrarily fusing the Falangists and Carlists. The Twenty­Six Points, the fascistic doctrine of the Falange, became the creed of the new party and hence of the state, but Franco emphasized that this was not a final and fixed program and would be subject to modification and development in the future. The new political structure would not rule out an eventual monarchist restoration, for Franco specified that “when we have put an end to the great task of spiritual and material reconstruction, should patriotic need and the wishes of the country support it, we do not close the horizon to the possibility of installing in the nation the secular regime that forged its unity and historical greatness,” taking care to term it “instauración” of a more authoritarian monarchy, as distinct from restoration of the parliamentary monarchy.3 This was not at all a matter of the party taking over the state; rather, the state was taking over the party. A few years later, that would make all the difference concerning the future of fascism in Spain.

    All remaining political organizations were dissolved and their members were expected to join the FET, of which Franco named himself the jefe nacional. The organization would have a secretary-general, a political council as executive committee, and a broader national council, all these personnel to be appointed by the national chief. Five days later, the Falange’s raised­arm fascist salute was made the official salute of the regime (to be abandoned only in 1945). The key Falangist insignia and slogans were also taken over: The dark-blue shirt, the greeting of “comrade,” the red-and-black flag (first adopted by anarchists), the symbol of the yoked arrows (from the Catholic monarchs, Fernando and Isabel, who had unified Spain nearly half a millennium earlier), the anthem “Cara al Sol” (“Face to the Sun&rdquo, and the slogan “¡Arriba España!” (“Upward Spain&rdquo.4

    The goal was to develop a partido único of a semifascist kind, though not as the mere imitation of the Italian or any other foreign model. In an interview in a pamphlet titled Ideario del Generalísimo, published soon afterward, Franco declared that “our system will be based on a Portuguese or Italian model, though we shall preserve our historic institutions.” Later, in an interview with the daily Spanish newspaper ABC on July 19, 1937, he reiterated that the objective was to achieve “a totalitarian state,” though the example he evoked was the institutional structure of the Catholic monarchs in the 15th century. As he put it rather ambiguously in an interview with the New York Times Magazine in December 1937, “Spain has its own tradition, and the majority of the modern formulas that are to be discovered in the totalitarian countries may be found already incorporated within our national past.”

    The function of the new FET was, in Franco’s words, to incorporate the “great unaffiliated neutral mass” of Spaniards, for whom doctrinal rigidity would not be desirable. Two months before the unification, Franco had declared that, “The Falange has not declared itself fascist; its founder declared so himself.” Thereafter, the custom within the Nationalist zone, especially among the press in the first months, of calling the Falangists and some other groups “fascists” was abandoned. All that Franco had been willing to admit before the unification was that the supposedly nonfascist character of the Falange “does not mean that there are not individual fascists … within it.”5 In the month following the unification, he had to reassure Catholic bishops that the FET would not propagate “Nazi ideas,” a particular concern of theirs.6

    Nonetheless, partly under the influence of Serrano Suñer, Franco’s language became somewhat more “fascist” during 1938 and 1939. In the draft of his speech for July 18, 1938, commemorating the second anniversary of the National Movement, he applied the adjective fascist to his regime and, more extravagantly, to the Catholic monarchs, but decided to delete it from the final version. The official statutes of the party, promulgated on Aug. 4, 1937, structured a completely authoritarian and hierarchical system. Franco’s role was defined in Articles 47 and 48:

    The Jefe Nacional of F. E. T., supreme Caudillo of the Movement, personifies all its values and honors. As author of the historical era in which Spain acquires the means to carry out its destiny and with that the goals of the Movement, the Jefe, in the plenitude of his powers, assumes the most absolute authority. … It is up to the Caudillo to designate his successor.
    It was left to Serrano Suñer to develop the first steps of the FET and to conciliate and integrate the camisas viejas (literally “old shirts&rdquo, the activist veterans of the original Falange, of whom several thousand survived in the Nationalist zone. Newly instated Falange leader Hedilla had been expecting some sort of political unification, but also, naïvely, thought that he would be the leader of the new party. Instead, he was merely named the head of the Political Council, the central political committee. The unification was not popular with either the Falangist or the Carlist militants, but under the existing conditions of total civil war, the immense majority accepted Franco’s initiative. Nonetheless, Hedilla and a small minority of activists, while not rebelling overtly, manifested their recalcitrance. Hedilla was immediately arrested and later court-martialed and sentenced to death, though Serrano had Franco commute this to life imprisonment.7 Over the next weeks and months, hundreds of Falangists who showed a degree of defiance would be arrested. A report given to Franco at the close of 1937 listed a total of 568, of whom 192 were convicted by military tribunals. The FET became a reality, however much cognitive dissonance this generated.

    http://www.slate.com/article...