"Nazism vs Fascism (Terrible vs Bad)" Topic

I was thinking that Nazis may not have gotten such a bad rap if they had stayed away from the war/genocide practice. If you subtract those two ingredients, you get Spain until 1975.

I guess that is what made it Nazism I suppose. Ultimately, rather than being seen as the definition of evil, it would have been viewed as simply another version of unlimited government-like a Monarchy or Communist state, or Theocracy.

What do you think?

You really believe that it was all rosy in Spain between 1936 and 1975?
Most estimates of the White Terror claimed in the region of 150,000 to 400,000 victims.

It's the notion of racial superiority, and its consequences in terms of policy, that distinguishes Nazism from Fascism (which glorified struggle and war).

Nazism and Fascism are virtually identical. Both believe in the superiority of the chosen people, the state and the leader. Both are great if you are one of the chosen people. Just don't have a different ethnicity, sexual preference, neighbouring country etc. If so, they believe it is their right to use violence upon you.
Nazis/Fascists will always commit war atrocities and ethnic cleansing because that is central to their belief. Look at the Italians in Libya or the actions of most of the Central Europeans in aiding the Holocaust.
So no, no apologetics for Nazis. They were weak, evil people who thought they could bully weaker people. Like most chest beating idiots we hear from even today.

"It's the notion of racial superiority, and its consequences in terms of policy, that distinguishes Nazism from Fascism"

This is true only to a point. The Nazi movement started as a pan-germanic movement but that doesn't necessarily lead to genocide. The pan-slavic movement that resulted in Communist Russia didn't necessarily have to lead to genocide either I suppose.

The problem was that both were mixed with fascism and ultimately became totalitarian.

It was totalitarianism that was the bad thing, leading to a cycle of destruction that not only embroils the external "enemy" but also the internal "enemy" until it is stopped or quite literally everyone is dead.

There really isn't much difference between Nazism and Communist Russia. Both were totalitarian states and both were the epitome of evil.

Both were destructive internally and externally.

Monarchy was rarely unlimited, there were many traditional limits in place in most monarchies.

So what is your definition of an acceptable or 'good' Nazism?

I was thinking that Nazis may not have gotten such a bad rap if they had stayed away from the war/genocide practice. If you subtract those two ingredients, you get Spain until 1975.

Except that the war/genocide was central to the party's ideals. Remove that and you "only" have Franco's fascists.

Oh, wait. Franco's Fascists still had a nasty internal war going on.

@By John 54: that's an insult to both Native Americans and buffalo! I demand a retraction!

Don't worry. Hyper nationalism combined with military ambitions, regressive social values and police states aren't exactly going out of fashion.

"Hyper nationalism combined with military ambitions, regressive social values and police states aren't exactly going out of fashion."

Of course both totalitarian states at the start of the century were based on progressive social values, so we should be safe.

Ultimately, rather than being seen as the definition of evil, it would have been viewed as simply another version of unlimited government-like a Monarchy or Communist state, or Theocracy.

Funny you should mention Monarchy, because a bunch of people in Central Africa do not hold positive opinions on the kings of Belgium.

"Of course both totalitarian states at the start of the century were based on progressive social values, so we should be safe."

Believe that if you want, but it's always about control with a veneer of whatever the local public finds palatable. Nothing progressive about it.

Believe that if you want, but it's always about control with a veneer of whatever the local public finds palatable. Nothing progressive about it.

Indeed. They were just control freaks from hell, that use their hyper(nationalist, classist, religion, whatever fits) feelings to force conformity based upon an arbitrary standard. Wanting to rid the world of Jews is not progressive. Wanting to force conformity based upon fictional standards of world history and absurd ideas of national history is not progressive. The Russian Revolution started off as a decent idea, but instead of working together to create an equal and democratic society the various strongmen played the peasants against each other in massive bloodbaths. The Party merely replaced the aristocrats.

Nazism is simply the improved German version of Fascism, with Hugo Boss uniforms and unpleasant singing voices,

Seriously, Combatpainter, it's time to stop.

"Believe that if you want, but it's always about control with a veneer of whatever the local public finds palatable. Nothing progressive about it."

Of course it ultimately had nothing to do with any ideology except that of secrecy, control and death.

However the theory behind both of them was based on progressive ideas. Wanting to rid the world of Jewish people may not be progressive in itself but the idea of eugenics is, or was, progressive at the time.

