4th Reich On The Rise In Europe?

I, naturally, don't concur with the crimes committed under the 3rd Reich (or Allies) but posted that list to help show why especially a starving, destitute, humiliated & miserable people would be attracted to National Socialism's successes.

Hitler was widely popular in the US for his "Economic Miracle", in Britain especially among the "Cliveden Set" & throughout Europe & the world to the point that 2 million non Germans, including 150,000 Jews fought in Germany's WW2 military(1).

I feel that the millions around the world who supported and fought for Hitler / The 3rd Reich were unified by far more than simple hatred.


(1) "Adolf Hitler’s Armed Forces: A Triumph for Diversity?"
Veronica Clark
https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/1/3/3102

EXCERPTS " I ask those historians who still believe that Hitler and the Nazis were “white supremacists”: how do you account for the incredible degree of non-German and ethnic minority (i.e., 150,000 Jews and Jewish Mischlinge) collaboration during World War II? Again, some two million non-Germans helped the Nazis.

The important thing to realize is that had the Nazis been as racist as most historians have argued, then they could not possibly have garnered the immeasurable level of support that they did. Even after Stalingrad; Spaniards, Slavs, Franks, and tens of- thousands of other non-Germans continued to fight for the Nazis on a volunteer basis. Frenchmen and Arab volunteers gave their lives in the final fight for the capital of Berlin in 1945. Hitler continued to allow thousands of Jewish men to serve, and many did so with incredible tenacity and valor. One has to call into question whether all of these Jewish men and other non-Germans were really as opposed to the Nazi regime as they have claimed after the fact. Their tenacity and determination suggests otherwise in many cases. The Jewish soldiers Bernhard Rogge, Helmuth Wilberg, Erhard Milch, and Ernst Prager come to mind.

The Nazis never racially segregated their troops. Blacks, Slavs, Asians, and Arabs fought shoulder-to-shoulder with Germans.

At least two million non-German foreigners and ethnic minorities served in Hitler’s armed forces at one point or another. Without foreign and non-German help, the Germans never would have had their Western defenses prepared in time for the Allied invasion. Let us think about two things here.

Hitler’s Wehrmacht-Waffen SS combination was the most culturally, ethnically, and religiously diverse military force in Western history. In spite of this fact, we are all supposed to believe he was a hyper-racist (my own term) like some other Nazis."CONTINUED

 

I'm going to have my fourth reich however libertarian.

 

Not round here you are not mate.

My fascism > yours.

 

Not liberal.

Illiberal. "banned".
Authoritarian.

The greater good.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual.

Collectivist. Socialist.

 

Well I am not an expert on Hitler. I do know that our aristocracy loved him. I do know that Britain could have gone with him and at the core of that was an anti Jew sentiment. This was structurally very strong in Mosley. .....and in the UK as in the US Nazism that is anti Jew Nazism had supporters. It may have won in the UK, there is no doubt about that. Mosley was picking up supporters as they went through London towns until they came to Cable Street. That was the time when Jews, the East Enders and Unions decided they would not pass and they did not. In reality that ended it in Britain. Not because it ended antismeitism, for a while I believe it increased but it made the government scared of civil war and so they brought out laws which in effect made Mosley and his black shirts redundant.

Remember as well, this was the time when people were into Eugenics particularly the Germans. Hell we even had 'human zoos' in those days. The Nazis found it acceptable to put to sleep those Germans who were not thought up to the mark both adults and children. They stopped doing it to those of German blood when their own citizens complained. Then they had mass concentration camps for political opponents and those they considered beneath them for whatever reason. They also had mass killings of same.

I know that you say you visited Germany and spoke to Germans and they told you it was completely different to what we hear. I also spoke to a German in the 70's. He told me nothing had changed and they were as bad as ever. This generations worked with their parents to get them to understand that what they did living in a world with human zoos was totally inhumane. Some understood. some not but their children did. Now there is a new generation growing up some of whom know little or nothing about this.

Hitler did what he did for Ethnic Nationalism and getting more land for the white considered ethnic German People.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

Alksander Ulyanov has written more about his economics above.

