I wasn't saying that all of those things were shared with the Nazis and Italian Fascists, I was simply saying a lot of them were.
Nazism is a subset of fascism, which is entirely unrelated to Spanish nationalism. It's a common misconception that Franco was a Felangist; he essentially hijacked the party and molded it to his own will.
Couldn't you make that argument about Lenin and Communism or Hitler and Nazism or Paul and Christianity? Rarely is the founder of a movement its only leader or the sole contributor to its tenets.
Franco was more than just a Spanish nationalist, there were other Spanish nationalistic groups before and during the Spanish Civil War that were not Felangist.
Both Hitler and Mussolini persecuted Catholics. Hence why post-Civil War Spain became a refugee center for persecuted Christians and Jews.
Mussolini and the Catholic Church generally got a long well except for a few incidents.
Well you got me there; Hitler must be a Felangist.
Again, I was just stating the major tenets of the movement. Of course there would be national differences.
I take it every American president for the past 200 years has been a fascist?
I don't think "Nationalistic Pride for the American Empire" is in any Party's platform. Nonetheless, there is no way you can't admit that the Felangist were not extremely nationalistic and proud of past history, as were the Nazi and Italian Fascist parties (the Third Reich, the New Roman Empire, etc).
Franco wasn't anti-capitalist per se. His free market reforms brought Spain a long way between his rise to power and his death. And, can you clarify as to what you mean by "anti-separatism?"
Yes, he wasn't anti-capitalist in the sense that he completely disagreed with a free market structure or anything, but he certainly believed the state had a vital part in economic planning.
By anti-separatism I simply meant that he was against Basque, Catalan, Galician or any other of the minorities I'm forgetting having any independence or autonomy.
What you've just described above is authoritarianism. Not fascism. Fascism is totalitarian in nature in that it prescribes that the purpose in life is to serve the Party; hence why fascists tap your phone lines, heavily censor and propagandise the media, put religion under strict control of the state, etc. In authoritarian countries, such as under Pinochet and Franco, the individual still has some manner of personal freedom so long as he does not interfere with the dictatorship.
I often hear people debate whether or not Nazism was truly Fascism because Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy had many obvious differences. Italian Fascism was never as blatantly racist as Nazism and was more concerned with the role of the state. Nazis believed in a strong state too obviously, but many people would argue this was only for the advancement of the national ethnic state.
I suppose it all comes down to simply what you consider the most important aspects of a fascist state. I would consider any highly nationalistic, anti-Marxist, anti-liberal, anti-minority government to have extreme fascists undertones, and while Franco's Spain certainly didn't share every aspect with Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Spain, it shared enough and admired them enough (especially early on) that he could probably, in my mind safely be called a fascist without it being an incorrect statement. I guess since it's all semantics, and either one of us could find 10,000 different definitions of fascists, it's not a terribly important or constructive argument.
