I admit I did not know much about Francisco Franco, dictator of Spain for some 40 years, from 1936 to 1975, and felt like Spain could perhaps have taken a more active role in WWII.
But, on the other hand, I knew that even to this day he has his supporters in Spain. So it seemed like the classic situation, where the media tells us "Oh, he was a fascist authoritarian dictator!" meanwhile there are swathes of people that lived under his rule, that sympathized with his decisions, and thought he served the country faithfully.
And I am starting to wonder if there aren't times when a country is in crisis that it needs a strong leader. The theory being that democracy or a republic is all good and well when things are going smoothly, but in times of war and civil unrest and ACTIVE SUBVERSION, perhaps less so.
So I decided to do the bare minimum of research. You know, read his wikipedia entry, where I found... this: "Franco was a subscriber to the journal of Acción Española, a monarchist organisation, and** a firm believer in the Jewish-Masonic-Bolshevik conspiracy or contubernio** (filthy cohabitation)—'one of Franco's favourite words': a conspiracy in which Jews, Freemasons, Communists, and other leftists alike allegedly sought the destruction of Christian Europe, with Spain the principal target"
view the rest of the comments →
[–] TheSeer [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Its not that simple, obviously. Of course America should have maintained neutrality and Stalin should have been content as a monarch, with increased influence in places like Eastern Europe, India, and China. Spain was wracked by civil war, so it is understandable that their appetite for further war was not there.