How Similar Were the Dictatorships of Primo de Rivera and Franco?

Throughout the course of history, several authoritarian leaders have risen to power and maintained their acquired power through physical, violent means. Two authoritarian leaders that have transformed their acquired power into dictatorial rights are Fidel Castro of Cuba and Augusto Pinochet of Chile. Interestingly, Castro and Pinochet differed in their ideals about the ideal structure of governments. While Castro advocated for a socialist, Marxist, anti-imperialist Cuba, Pinochet favored a anti-Marxist, anti-socialist, capitalist Chile. Despite their differing ideals, both shared several similarities in their efforts to establish and maintain their power. Both individuals rose to power in a similar manner: a sort of coup d’état. Both individuals maintained power through positive and negative means. Castro and Pinochet introduced several economic reforms that mostly benefited the people of Cuba and Chile. While these economic reforms allowed for the financial freedom of many Cubans and Chileans, the dictatorial rulers politically repressed the residents of Cuba and Chile. While many historians believe that Castro and Pinochet greatly differed due to their opposing beliefs, both dictators share multiple similarities in the ways that they rose to power, negatively maintained power, and positively

Peron transformed Argentina’s economy, social structure and political culture in ways that continue to shape Argentina to this day. On the other side, Peron’s political actions as well as his legacy cannot be characterized easily, he was a politician who provided for the masses as well as being supported by them while still being in various ways the president of an authoritarian regime. What were both Peron and Castro’s economic goals, and how do they differ from each other?

Throughout history, as we study Spain we can clearly recognize high and low points in their success. In the fifteen hundreds Spain had no influence on European affairs, Spain essentially vanished out of Europe. However, within one complete century Spain had become not only a leading power but they also had a great sense of effectiveness in Europe. Spain experienced a Golden age with many social, economic, political aspects. On the other hand, within

The evidence that supports the idea that the Nationalists won the Spanish Civil War because of their strength is abundant. The unity of the Nationalists was obvious and meant that there was both great organisation and co-ordination, meaning there was no ambiguity in the goals set by those fighting for the Nationalists. Franco’s plans for a long term war meant that he was able to ensure the defeat of the Republic by slowly squeezing the life out of the Republic war effort, which already was heavily reliant on Soviet aid, by securing Republican strong holds throughout Spain. The contrasting lack of unity on the Republic as well

La Lengua de las Mariposas, directed by José Luis Cuerda, is a marvelous and powerful film that explores Spain’s past through the lens of education. Cuerda does this by exhibiting the contrast between the 1931-1936 Republic and the dictatorships that ruled the country just before and after the Spanish Civil War through the relationship between Moncho, a young boy, and Don Gregorio, his teacher. The film depicts the Republic’s aims for a liberal education and the pressures this produced within the more conservative region of society. Overall this film portrays both the freedom of this short period in Spain’s history and the beginning of Franco’s oppressive dictatorship.

According to Spain then and now, (2011), “In contrast to Spain’s startling growth of political power and prestige during the 16th century, the 17th century is commonly seen as one of decline.” Not merely historical hindsight, this view was already articulated in the early 17th century by a group of writers known as arbitristas. They lamented the deterioration of the country, and offered suggestions for both political and especially economic reform. Who recognised the stark contrast between the appearance of imperial greatness and the reality of social and economic problems in their country. Events of the 17th century confirm the foresight of the best of these early political economists. Since then there has been general consensus that Spain

The Mexican Revolution was completely just, but not too successful in the early stages. Spain during this time were a large power, they had many conquered territories that they had complete control over. Much like their rule over other colonies, Spain ruled all of New Spain extremely unfairly. For example, in Mexico, there was a large gap when it came to wealth. The rulers of New Spain were bathed in wealth, they had copious amounts of jewels and access to goods, whereas the people of Mexico, especially the Indian and Mestizos, lived in poverty. With New Spain’s rule over Mexico there was also a limited amount of representation regarding the majority of Mexico, the Indians and the Mestizos. New Spain’s governors were mostly rich colonists,

Porfirio Diaz was the president of Mexico who was responsible for the modernization and industrialization that took place in the country. His motto was paz, orden y progresso, he didn’t want there to be wars in Mexico like there had been in prior years. He wanted there to be change and progress. In order to accomplish paz y orden he was known to be ruthless and crude. Diaz was not going to tolerate disloyalty or disobedience and for those who chose to do it anyways suffered the consequences. For some it would be exile and for others it would be going to work in the haciendas as peones. Furthermore for the first time Mexico had shown its potential and had begun to catch up with a rapidly changing world. The nation’s achievements in technology and culture went on display around the globe at world fairs and expositions in Europe and the United States (Deeds, Meyer & Sherman, p. 347).

