The defeat of fascism in WWII.

[Lumpy]

I'll have to side with RRAM. Although some historians suggest that Franco was a fascist, I've always seen him as more of an opportunist. Iron-fisted dictator yes, but one who went "with the flow" in order to gain and stay in power. Frankly (no pun intended), I think the man's only ideology was whatever brought him more power.

IMO, the biggest problem with "Fascism" is that most of us are incapable of explaining what it is.

This is not an issue of whether Franco was personally a fascist or not, but if Spain under Franco was a fascist state.

Stanley Payne's "Fascism: Comparison and Definition" uses a lengthy list of characteristics to identify fascism, including the creation of an authoritarian state, a regulated state-integrated economic sector, fascist symbolism, anti-liberalism and anti-communism. He argues that common aim of all fascist movements was elimination of the autonomy or, in some cases, the existence of large-scale capitalism.

The "sub-type" of fascism practised in Spain is perhaps more closely related to clerical fascism (like the Ustaše in Croatia) than Nazism or Italian fascism. Franquist Spain had Nacionalcatolicismo as part of its ideology. Francism has been described as clerical fascist after the decline in influence of the more secular Falange fascists in the mid-1940s.

[Angus]

Must confess that I never dove into the close definition of fascism. However, I'd still regard Franco as more of a soft dictator (sort of a monarc by conquest) than a fascist really.
And Spain was on a different level than Germany, Italy and Japan.
Franco wasn't all that bad IMHO, and he had the brass to completely deny Hitler of his request to help out with getting Gibraltar out of British hands.....which is related to my thread somewhere below.
Hitler actually said that he'd rather have some molars pulled out than meeting with Franco again.

Well, my  cents....

RRAM, you a spaniard?

[LTARGlok]

"Most ironic indeed that the nation that is now the most like Nazi Germany, was once its greatest enemy."

Wiki: "Among the key elements of Nazism were anti-parliamentarism, ethnic nationalism, racism, collectivism, eugenics, antisemitism, opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism, a racially-defined and conspiratorial view of finance capitalism, anti-communism, and totalitarianism."


More ironic IMO is that nazism and faschism are so defined with certain countries and times that people do not realize that such movements are formed by certain desires people have and thus it changes shape all the time and gains ground where it can. Of course such movement would not be possible today as it was in Germany in 1933 but in other form it could, and again only time would reveal, when looking back, that they were indeed of the same origin i.e. desires and forms of behavior people may develop while living in our form of civilization. Nazism was nothing new in human history but in the form it emerged it was easily defined and it left a distinct mark in our history books in its form. Hell, next similar think could be "bonkism" or "wankism" or what ever and it would not necessarily have the distinct "watermark" of nazism but rather be traced easily to certain human behavior models and social hiccups of our civilization. What I'm saying is that it is stupid to put you finger on the word "nazism" or "faschism" and think that you have it all under you finger... 

-C+

Except I never, ever used the word Nazism in my post.   You are falsely putting words in my mouth here, which I greatly resent you doing.

I only used the word Fascism, which definitely relates a great deal to what Putin is turning Russia into today:

   
fas·cism

Pronunciation:
    \ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\

Function:
    noun

Etymology:
    Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces

Date:
    1921

Definitions:

1) often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (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

2) a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

.

[LTARGlok]

I'll have to side with RRAM. Although some historians suggest that Franco was a fascist, I've always seen him as more of an opportunist. Iron-fisted dictator yes, but one who went "with the flow" in order to gain and stay in power. Frankly (no pun intended), I think the man's only ideology was whatever brought him more power.

IMO, the biggest problem with "Fascism" is that most of us are incapable of explaining what it is.

If something walks like a Duck, swims like a Duck, and quacks like a Duck, it is very often a Duck.





"Our regime is based on bayonets and blood, not on hypocritical elections."

-- Francisco Franco


See my earlier post for a generally accepted definition of Fascism.

.

[LTARGlok]

People here mixed up something.ww2 Germany - Nazism
                                            ww2 Italy - Fascism

No, it is you and others who are not accepting Fascism as a more general term, which it is commonly accepted as being.   