Their is nothing - zero, heroic about Hitler.

 

Liberals push for gun bans. Hitler = Liberal.

The "greater good" according to whom? Some whacko?

 

There is always some whacko who knows what's best for everyone.

Liberal = the opposite of authoritarian.
Hitler = hated Liberals. Thought liberalism the most evil political ideology of them all. The ideological enemy of socialism.

 

hello again Grau. As life will have it our Yesterday Channel has just had a couple of programs on this including the Olympics and how meticulous Hitler was to make everything seem right, that Germany had recovered and had become a successful vibrant society. Jews were allowed to take part in the Olympics - though Roma and others were put in camps out of view. It was a deliberate propaganda attempt to fool the world that all was well and everyone was doing well in a much recovered Germany and how with many journalists he was successful. It was true Hitler brought to the workers things they had never had before. He brought them holidays and out of work activities. He even told them what they should eat!! Here is the thing though. His was a totalitarian regime as good as the worst we are told there was with the soviets and these goodies had a purpose. Their purpose was to allow the Nazi party control of the people's minds 24 hours a day. They did not want them to spend time on their own. They wanted them to be active doing things which would make them good Germans - athletics for instance was strongly promoted. You mention Music. Indeed he brought music to the masses. However the music they were given was what he wanted them to have so that they would become the people they wanted. He arranged holidays for them which they had never had in their lives. However these were not places to rest and take it easy. They all had plenty of deliberately engineer activities and talks which they were expected to attend....and there were also the Gestapo at these activities, moving here and there looking like an ordinary holiday maker but rather on the look out for any with the wrong ideas who would be reported on at the end of the holiday. While without question people enjoyed these new activities they had never had the opportunity of before, it appears that rather than this being some benign extras given to the people, it was a powerful system of indoctrination and even worse deliberately designed so that they would be as wanted for war.

 

I think it's pretty obvious why the Brexit vote was to leave. Just like Socialism, the European Parliament and Commission are mentally insane.

 

Just the very use of that term "lefty fascists" shows that you yourself have no real good idea of what Fascism really is.

But let's be clear then, what IS fascism? Tell us what you think.

 

Yawn. Fascism/Nazism is not socialism and even more so not Social Democracy.

 

You (we) can avoid a lot of confusion by, whenever you encounter an argument of the "Is X, Y?" form, [Is fascism a form of leftism? Is Donald Trump a true conservative? etc etc], trying to re-cast the argument without using any form of the 'to be' verb.

So, in this case: "Does 'Leftism' have enough in common with the Italian Fascists and German Nazis to justify putting all three in the same political category, as opposed to, say, libertarianism or conservatism?" Better yet, "What do fascism/Nazism have in common with Leftism, and what do they have in common with 'Rightism'?"

First, a clarification: let's call "Leftism", all forms of political movement that aim to abolish or deeply transform capitalism, i.e. to make the market subordinate to decisions by the state, if it exists at all, and to do so via mobilizing the masses of people, possibly outside the electoral system. (In other words, to distinguish it from what is in the US called 'liberalism', understanding of course that all political movementss are spectrums without absolute hard-and-fast boundaries among them.)

Here's what "Leftism" as defined above has in common with "fascism": both want to subordinate/abolish market relations in the economy; both propose to substitute for these relations, decisions by the state; both claim to do this in the interest of those who do not own capital; both seek to come to power by mobilizing the masses (as opposed to Fabian-type gradual change from above).

There are "Leftist" movements -- the Social Democrats were an example -- who believe that this can be done via elections, and who believe that their victory in such elections would not require subsequent repression of their opponents -- this distinguishes Social Democrats from Communists. (Genuine Social Democracy has never had much of a following in the US as a mass movement, although you could fairly call Bernie Sanders a 'Social Democrat'. But current leftist American politics has moved pretty far from the class-based orientation of the old Left, which did not have contempt for the working class, no matter how backward it was from their point of view.)