Same with Communism, the great left-wing experiment that ended up murdering more people than the Nazis.

And it was ideological murder as well. Many people were murdered in the name of atheism.

Ah, we've boarded the "progressives are murderers" train. Can I get some ice cream before we get to "Obama is totally Hitler" station?

Which should be within the next 3 posts or so. Maybe I'll just get a Snickers.

Pictors Studio, I would not say that the deaths were all ideological in nature. The Russian Revolution was more of a slave revolt than a political revolution, and after the former masters and the overseers were killed off or driven out, other former overseers became the strongmen and killed those who threatened their new rule. And as Stalin descended into senility and dementia the motive for his killings were purely from improperly-firing synapses. When the illiterate peasants are taught to read by their masters, words have a bad habit of achieving new meaning and the random massacres are assigned a reason after the fact.

And please, killing people because of their ethnicity or religion is not progressive. Like phrenology, it is bigotry excused with a feeble grasp of science.

The Nazis have since created a serious problem for Political Scientists. Given they were very, very bad, they are often used as benchmark Baddies. It is virtually impossible to have a rational discussion on Nazism in the public media, and quite difficult in academia.

There was a very good ABC* Big Ideas podcast about this recently, with an interesting discussion about Mussolini.

link

Cheers,
JohnG
*Australian Broadcast Corporation

"Same with Communism, the great left-wing experiment that ended up murdering more people than the Nazis".

Shhhhh, you're not supposed to talk about that.

Leftists, communists, socialists, "progressives" hate when you bring up "minor" details like that, since they detract from the overall message, which might stop them from moving "forward" to………….[do you notice they never provide details on where they want us to go?]………oblivion.

The countries that are the most progressive in the world are also the ones dominating in technology, human rights and scientific advancement: United States, Canada, North and Western Europe.

Liberal, secular, pluralistic, progressive, democratic societies with some element of market economics and some element of government control has proven to outlast and defeat every challenge levelled at them.

In fact, the best argument for such societies we live in, is that they can afford to feed, house and shelter angry old men, while said angry old men complain that the "kids are ruining the country".

Rightists, fascists, nationalists, "conservatives" hate when you bring up "minor" details like [Nazis], since they detract from the overall message, which might stop them from moving "forward" to………….[do you notice they never provide details on where they want us to go?]………oblivion.

Lumping all socialists in the far left is the equivalent of the above.

By most measures Sweden is a very pleasant country to live in, despite being governed much of that time by (apparently) ruthless evil socialists who are hell bent on its ruination.

I'm with Mexican Jacks last point!

"And it was ideological murder as well. Many people were murdered in the name of atheism."
Uhh? What exactly is in the name of atheism? Are you suggesting the Nazi party was Atheist now? Hitler may have shunned religion (although he was firmly backed by the Catholics), but Himmler was a bona fide pagan gods nut. Every heroic Nazi warrior had 'Gott mit uns' on his belt buckle. Many would agree that leader cult worship replaces one religion with another anyway, take a look at N Korea.
Don't confuse Socialism with Communism. Socialism is about improving the lot for the common man. Education, welfare, health care and all that. Communism is a totalitarian state that like all totalitarian states ends up with a minority with total power and privilege who don't want to lose it.
Did some of you get Glen Beck books for Xmas or something?

You all have to read Robert Conquest;s "Refleactons on a Ravaged Century." It is a disquisiton on the damage done by the "totalizing ideologies of the Twententieth Century." Conquest defines a "totalizing ideoology" as one whih believes to have discovered the central simple principle as the mainstpring of all human activity, and not only that it explains all of history, but it is the controlling principle, the control board that allows you to manipulate the course of history and eliminate the undesireable backsliders from it.

It is a book which has mercy for none and malice toward all, and he is completely right.

Once you believe in something like that, in something which controlls the great forces of history, like deep ocean currents upon the surface of ocean men bounce around like corks, then you are there, and because nothing in that theory springs from humanity itself, it is be definition an inhuman mechanism, and devotees of it have no choice but to be inhuman.

Communism, Fascism, Naziism, Anarchism, Socialism (yes even Swedish Socialism), Fundamentalism (religious and political) Racism, Extreme Nationalism, Robber Baron Capitalism, Radical Femminism, are all totalizing ideologies, and once you take one nip of the poisoned mushroom you're hooked and can't ever get away from it.