Just look the word up in one of the major dictionaries, as I have done.

.

[Lumpy]

Franco wasn't all that bad IMHO...

Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of people killed by the Brigada Politico Social during the reign of the Generalissimo.

[Angus]

Well, not that good either....but no match for Hitler

BTW, a book hint is
"Shadow of the wind" by Carlos Ruiz Zafón...happens in fascist Spain. For entertainment.

[Charge]

"Except I never, ever used the word Nazism in my post.   You are falsely putting words in my mouth here, which I greatly resent you doing."

Glok, I didn't aim my post to you, just used you previous post to make a general point. Sorry if I made that impression.

-C+

[E25280]

Well, not that good either....but no match for Hitler

Well, next to Hitler, Pol Pot wasn't so bad, either.   

[Angus]

Pol Potty in WW2?

Stay on track. We're in WW2 okay?

[Lumpy]

No we're not. We're discussing the survival of fascism after WWII.

Also I disagree that Hitler was "worse" than Franco ... or Pol Pot for that matter. It is not important how many you kill, but why you kill them. If there were 6 million "undesirable" people in Spain I have no doubt that Franco would have purged them all ... and in that respect he was just as bad as Hitler. The Franquists may not have been so efficient about it though ... after all the Spaniards make for lousy Germans.

Pol Pot I think is in a league of his own when it comes to evil. I keep trying, but I can't seem to think of someone worse.

[iwomba]

While you certainly are entitled to your opinion Francism is generally accepted as fascist. While support from America, the economic transformation of Spain in the 1960’s and the subsequent peaceful transition to democracy after Franco’s death may have created the impression that somehow his regime was not fascist, it clearly was if you look at the political organization and the actions they took. Just like there are many flavours of democracy (republic, parliamentary etc.) there are many flavours of fascism, and Franco’s “Movimiento Nacional” was one. Franco’s regime fully embraced the dictatorial “leader principle”, fanatical anti-communism to the point of genocide, fanatical nationalism and the elimination of any culture or symbol that was not truly “Spanish”. Thus the Basque and Catalan languages and culture were totally repressed.  Between 1940 and 1942 approx. 200,000 people were purged in Franquist Spain. Mostly communists and people considered “anti-Spain”.

If you want to know more about Franquist Spain I recommend the excellent book: “Fascism in Spain, 1923–1977” by Stanley G. Payne. http://www.amazon.com/Fascism-Spain-1923-1977-Stanley-Payne/dp/0299165647

Interesting as idealogies are they or us like to seperate them with terms such as Fascism, Nazism, Democracy, Communism etc.
But they all do have some similarities depending on who the"leader" is at the time.Their aims, goals & purposes are done under whatever banner they think will work at that certain instance in time.
A certain US President , who was a civil war general , tried to eliminate a culture with genocide. The term he used to describe this was" the final solution".
So a Democracy with fascist/nazism/communism overtones. What would you call that?
Doesn't matter what politically banner name is used when it comes to war.
So does that mean that ancient British & Germanic tribes ( & others involved) saved us from Republicsm when the Roman Empire fell or we were saved from Democracy when ancient Greece lost their power?

[Angus]

Well, WW2 or not, Franco still stood up against Hitler, when being approached about Gibraltar.
Hitler wanted to open up to the med, he needed a co-op with Spain to capture Gibraltar, and Franco said NO.
So, he was not a co-up fascist. He could have said yes, but he chose to say no.
Just this little thing could have altered the very course of WW2.

Anyway, about fascism after WW2....IMHO it was subdued but not killed. Simple really.

[Lumpy]

Anyway, about fascism after WW2....IMHO it was subdued...

Heh, tell that to the people of Stanley.

Simple really.

I have tried hard to find a reply that does not sound insulting. I'm left with only this: No, it is not "simple". Not by a long shot.

[Lumpy]

So a Democracy with fascist/nazism/communism overtones. What would you call that?

A genocidal democracy does not have fascist "overtones". Fascism is irreconcilable with democracy, and genocide is not part of the fascist ideology. Any government can commit acts of genocide and other crimes as history has proved over and over again.