Both fascists and the Left are radical, disdaining many traditional institutions like aristocracy, the monarchy, the Church. The component of the Left which is to the left of the Social Democrats share with fascists their contempt for 'bourgeois democracy', seeing the building of a 'combat party' as key to attaining power.

Here's what "Rightism" (traditional conservatism of all forms, loosely defined) has in common with fascism: a strong emphasis on the nation, as opposed to the unease/disdain/opposition of the Left for nationalism; a strong emphasis on respect for the family, including traditional male/female roles. (With only one exception that I know of -- Spain in the 1930s -- the Left has always supported extending the franchise to women, whereas the Right has generally been only reluctant followers of this historical trend, which is now an almost-forgotten battle.) Finally, both of them have been, generally, opponents of trade unionism, while supporting the right of individuals to own capital. (Fascists want to regulate that ownership, not abolish it.) In contrast to fascists, the traditional Right has tended to support the historic institutions of its country, aristocracy, monarchy, the church, and the Army. (Fascists love the latter abstractly, but don't like its officer corps where this has been traditionalist, as it almost always is.)

Of course, every country has its own history. The US differs from European countries in that it decisively rejected monarchy, has no established church, and until after WWII, did not have a strong standing military which was revered by the nation. The Leftist and fascist parties in Third World nations both incorporate anti-imperialism into their ideology.

So: both conservatism and especially radical Leftism have some things in common with fascism. However, I think it muddles thinking to say that either of them 'are' varieties of fascism. People who argue that they are, are, in my opinion, mainly motivated by the desire to enrage their political opponents.

 

He got sponsored mostly be the English, and the "American Jews", how he would call them. I don't know. It's unclear what really happened, and because he was very secretive.

 

Seems unlikely don't you think?
Given how the English declared war on him and how he exterminated as many Jews as he could.

I think you may be deluded.

They were lefty's mate.
I've explained it more than enough times in this thread and others.
Posted their political manifesto's and their history's.
Go back and look it up. Educate yourself.

They were centre left workers people's parties.
Authoritarian left.

Here is a fascists favourite trick, revise history.
Only we won. We are still here, we are still alive and so you don't get to revise history.

Fascists weren't conservatives, weren't individualists, weren't capitalists and weren't liberals.
They were collectivist, progressive, socialists and authoritarians.

The left.

And all the rest is neo fascist propaganda.

 

Let me get this straight, you think the right wing is about giving no rights to women?
And you think the right wing is about having the state control your capital?


Sorry. Nothing right wing about either.

You attempts to attribute things you don't like from history to the right wing fail.
It's just abject bollocks.
Find me a right winger who advocates for no voting rights for women and state control of his business.

You won't be able to and you know it.

It should be noted however that fascism promoted voting rights for women.
(Liberal countries however did it first).




I on the other hand can find you countless lefties who agree with minimum wages.
Unions representatives and workers representatives having equal rights to owners.
Caps on weekly working hours.
Full employment rights.
An end to hereditary politicians.
State provided health care.
State provided education.
Confiscation of the military industrial sector and capitalist profits.
Nationalisation of the banks and railways.

What is right wing about fascism? Absolutely nothing at all.
What is left wing about fascism, all of it.

 

National socialism is not socialism.

And you are not in denial.
And most certainly not a voter/member of a nationalist socialist party yourself. Or anything.

So we know where you stand in all this matey. Who are you trying to kid?



The only thing that has changed in Europe is that "socialists" are still too scared to start any wars.
But that won't last.

They dream of an army. And they are building one.
All going to end badly.

 

Sounds a lot like China And North Korea. And we know both regimes are not right wing conservative governments.

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism,[1][2][3][4] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy

 

Baff, I keep reminding you along with everybody else here that national socialism is an infusion of left and right political positions. It doesn't lean too left or right, it was a syncretic political organization of a mixed economy and also a mixed political system.

I really don't understand why this is so hard for people to digest, comprehend, or understand.

History doesn't conform with people's neat little political categorization of it, that's all a bunch of revisionism spin. History won't conform to your own political party's characterization of it.

