Be Franco

>"But that's not the topic of discussion, the actual topic is how Franco wanted his own country to get MOORED.COM despite him supposedly being the nationalist leader."

I literally answered this. He wanted to establish a quick victory in the war, so he used what means he could. He didn't want Moors to rape Spaniards because he was a cuck, he did it because he wanted to stop the Republican movement by any means necessary, even if it meant betraying his own principles of supporting Spanish nationalism.

>the leftypol faggot is still thinking about getting raped
What the hell is wrong with leftypol?

>he did it because he wanted to stop the Republican movement by any means necessary
How exactly did that stop the republican movement? Or even help?

>it's demoralizing
Knowing you're going to get gangraped by niggers the second you surrender doesn't really encourage you to surrender.

>Criticize tinpot dictator
> u r leftypol

/pol/, not even once.

>if you aren't a liberal derpmocracy you are a "tinpot dictators"

Get used to it senpai, libtard democracy isn't long for this world ;-)

Non-liberal democracies aren't necessarily tinpot dictatorships.

But Franco was by all rights a tinpot dictator of the highest order. He pretty much the set the standard for 20th century Hispanic tinpot dictators.

The standard for what distinguishes a "dictator" and anything else is so flimsy and arbitrary, by modern libtard standards everyone from Augustus and Qin Shi Huang to the Sakoku-era Shoguns were all "tinpot dictators".

It's just a smug smear tactic. Leaders should be judged on their results, not by how good they were at virtue signalling.

Fuck liberal democracy's endless stream of lawyer-leaders anyway. I'll take a General over that any day.

Definition of dictator
>a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force.
Definition of tinpot dictator
>An autocratic ruler with little political credibility, but with self-delusions of grandeur.

Franco seems to fit the bill.

I also don't know why you're frothing at the mouth about liberal democracy and "libtards".

>>An autocratic ruler with little political credibility, but with self-delusions of grandeur.

Good to know it's completely subjective and hinges on your wholly subjective freudian psychoanalysis bro.

Really erudite stuff.

>I also don't know why you're frothing at the mouth about liberal democracy and "libtards".

How mad were you when Trump won?

>libtard
>the ends justify the means

This is why nobody takes you seriously.

>vast majority of states outside of western europe and north america are intensely illiberal and would be considered highly authoritarian by western standards
>nobody takes you seriously

Why the eurocentrism?

>Good to know it's completely subjective and hinges on your wholly subjective freudian psychoanalysis bro.
Well that's because tinpot dictator isn't a serious academic term. It's a derogatory phrase, kind of like "libtard".

>How mad were you when Trump won?
idgaf mass politics is for plebs.

Why are all these leftypol shills fantasizing about being raped about black men ITT?L

>How exactly did that stop the republican movement?
He won the war didn't he?

Yeah, because he won the deciding battles.

Not because his forces raped civilians after the fact.

Funny thing is the allies used Morroccan troops during the Italian WW2 campaign and they raped women too.

Why are maghrebis such subhumans?

wtf i hate franco now

>Be Spanish nationalist, monarchist, ultra-Catholic who loves to wank over the reconquista

>nationalist
>ultra-catholic monarchist

Pick one and only one, the falangists, especially under Primo de Rivera disliked the Catholic church, i even remember reading about incidents with the Carlists precisely over their anti church sentiments. Bear in mind that nationalism was the first child of liberalism. Anyway Franco doesn't seem like an idealist, he was just pragmatic and against the socialists.

La Guardia mora atacked the village of my grand-granny when he was a teenager, he could get our of there before the Moors entered it. He didn't like to tell me about what they did, but my mother did. Speared babies, rape, burning buildings etc, they were the worst in a very vicious conflict.

Why can't you libtards comprehend that this whole "all pre-60s traditionalist supported absolute segregation in all circumstances, muh "racism" means I can't stand other races" bullshit is nothing but propaganda? Most right-wingers, whether doctrinally or tangibly had no problem with non-Whites so long as common sense boundaries were in place. The whole "one drop rule" maymay is nothing but an American oddity.

Why is there so much racism towards Muslims on Veeky Forums?

It's perfectly legitimate to take a women you capture in battle. It's Islamophobic to call it rape.

>Most right-wingers, whether doctrinally or tangibly had no problem with non-Whites so long as common sense boundaries were in place.
And I see raping white people is within those boundaries.

Does this mean /pol/ are the real cucks?

Worse than Germans and Italians killing hundreds of civilians at Guernica for no fucking reason?

These white people were greater enemies to the nation than the moors who were killing them and getting sent back. Needlessly shilling for enemies in your own nation is being cucked. Not working with the vast non-White world to ultimate secure the interest of Whites.

>Why is there so much racism towards Muslims on Veeky Forums?
I'm not anti-Islam. I'm anti brown people.