Communism is a system based on communal ownership of the factors of production and their use for the common good. Unfortunately it is too easily hijacked by charismatic psychopaths. The 'system' is too altruistic for the idiots who abuse it.

Fascism on the other hand (and its bastard child Nazism) revels in oppression of the weak, the glorification of violence, and pitting individuals and sections of society against one another in a pseudo Darwinian struggle. It lauds the base aspects of human nature that mimic psychopathy.

Communism may too easily be abused and turned to Totalitarianism but it does not have the pseudo scientific glorification of violence against other racial or genetic groups that Nazism does. Communism does violence to its people by a perversion of its goals by non-communists, Nazism and Fascism do violence to society as one of their core aims.

Don't confuse Socialism with Communism. Socialism is about improving the lot for the common man. Education, welfare, health care and all that. Communism is a totalitarian state that like all totalitarian states ends up with a minority with total power and privilege who don't want to lose it.

Actually, communism and socialism are both economic systems not political systems (such as totalitarianism). Additionally, if you look socialism up in the dictionary, it has nothing to do with improving the lot of the common man. Any economic or political system has the potential to do that if sufficiently altruistic. By definition, socialism is a mid-point on the progression towards communism, so the two are indelibly linked. Neither, however, is intrinsically evil, any more than any other economic system is intrinsically evil. It is all in how it is implemented.

Gwydion, I don't even know what you're talking about. Nazism is socialism – it's even in the name of NAZI: Nationalist Socialist Workers Party. The only fascist country during that period was Spain. People make an argument that Mussolini was fascist as well, but he was also a socialist. As far as communism, all you have to do is look at the dedicated communist countries, most of which embody/have embodied exactly what you claim it doesn't.

"Uhh? What exactly is in the name of atheism?"

The League of Militant Atheists aided the Soviet government in killing clergy and committed believers.[48]

link

"Did some of you get Glen Beck books for Xmas or something?"

No, we have just been reading history.

"Socialism is about improving the lot for the common man.(sic) Education, welfare, health care and all that."

No it isn't. Socialism is something that has done more to degrade the common man than any system before or since. I suppose some small amount of it could be productive but the level that exists in many parts of the world today is destructive for generations at a time.

No it isn't. Socialism is something that has done more to degrade the common man than any system before or since.

Even more so than serfdom or chattel slavery???

Ya'll are welcome to go back to 16 hour days, child labour, filth in our food and company stores if you like to avoid all that pesky socialism.

The rest of us are good staying here in the real world.

Even more so than serfdom or chattel slavery???

You just opened the flood gates for the "slaves actually had it pretty good" apologists I think.

"Uhh? What exactly is in the name of atheism?"

The League of Militant Atheists aided the Soviet government in killing clergy and committed believers.[48]

link

"Did some of you get Glen Beck books for Xmas or something?"

No, we have just been reading history.

If you were reading your history, you'd understand that oppressors were typically killed during slave revolts, which included the religious institutions that enabled (in fact, demanded) aristocratic oppression and serfdom.

"If you were reading your history, you'd understand that oppressors were typically killed during slave revolts, which included the religious institutions that enabled (in fact, demanded) aristocratic oppression and serfdom."

Where did I say that they didn't? I said that Soviet atrocities were carried out in the name of atheism.

Then proved that they were.

"Even more so than serfdom or chattel slavery???"

Yes, because they have made escaping from the bottom class so much more difficult and the degradation of the person so much more complete.

"Even more so than serfdom or chattel slavery???"

Yes, because they have made escaping from the bottom class so much more difficult and the degradation of the person so much more complete.

So in one situation, there is no escape from the bottom class (except through armed revolution or force applied by wealthy benefactors). In the other situation, there is no escape outside of hard work, a good education, and a little elbow grease. And a free person with the ability to become an entrepreneur is far more degrading than being literally whipped, literally raped, and literally being chained together and forced to work in a field?

Well this is turning into a predictable train wreck isn't it.

Happy holidays everyone.

I rather enjoyed reading all these posts, many were completely bonkers though. Mainly I was entertained by it all even if there wasn't a single sentence with any relevance to pushing toy soldiers about.

Sundance wrote

Gwydion, I don't even know what you're talking about.

Obviously

Nazism is socialism – it's even in the name of NAZI: Nationalist Socialist Workers Party.

I am amazed this discredited right wing trope can still be trotted out with a straight face.
A literalist who knew nothing of what Socialism is and what the Nazi party was, may once have drawn that simplistic conclusion. Five minutes reading anything that approaches the subject free from dogma, or indeed thinking about it, shows the fallacious nature of this correlation.