From my position it's almost cute watching everybody here debate amongst themselves if fascism was left or right like I'm not even obviously over here telling you all what it is or was.

 

I know that my posts tend to be longer, and denser, than the optimum for a forum. So they're not as easy to read as they should be. Go back and look again at what I said:

... the "historical trend" being votes for women. "...giving no rights to women" is not an accurate summary of what I said. Please note that I'm talking about the Right on a world scale, not just the USA, which is unique among nations, even among the advanced nations, in many ways. I won't go into detail about this fact, obvious to anyone who knows anything about history, but if you're interested in the British case, look here. You'll see that "reluctant followers" is a pretty good description. The Left generally was much more pro-active in advocating universal suffrage. However, interestingly, what sometimes made the Left opponents of women's suffrage was what made the Right not so hostile to it as you might expect: namely, that women were perceived, correctly, to be more conservative than men. This isn't a stereotype without reason, either -- in some countries male and female voters were separated, and women usually voted for the more conservative parties -- often being influenced by priests.

As for "having the state control your capital" ... please look again. I said just the opposite. I said that what conservatism and fascism have had in common was "both of them have been, generally, opponents of trade unionism, while supporting the right of individuals to own capital. "

I know that on forums like this, political debate is often just one-liners thrown back and forth. No one really wants to read three hundred words written by someone who seems to disagree with them. But sometimes it's worth it. Maybe not with respect to what I write, although I generally try to inform as well as persuade.

Anyway, think again about the facile "fascism is the same as, or a version of, Leftism" -- there is a grain of truth in it, and many Leftists are surprised to find out just how much of a Keynsian Hitler was in his domestic program and how it had -- in the five or so years he practiced it -- succeeded... and it's a good thing to make them aware of it. But they know they're not Leftists, just as conservatives know we're not fascists ... and when either of us are accused of something we know is not true about us, we stop listening to the accuser.

But we want liberals and Leftists to listen to us. They're not stupid people, by and large -- perhaps they act stupidly when they're in a mob on a college campus, but all young people tend to do that -- and we want to try to convince some of them.

This may sound unrealistic ... but I don't mean we should expect a "road to Damascus"-type conversion. We just want to plant a few seeds, raise some doubts about about the direction the American Left is taking ... and let time do its work.

 

I don't think you have a good understanding of what right wing is.

Where is the conservatism or the individualism?
It's not there.

What fascist policy can a right winger self Identify with? None.
What fascist policy can a left winger self identify with? A great many.



Left wing people have a vision of "right wing" that right wingers can't self identify with. That simply has nothing whatsoever to do with being right wing and everything to do with what Left wingers think people will hate.

A demonisation and not an understanding.


And so you will see examples. Lefty above considers denying women the vote. Right wing.
It's not.
Nor is nationalism.
Nor is being anti immigration.
Nor is being racist.
Or authoritarian.

Or indeed anything anyone has come out with yet.


So you may understand what fascism was, when most here do not.
But you don't understand what being right wing is.

You have no idea.

Small government. Individual responsibility.
Personal liberty.
Maximum freedom, minimum government.
Conservatism. The continuation of existing traditions
The free market.

And that is the opposite of fascism.
Which is state control. Authoritarianism.
Progressivism. Collective responsibility.
Slavery FFS. Propaganda. State control of information.
Repression of free speech.
Mob rule.


You can claim fascism as right wing and many people do in an attempt to demonise the right. But it isn't and it wasn't.
It's nothing more than a simpletons attempt to make people hate right wingers.
It has no connection to their political ideals at all. None.


Rebrand history... the winners privilege. But you did not win.
And so you can't shut me up.
I am book you haven't burnt.

 

The modern left and right are so obsessed with their classical liberalism I swear that both go berserk with any political system that tries to leave the classical liberal philosophical or political perception of things.

In an earlier post I described how monarchy is a precursor to fascism and how monarchy is very much a conservative or right system where as an organization didn't cater to individualism whatsoever.

[It didn't cater to democracy or parliamentarianism either.]