>muh white people

Shut the fuck up faggot. Mediterraneans were not considered white for a long, long time. I guarantee you post >italian >white in other threads all the fucking time. Kill yourself.

You think if White persons would screw over their entire nation, they should be viewed as so special just because of their skin? Right wingers in the past didn't.

Again, a retarded view more conformed with propaganda than reality.

I'm a Greek from /int/ (not the guy you're replying to) and honestly, I notice the whiteness trolling more from non-white countries than white ones.

I think it's their way of fitting in and pretending they are acquainted with differences in european ethnology.

Leftists already facilitate non-white rape of whites through permissive immigration, criminal justice and deportation laws.

>Mediterraneans were not considered white for a long, long time.
Where? Not in the US, where they always had all the rights of other White men concerning marriage, property, voting etc. the US never considered Italian non-White. More bullshit propaganda

>Leftists already facilitate non-white rape of whites through permissive immigration, criminal justice and deportation laws.
Which is why Franco was justified in preventing it. Something he managed to do for decades after the civil war was over. These leftist who see everything in terms of identity politics can't comprehend it. It's pathetic.

>These white people were greater enemies to the nation
Those white people WERE the nation.

> Not working with the vast non-White world to ultimate secure the interest of Whites.
Spain right now doesn't exactly look like it's secured anything in the interest of whites. It looks a lot like Franco used Africans as dogs of war to secure a lot of power for himself at the expense of Spanish people, then sold the country out to liberal democratic merchants and a limpwristed monarchy anyway.

>but da commies!
It wasn't the communists that were polluting Spain's racial hygiene. That was the """""""nationalists""""""". As I see it this means that the nationalists are the white man's actual enemy in this war.

The government deeming somebody "white" doesn't mean the vast majority of people also believe it. For instance, Latinos are considered white by the US government, but you know damn well some fucking cracker in the woods of Wisconsin does not consider Jose white. Again, kill yourself.

Yes. The white race is the master-race, that's exactly what I'm saying.

>Right wingers in the past didn't.
And right wingers of the past were generally useful idiots for the rich and the church.

>Little political credibility

And yet Franco stayed in power for 35 years. So I guess he did have some credibility after all.

Except prominent racialist such as stoddard considered Italians White as well. What some bumfuck thought really didn't matter.

Latios aren't consider white, they have their own category "Hispanic" also Caucasian doesn't sync up with White so you sound retarded.

>the US never considered Italian non-White
People were still racist against Italians and they were basically segregated into shitty neighborhoods and denied various employment and housing opportunities

>b-b-but muh identity politics
The commies and anachist were raping nuns and murdering viciously. If 10 moors raped and killed 10 White people to save 1000 it's worth it. Also they would have sold the nation to international Jewish finical interest which certainly is not in the interest of Whites.

Yeah, because he won the war. You might say that, that's the only thing that matters and you might be right. But simply being the best at violence at the time doesn't make you the most credible.

Yeah but they were white so it's okay.

> Also they would have sold the nation to international Jewish finical interest which certainly is not in the interest of Whites.
You mean exactly like Franco did when he buddied up with the (((allies))) after the war?

>People were still racist against Italians
What the fuck is your point? People generally dislike outsiders. "Racist against Italians" is way fucking different than "Italians weren't considered White"

Wut, be who? Because if meds aren't white white culture is a fucking copy of ours.

>You mean exactly like Franco did when he buddied up with the (((allies))) after the war?
Actually Franco's Spain was a pariah state. Had the Jews not infiltrated the Catholic Church and passed Vatican 2 Spain would have remained a conservative Christian state.

It's a leftist/non-white D&C thing.

They fear white people uniting under a single banner. Especially the non-whites.

Whoa don't get your undies in a twist. What was your point in saying Italians were always considered "white?" Considered by who? People didn't even have a conception of a unified white race when there was still mass immigration from Italy and Ireland and Eastern Europe

It wasn't for very long. Franco jumped into bed with Judeo-Americans at the first opportunity.

>Had the Jews not infiltrated the Catholic Church and passed Vatican 2 Spain would have remained a conservative Christian state.
Christianity is Jewish and another yoke on the Aryan race's neck.

Italians were originally respected in the U.S. when the Italian-American population consisted mainly of skilled craftsman from the North.

It was when we started getting boatloads of poor Southern Italians in the 19th century that they stopped being considered white.

>they stopped being considered white.
This is a myth. Southern Italians had the same legal rights as White men and weren't considered "non-White" by anyone who mattered.

>People didn't even have a conception of a unified white race when there was still mass immigration from Italy and Ireland and Eastern Europe
So when the founders limited immigration to "free White men of good character" they had no concept?

When nobody wants to hire a smelly wop and they have to live in the slums with the rest of their kind, you can remind them that they're considered equal by the "people who matter"

That was the same for all immigrants. Germans included. 'Tis life of an immigrant.