The 'Socialism' in the name was essentially a cynical appeal to the people who were seeking a fairer distribution of wealth in post Imperial Germany. The economic model of Germany under the Nazis, if one can be said to have existed, was corporatist capitalism.

If you want to know Hitler's views on socialism – google it or read any reputable book on his economic views (such as they were). Neither he nor his party were in any way socialists.

I am not sure about using the fascist label for franco. I think that he was just a brutal rightist military dictator. And although he was suported at first by a fascist party (falange), franco used the falange to support his own ends (his personal power). In fact, in the postwar, most falangists though that franco was a traitor to the falangist movement and his founder, jose antonio

Well, had Hitler included the Jews, rather than excluding them from his plans to reestablish Germany's greatness, and avoided the whole world domination by military force thing, he may have been just another Franco-not great but not as bad as seeing your face in the dictionary as a definition of evil.

I am thinking that the Nazis collected a little evil from each one of us and charged their batteries to achieve the status of iniquitous, and peccant murderers. It had to be with this help from humanity that they forged ahead in their plans to the Final Solution.

Hitler just had a way of bringing the worse out of people.

I lived under Franco's fascist regime and remember it as a peaceful, safe and morally righteous. Streets were safe, people filled the outdoor cafes and life was predictable. There was really nothing to celebrate and from the 40s to the 70s their was no more to complain about than in any other place.

Things could have been worse.

Well, had Hitler included the Jews, rather than excluding them from his plans to reestablish Germany's greatness, and avoided the whole world domination by military force thing, he may have been just another Franco-not great but not as bad as seeing your face in the dictionary as a definition of evil.

If my Aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. Hitler's plans for Germany revolved entirely on creating a pure land of pureblooded Germans. That meant eliminating or expelling Slavs, Jews, Roma, Poles, Danes, etc. If he didn't do any of that, he would still be an evil fascist dictator like Franco.

morally righteous

By whose standards of morality? that. If I want a Mapplethorpe Nativity, I'll have one even if the local churches object.

By whose standards of morality? Bleeped text that. If I want a Mapplethorpe Nativity, I'll have one even if the local churches object.

I hear you-it is nice to have that freedom to get attention.

See topless woman stealing baby Jesus from the Vatican nativity display here:

If he didn't do any of that, he would still be an evil fascist dictator like Franco.

Franco doesn't seem to be on the same level as Stalin, Hitler or Leopold-not a nice guy since his troops murdered my grandfather- but not on the mass murdering sinister dictator list either.

Historically, he seems to be remembered as the father of the pre-constitutional Spain-ultimately not really a terrible image.

Agreed, dictators aren't the way to go but I guess you can end up being an enlightened despot rather than the opposite.

Fourteen Defining
Characteristics Of Fascism
By Dr. Lawrence Britt

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism – Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights – Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause – The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military – Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism – The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media – Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security – Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined – Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected – The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed – Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts – Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment – Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption – Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections – Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

"So in one situation, there is no escape from the bottom class (except through armed revolution or force applied by wealthy benefactors). In the other situation, there is no escape outside of hard work, a good education, and a little elbow grease. And a free person with the ability to become an entrepreneur is far more degrading than being literally whipped, literally raped, and literally being chained together and forced to work in a field?"

In one situation you have people who despise the condition they have been put into and who will fight, when possible, to free themselves from it.

In the other situation you have people who don't give a crap or will actually fight to retain the situation they are in.

I call the second situation more degraded. The person has less dignity as a human being.

The problem with the theory that they can work to get out of it is that in most circumstances they absolutely will not.

They won't even show up to doctor's appointments to take care of a molar pregnancy until it is too late.

My guess is that if slaves had the health care available to them, for free, that the degenerate communities produced by socialism in the United States have, you wouldn't have too many of them not taking advantage of it.

They would probably take their medicine. They would probably go to their appointments.

While it is more horrible to be a slave, to be beaten, to be whipped, to be chained together, it is more degrading to be what people have come to today because the whipping, chaining and beating aren't necessary.

They will enslave themselves. That is far more degraded.

Hi Combat Painter.
I don't think there are any 'ifs' when it comes to Hitler. Hitler was everything he wanted to be, and did everything he wanted to do, and the consequences were exactly what everyone, except his followers, predicted they'd be.

