Talk:Stanley G. Payne

He also asserts that Nazism and Communism are closely related.[3]

This statement is vague and the source (The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right) does not elaborate or give any sources. I suggest this sentence is deleted unless someone can find a direct reference to Payne's work. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. The Routledge Companion is a reliable source and this article lacks content as it is. -- Vision Thing -- 11:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a tertiary source, like Wikipedia, and it is preferable to use secondary sources. I can't find a source for this. I did a "google" search and it comes back to this article. http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22Nazism+and+Communism+are+closely+related%22+payne&meta=

The reference does not say in what way Payne asserts they are closely related. Without that, the sentence is meaningless.The Four Deuces (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is not meaningless. It's a salient element of Payne's point of view, which runs counter to the superficial treatment often given to Fascism by the academy as a Rightist social movement rather than a complex political entity involving corporatism, syndicalism, nationalism, etc. AJ Gregor is in the same ballpark. Fascism and Communism are deeply related especially in its Stalinistic and Maoist variants - they're collectivistic and ideologically, both draw heavily from Marxist sources. Fascism often draws extensively from Hegel as well. Practically, they both seem to gravitate towards leader cults. I haven't read Payne's books in a while, but fairly certain that's in there. Routledge is a RS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.20.12 (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Does Payne suggest a similar link between fascism and liberal democracy? That's usually the difference between a historian and a party hackKeith-264 (talk) 11:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not exactly an uncommon viewpoint. Google the term "Horseshoe theory" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.202.217.173 (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Professor Payne of course is one of the most eminent and most widely cited scholars of fascism. After World War II it was a common liberal theme that the main features of fascism and communism were that they were both types of Totalitarianism, as opposed to liberal democracy. Brzezinski was a proponent of this model, as explained by Payne in Stanley G. Payne (1996). A History of Fascism, 1914–1945. pp. 448–49.. Likewise it was a common conservative theme expressed for example by Hayek, that fascism and communism were both species of collectivism, as opposed to capitalism. Rjensen (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

As of 2021, he is considered to have become a pro-Francoist revisionist who is now close to the far right party Vox.[2][3]

While Stanley Payne surely has little kinship with the new left, the sources attributed to this claim hardly support the assertion that he is a "pro-Francoist" or a historical revisionist. The assertion should be removed and contextualized in a "Criticism"-section. As a new user I won't presently try to wrangle with the article myself, but Wikipedia:BLP should suffice to justify an edit, or absent an edit a complete removal of the characterization in the short description. HogarthsBurn (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Both support to revisionists and an indulgent vision of Franco can be sourced:

"Dejando aparte algunas actitudes singularmente erráticas, como la de Payne avalando sin reservas la obra de Moa, prestando colaboración y apoyo a las distintas tendencias revisionistas o publicando recientemente una obra de marcado tono denigratorio de la República y comprensiva con la figura del dictador" (González Calleja 2017)

• González Calleja, Eduardo (2017). "Tendencias y controversias de la historiografía sobre la política en la Segunda República española". Bulletin d’Histoire Contemporaine de l’Espagne. 52: 23–55.

" It is excessively indulgent towards Franco’s rule and, accordingly, it largely fails to achieve its self-imposed task of providing ‘the first academic and objective biography’ of the Spanish dictator." (Hernández Burgos 2017)

• Hernández Burgos, Claudio (2017). "Stanley G. Payne and Jesús Palacios, Franco: A Personal and Political Biography, The University of Wisconsin Press: Madison, WI, 2014; 632 pp., 38 b/w photos; 9780299302108, $34.95 (hbk)". European History Quarterly. 47 (3): 476. doi:10.1177/0265691417711663ae.

"Como puede comprobarse, las diferencias con la historia propagandística del franquismo temprano apenas si existen, pese a lo cual Payne se atreve a opinar que la historiografía española no se distingue por su originalidad". "El espaldarazo principal, de más repercusión en la academia, fue el conseguido por Pío Moa cuyas obras «constituyen el empeño más importante llevado a cabo durante las dos últimas décadas por ningún historiador en cualquier idioma, para reinterpretar la historia de la República y la Guerra Civil»43. La simbiosis de los dos autores es total."(Robledo 2015)

• Robledo, Ricardo (2015). "De leyenda rosa e historia científica: notas sobre el último revisionismo de la Segunda República". Cahiers de civilisation espagnole contemporaine (2). doi:10.4000/ccec.5444.

"Payne, one of the first academic historians to endorse publicly the revisionist Moa, comes closest in his chapter, when he announces his crusade against the ‘ideological emphases of Political Correctness, the post-Marxist ideology of the Western left’ and ‘the dominant ideology of the Western world’"(Ealham 2013)

• Ealham, Chris. "The Emperor's New Clothes: 'Objectivity' and Revisionism in Spanish History". Journal of Contemporary History. 48 (1). doi:10.1177/0022009412461776.

"Stanley G. Payne and Jesus Palacios have written a self-proclaimed biography of Franco which is actually an apology in favour of the late dictator. In order to extoll his historical figure critical analyses and objective facts are omitted."(Losada 2015)

• Losada, Juan Carlos (2015). "La conspiración y la Guerra Civil para Payne y Palacios". Hispania Nova.

Any idea how to include these sources in the article, @HogarthsBurn and MaeseLeon:?--Asqueladd (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Just like I did: Payne always was quite lenient to the Francoist tyranny, so much that he has eventually became a notable member and supporter of pro-Francoist revisionism, and he barely misses an opportunity to support the neo-Fascist Vox party rewriting of history. He's no longer a historian but a far-right propagandist. Let's call a spade a spade. MaeseLeon (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The sources concerning Paynes supposed approval of Pio Moas work do not show support for Pio Moas particular telling of history, but rather offer a condemnation of the (in Paynes view) unscholarly way with which Moas work has been met. The remainder of the sources certainly show academic disagreement with his contributions to the particular work of Franco: A Personal and Political Biography. Absent a page discussing the book itself, it seems to me that a simple "Criticism"-section encapsulating the criticism of the work itself would fulfill both WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. HogarthsBurn (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)