People self segregate, dingus. Living in ethnic communities because you come to America to make money and go back home after a few years doesn't mean shit about whether you were considered White or not.

Watching you tear that lib apart with a single sentence in each reply is kind of funny.

Robspierre won the war. Cromwell won the war. Kerensky won the war. None of them lasted 35 years. Clearly there is a difference between gaining power and establishing political credibility.

Well no, now you're talking about establishing a credible dynasty. Something else entirely.

Same happened with the Irish, and I bet the early Germans, Greeks or Polacs were treated the same in they first generation.

>None of them lasted 35 years
That's because
a) Robespierre an Kerensky got beat by some people who were even better at violence than them. It's not true to say they won the war.
b) Cromwell died whilst still being in power.

>Clearly there is a difference between gaining power and establishing political credibility.
That's exactly my point. Franco won the war, he did not become a politically credible leader for doing so.

Hence why the Spanish government has been working around the clock to try and forget that he ever happened.

Can any American truly be considered white?

>Be monarchist
>Install a king as your successor who destroys your Catholic utopia

How the fuck was it "actively encouraged" by Franco? It just sounds like untrue hyperbole to paint him negatively.

>Our brave Legionaries and Regulares have shown the red cowards what it means to be a man. And, incidentally the wives of reds too. These Communist and Anarchist women, after all, have made themselves fair game by their doctrine of free love. And now they have at least the acquaintance of real men, and not milksops of militiamen. Kicking their legs about and struggling won't save them.

Franco was literally a cuck.

Most rightards are, one way or another.

How is he a cuck???

In that quote he applauded African Muslims as real men for raping white Spanish women.

Sounds like a cuck to me.

El ejercito de África was unironically The most disciplined of the spanish army at The time

Robespierre and Kerensky were heads of government who failed to establish sufficient credibility with enough people to prevent further violent uprisings. Hence, a failure of legitimacy. Franco was able to establish enough credibility with the right people to prevent a violent overthrow. Cromwell was admittedly a flawed example since it was his son that lost power, but the fact that his son was not able to maintain control indicates that there were sufficient flaws in the government to destroy it's authority.

Political authority and legitimacy stems from a monopoly on violence. Dismissing failures as being bested by people who were "even better at violence" does not contradict the fact that Franco was self evidently politically legitimate.

First of all the African army was mostly Spaniard.Franco was part of that army when he started his military career as most comflicts and promotions were given there.Then for some reason you assume that he was just talking about the African army when
>Legionaries and Regulares
Explicitly reffers to spanish soldiers
And most of it were Spanish soldiers.The idea that all the soldiers in Africa were muslims is just retarded

>Hence, a failure of legitimacy.
More like a failure of monopoly of violence.

> but the fact that his son was not able to maintain control indicates that there were sufficient flaws in the government to destroy it's authority.
Except Francoist Spain also immediately folded upon his death.

>Political authority and legitimacy stems from a monopoly on violence
Authority yes.
Legitimacy no. There's varying ideas on what constitutes legitimacy but it's roughly analogous to popular and international support which Franco simply did not have. And as mentioned before for proof of this you need look no further to the treatment of Francoist legacy since the return of democracy to Spain, that is, the government simply tries to ignore everything to do with it.

You could also suggest that legitimacy is rooted in law and tradition, and Franco plainly does not meet this criteria either given that he was a rebel against the legal government and then didn't restore the traditional monarchy in his life time. He simply walked over all law and tradition in establishing himself as a dictator.

> Franco was self evidently politically legitimate.
If you want to define "legitimacy" as just "not being overthrown" then yes. But that's a retarded concept of legitimacy.

>Legionaries
Yes
>Regulares
No, the Regulares were indigenous Moroccans. They were not Spaniards, they were not Spaniards from Morocco. They were Moors.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulares

>In that quote he applauded African Muslims as real men for raping white Spanish women.

>white spanish women

They were anarchists and communists who gives a fuck, if it wasn't for the war they would have gotten Moor'd willingly because of their "free love", anarchists and leftists are the true cucklords.

>They were anarchists and communists who gives a fuck
They're white. Therefore regardless of their political leanings they're inherently better than Africans and shouldn't be getting raped by them.

>anarchists and leftists are the true cucklords.
Maybe so, but not as cuckish the edgy /pol/yps that support white people getting raped by nigs.

There regular army had just 34 thousand soldiers in which 3000 were Moroccans.In the civil war the nationalist side had over 800,000 troops.The weight of muslims in the Nationalist side is blown out of proportion in this site for some reason.

1. The nationalist side had 600,000 infantry
2. The regulares had at height 60,000 infantry. Making it 10% of the entire army, and the regulares unlike the army of Africa were exclusively indigenous Moroccans (except the officers).
3. They were the most decorated forces of the nationalist side, hence why their role in the war is stressed.