What happened with the era of so called enlightenment when classical liberalism dethroned monarchy conservatives went on to redefine what being conservative means. Original conservatism untainted by classical liberalism under monarchy never really cared about individualism or professed to but to call monarchy a leftist position is silly.

 

Also Baff, I am very much acquainted with libertarianism and modern parliamentarian conservative movements. I'm not ignorant of your beliefs or political views.

I'm also acquainted with democracy and democratic supporters along their lines of democratic socialism. I've studied a great deal of many different kinds of political beliefs all over various historical spectrums.

 

Hello Alexa,

It may be because I'm getting older but I've become more & more distrustful of our Western MSM's representations of European history covering the WW 1 & WW 2 years as time progresses.
Perhaps British TV is more credible in relating the history of victor's version of the vanquished but even what are supposed to be educational channels in America are bias to an almost clownish degree.

I lived, studied and worked in what was then West Germany in the mid 1970s when many WW1, Weimar, WW2 & post War German survivors were still alive & their memories still vivid. Much that they remembered either is absent from or conflicts with the victors' representation of life in early to mid 20th century Europe.

I don't think that there is nearly enough emphasis on the desperation that exemplified post WW 1 Germany, the humiliating inequities of the Treaty of Versailles, post WW1 British Starvation Blockades & relentless French plundering of Germany's manufacturing regions & farmland etc. These inequities guaranteed that there would be continued hostilities as was, indeed, the case.

Few people have an accurate & complete perspective on the conditions under which Hitler rose to power & have the simplistic view that Germany rose from the abject misery of the post WW 1 era to a European powerhouse only by tormenting Jews.

Additionally, prospects under the 3rd Reich must have been more widely attractive for some reason if 2 million non Germans & 150,000 German Jews chose to serve in Germany's WW2 military and in many cases these non Aryans rose to the highest ranks and received Germany's highest military honors.

This is yet another facet of European history that doesn't fit the victors' WW 2 narrative & you are unlikely to see examined in depth on either America's "History Channel" or Britain's "Yesterday Channel".

Finally, I posted the list I found not as an endorsement of N.S. but to simply supplement the list "Baff" posted & to give a fuller picture of how Germany rose from abject poverty to a significant global power.

Thanks...

 

The confusion is caused by two things: (1) almost everyone, left or right, condemns fascism, and rightly so. Even hard-core KKK racists in the past were often WWII veterans or had relatives who were, which made people like George Lincoln Norman Rockwell, leader of the American Nazi Party, only a comic figure in the 1960s with a tiny following. He could never have organized something like Charlottesville.

Today, when young Americans of all sorts [and even including older Americans like Trump] know little history, fascist symbols and fascism as an idea is not so reflexively repulsive as it once was -- and the same is true for Communism, which has always had a much bigger following in the Left than fascism in the Right. Also: in the 1960s, Israel was widely seen, even on the Left, as a tiny state battling against genocidal Arabs -- in the US, at least, sympathy for Israel, and the Jews, was both wide and deep. This is, for whatever reason, no longer the case.

But generally, on both Left and Right, there are few who openly and consciously defend the one-party totalitarian/authoritarian state as a good model for society. (The 'logic' of their political views may tend that way, but the concepts of a free society, multiparty elections, political rights, are deeply embedded in the US. Which doesn't mean they couldn't be destroyed.)

(2) When people think of 'fascism' they think of the political regime, not the economics, which they know little about. With communism, it's almost the reverse. On the Left, anyway, they look at the fact that Communist regimes were economically and socially (officially) egalitarian (which they were), that they were associated with anti-imperialism, and that they were associated, in backward countries, with a rough-and-ready modernization of those countries. So the Left is more ambiguous about communism, than conservatives are about fascism. And both Left and Right are often surprised when someone points out that Hitler, although he destroyed the German workers' organizations, did not preside over a ruthless capitalist economy which ground the German workers down. (That's a frequently-encountered Marxist caricature, but it's simply false to fact.)

It's strange to see an open fascist bringing clarity into political debate, as von Clausewitz does with respect to fascist economics, but, hey, it's a funny old world.