Selbin identifies the most important part of a social revolution is the transformation of the society that is broken up into two parts consolidation and institutionalization of a country (Selbin 13). Augusto Pinochet and Fidel Castro both tried to succeed in these aspects, but both had success in areas but also failures in others. Their rise to power, reign and their political ideology separated them on a fundamental level, but they did have some similarities.

There are a multitude of political systems around the world today. Regardless of similarities, each has its own unique qualities. This paper will discuss the differences and similarities of the political systems and government of both the United States of America and Spain. First, a short analysis of each countries history will be provided. This will give some background to the political, emotional and economical state of each country. This will lead to how the governments and political systems are now. Finally, there will be an analysis on the similarities and differences between both countries.

The Spanish civil war of 1936-1939 was an important conflict in Spain’s history. This war was initiated by a military revolt led by General Francisco Franco on the 17 July 1936 and ended with Franco’s victory on the 1 April, 1939. This victory resulted in the replacement of the Second Spanish Republic with the conservative dictatorship of Franco. This conflict triggered the clash of the various cultures and ideologies within Spain. One important example of an ideological clash was that of Communism versus Fascism. This clash was so important that, based on an analysis of the level of involvement of Fascist and Communist factions in said clash, one must concede that the conflict between Communism and Fascism was represented to a great

The Spanish Civil War is the name given to the struggle between loyalist and nationalist Spain for dominance in which the nationalists won and suppressed the country for the following thirty nine years. However, because of the larger political climate that the Spanish Civil War occurred in, it is impossible to view the war as a phenomenon contained within one nation. Despite its obvious domestic orientation as a civil war it was a major international conflict. The reason for this, I would maintain, is the political dogma which surrounded the war. This essay takes the form of a political survey of the

Francisco Franco was the dictator of Spain from 1939 to 1975, including the time of WW2. Perhaps he was better known as “El Caudillo,” translated into English as The Leader. He was born and raised in Spain. He was a very brilliant military general who led Nationalist rebels in defeating the Spanish government during the Spanish Civil War. Although he was viewed as a Fascist Dictator, he strongly opposed communism. He was an extremely important figure in the course of world history.

Comparisons between countries and regions before and after the advent of capitalism in Eastern Europe, Russia and Central Europe as well as a comparison of Cuba and the ex-communist countries provide us with an adequate basis to draw some definitive conclusions. Fifteen years of "transition to capitalism" is more than adequate time to judge the performance and impact of capitalist politicians, privatizations, free market policies and other restoration measures on the economy, society and general welfare of the population.

Generalissimo Francisco Franco came into power after his victory in the Civil war in 1939 and ruled over Spain till his death in 1975. In this 40-year period Spain was massive changed that causes much debate as to the political nature of Franco’s regime whether it is fascist or something different, Francoism. To understand if Franco’s regime was fascist, fascism must first be defined. There are many working definitions of a fascist regime, Stanley Payne’s states that the dictator must alien his regime to the idea of anti-isms, them being aintiliberalism, antidemocratic, anticonservatism, anticommunism and antidemocratic. Payne states these are fundamental in the description of a fascist regime. Another useful definition is Robert Griffin, stating that a fascist regime will use symbolism, violence to pursue its political aims, with the importance aimed at expansionism. Finally Griffin also states the need of the dictator to implement an authoritarian and totalitarian government. All these help to create a fascist regime and more importantly a truly fascist dictator. There is little doubt Franco holds to some of these definitions yet in later year the idea of Francosim becomes more viable however to understand if Franco was a truly fascist dictator we must look to the similarities and differences and determine by examining Franco’s rise politically his general style of government and finally his foreign policies it will determined whether Franco was a truly fascist dictator.