Please leave

>The regulares had at height 60,000 infantry.
During the civil war the African army was 75 thousand strong.There were only two regular divisions which put together were still smaller than the Legion
>the army of Africa were exclusively indigenous Moroccans
False.This is just a lie.

He didn't actually care about nationalism, the church, or any of that shit.

He, just like every other autocrat/politician/whatever strived for power and seeked to achieve it through any means necessary.

>During the civil war the African army was 75 thousand strong.There were only two regular divisions which put together were still smaller than the Legion
We're not talking about the army of Africa, we're talking about the regulares. They were different

This is who we're talking about
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulares
This is who we're not talking about
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_Africa_(Spain)

>False.This is just a lie.
You know if you know fuck all about history and can't speak English for shit either maybe this board isn't for you. What I said was

>and the regulares unlike the army of Africa were exclusively indigenous Moroccans (except the officers).
I said the regulares were composed of indigenous Moroccans and that the army of Africa were not.

If you're Spanish I see Franco didn't do the education system any justice either.

>We're not talking about the army of Africa, we're talking about the regulares. They were different
But 60000 was the number of the AFRICAN ARMY at its peak during the civil war.You are the one that is getting confused mixing the regular army with the African army
>You know if you know
>That grammar
>Bitching about bad english
Go back to school Cletus.You are making a fool out of yourself
>I said the regulares were composed of indigenous Moroccans
Which is false again.At least 1/4 of regular regiments had to be formed by Spaniards you fucking dingus.

>There's varying ideas on what constitutes legitimacy but it's roughly analogous to popular and international support which Franco simply did not have.
In short, it's subjective. Personally, I subscribe to Hobbes' view of the state, in that political authority automatically translates to legitimacy. The state makes the laws, so they decide what is legitimate.

You clearly subscribe to a newer, liberal view of legitimacy. Legitimacy depends not only on authority, but on other countries also agreeing on said authority, regardless of their motives for doing so.

> Franco plainly does not meet this criteria either given that he was a rebel against the legal government
Clearly this government lacked the authority to enforce said laws, so their claim to "legitimacy" wasn't worth much.

>But 60000 was the number of the AFRICAN ARMY
Not 75,00 then?

>Go back to school Cletus.You are making a fool out of yourself
That grammar is flawless, there's no rule in the English language that says you can only use a word once in a sentence.

Also when referring to someone you put a comma before it like this.
>That's wrong, idiot.

>Which is false again.At least 1/4 of regular regiments had to be formed by Spaniards you fucking dingus.
What the fuck do you think the full title of the Regulares was? It was short for "Indigenous regular forces".

Seriously, some of this you just pull right out of your arse.

>Therefore regardless of their political leanings they're inherently better than Africans and shouldn't be getting raped by them.
That's where you're wrong, kid. A lot of modern White leftist could use a good raping and killing by Muslims as well desu.

You're a cuck.

>75,00
Too short
>That grammar is flawless,
Kek.You should go back to school
>What the fuck do you think the full title of the Regulares was?
Regulares means average.There were a lot of Spaniards (mostly rookies) in the regular regiments.Franco was one of them when he started his military career.With the republican reform to the Spanish army there had to be at least 1/4 of spaniards in a regular regime

From the overuse of that word is losing it's impact bro, stop using it willy-nilly.

A lot of leftist politicians REALLY deserve to be raped by Muslims and killed.

>Kek.You should go back to school
>You can't use the same word twice in a sentence
Retard.

>Regulares means average
No, it means regular. Regular in military use has a specific meaning.

>.Franco was one of them when he started his military career.
When Franco started his military career the Regulares didn't even exist. They were only organized in 1911. As well as that Franco wasn't an infantryman, he entered the military as a lieutenant. As I've already told you the Regulares weren't led by Moroccan officers despite being made of indigenous Moroccan infantry.

>With the republican reform to the Spanish army there had to be at least 1/4 of spaniards in a regular regime
Give me a source right now that says the Indigenous Regular Forces infantry had to be 1/4 Spanish.

No, I mean it. That is very cuckish.

>In that quote he applauded African Muslims as real men for raping white Spanish women.

Buy glasses cause he said "Our brave Legionaries and Regulares" and not "Our brave Africans and Muslims"

Regulares were the Moroccan forces of the Spanish army.

>Regulares didn't even exist
They were created in 1911.Franco arrived to Africa in 1912.You are borderline retarded
>Give me a source right now that says the Indigenous Regular Forces infantry had to be 1/4 Spanish.
The archives of the Second Republic state that the regular regiments had 2100 Spaniards and 6000 Moroccans.If you believe that 2100 of those Spaniards were offcers you would be just fucking deluded

Conveniently forgot the Legionaries