<p>I am thinking that the Nazis collected a little evil from each one of us and charged their batteries to achieve the status of iniquitous, and peccant murderers. It had to be with this help from humanity that they forged ahead in their plans to the Final Solution.</p>

Thats an odd one!? No Nazi got a little bit of evil from me. And my ancestors, living small, quiet lives in small, quiet towns, found themselves propelled in world changing events in 1939 because of Mr Hitler, and there was no little bit of evil in them either.

My guess is that if slaves had the health care available to them, for free, that the degenerate communities produced by socialism in the United States have, you wouldn't have too many of them not taking advantage of it.

Where are these degenerate communities? And how do you define "degenerate"? Before we continue we have to understand the form of English that you are using.

I hear you-it is nice to have that freedom to get attention.

It's the freedom to do whatever I want as long as I am not affecting or hurting others. If I want to put on mouse costumes and eat cheese with total strangers the government should not interfere. If I want to hang a battleflag outside of my house the government should not interfere. That is something that fascists do not understand.

I once asked a passionate socialist if he would support a tripling of the effective standard of living of the poorest if it mean a quadrupling of the wealth of the richest. He angrily refused and derided the notion on the ground that it would "increase the degree of inequality between rich and poor". I found this a fascinating commentary on the socialist worldview.

So much for the lot of the common man. Equality uber alles, to be administered by a self-anointed and exempt elite.

B

Combat Painter wrote

Historically, he[Franco] seems to be remembered as the father of the pre-constitutional Spain-ultimately not really a terrible image

You must read different histories than me. A renegade who overthrew his elected government, ostracised and abandoned his own comrades in the Nationalist movement to gain and keep power for himself, and a murderer (in Spain, leaving aside his pre-Civil War murders in Africa) who persecuted cultural linguistic and social minorities in his own country and sent the Blue Legion to help Hitler murder Slavs. That's how history remembers General Franco.

Just found this one and it looks interesting:

Has anyone read this?

You must read different histories than me. A renegade who overthrew his elected government, ostracized and abandoned his own comrades in the Nationalist movement to gain and keep power for himself, and a murderer (in Spain, leaving aside his pre-Civil War murders in Africa) who persecuted cultural linguistic and social minorities in his own country and sent the Blue Legion to help Hitler murder Slavs. That's how history remembers General Franco.

From here:

link

Franco sent troops (División Azul, or "Blue Division") to fight on the Eastern Front against the Soviet Union. They were "volunteers"; some were crusaders against Communism and some went just for the pay or to clear former liaisons with the Republic. Franco also offered facilities to German ships.

Just a token force to show Franco's contempt for the Communists.

I might be reading the wrong stuff:

"…Spain is coming to terms with the legacy of the civil war. This has resulted in statues of Franco and his supporters being taken down – even in his home town of El Ferrol in Galicia – and streets being renamed all over the country. But there are still many, and not all of them in the military or elderly, for whom the age of Franco is looked upon, if not as a golden age, then at least as a time when, in some ways, life was more straightforward."

…During the Second World War, for example, Franco was to keep a position that, at its most charitable, could be described as ‘ambiguous' – keeping favour with Hitler but also allowing Jewish refugees from France and other countries to enter Spain as a safe haven…"

From here:

link

Wow, so people cherrypick a few good aspects of a dictatorship in order to feel a positive nostalgia? People also thought life was simpler in the Antebellum South, 1930's Germany, post-Stalin Soviet Union, etc… But was life simpler for the victims of those societies?

It is really difficult to separate the history from the propaganda in any period, but this is particularly true in the case of the Spanish civil war and Franco. The political developments that unfolded in Spain during the decades leading up to the Civil War were quite complex and the actions of the Spanish anarchists, radical Left and Soviet-backed interlopers paints a far less rosy picture than has traditionally been presented.

B

Wow, so people cherrypick a few good aspects of a dictatorship in order to feel a positive nostalgia? People also thought life was simpler in the Antebellum South, 1930's Germany, post-Stalin Soviet Union, etc… But was life simpler for the victims of those societies?

You can call it cherry picking but it is evidence nonetheless.

Don't be so angry. Not good for your health.

Ultimately, unlimited government is distasteful and that has been established.

Going back to my original point-sans the genocide and militarism-Hitler would may not have entered the annals of evil mastermind geniuses. He just would have been another dictator-no better or worse than anyone else during his time. Maybe even better….Who knows…