|
Raskolnikov38 posted:So your ideal world would be every racial group getting their own nation state with the exact same amount of usable land and resources, each having achieved autarky? How does one achieve this without magically recreating the earth into X exactly similar land plots? Hm yes, I too am utterly in the dark as to how a fascist would seek to purify the racial makeup of his own state, as well as how he'd achieve proper amounts of living space for each nation. This is a bottomless mysteries without precedent, truly.
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Jun 3, 2024 02:30 |
|
|
MeLKoR posted:Yeah, this. It was terrible but you can't say it wasn't effective. In the peninsula there wasn't so much as an hint of the religious wars that engulfed the rest of Europe. You know that old chestnut about ideas being bulletproof? Turns out, they're just bullet resistant. With enough ammo and ruthless disregard for basic humanity, you can eventually kill one.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Yeah but there were women who were happy to jump in on it when the Nazis had just taken power, not years later after all other organizations were banned and not joining meant SS boys stopping around to bash up your house. Basically, your Phyllis Schlafy types. An excerpt in support of this, taken from an August 1941 article in Harper's Magazine, "Who goes Nazi?" by Dorothy Thompson: quote:Mrs. E would go Nazi as sure as you are born. That statement surprises you? Mrs. E seems so sweet, so clinging, so cowed. She is. She is a masochist. She is married to a man who never ceases to humiliate her, to lord it over her, to treat her with less consideration than he does his dogs. He is a prominent scientist, and Mrs. E, who married him very young, has persuaded herself that he is a genius, and that there is something of superior womanliness in her utter lack of pride, in her doglike devotion. She speaks disapprovingly of other “masculine” or insufficiently devoted wives. Her husband, however, is bored to death with her. He neglects her completely and she is looking for someone else before whom to pour her ecstatic self-abasement. She will titillate with pleased excitement to the first popular hero who proclaims the basic subordination of women.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
TCT posted:Hay dose any one know what is going on in Greece? It looks like golden dawn is bouncing back, and a lot of right wing sites a crowing abut some pole they came first in. I know this is just a spelling mistake but serious man, you'd think the Poles would know betterI know, I know; they've got their own ultra-nationalist shitheels too, no need to remind me.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
Dusz posted:Look Emden, stop it with this line by line response thing. The best you can do is to make a longer post where you explain yourself more broadly. For starters - what do you hope to achieve? How do you think society is going to stop being stagnant and decadent? His answer may very verbose or quite terse, but will in essence be only fourteen words long.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2013 00:59
|
|
|
darthzeta88 posted:I like the idea of Nations because we are all different and have different views so we should segregate ourselves and let each have their own laws while we trade internationally with no tarriffs. But that would never happen. Would you say that when it comes to nationality and race, you'd prefer a realistic approach?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
darthzeta88 posted:Nationality and culture. I don't care about race but it seems that certain thug cultures irritate me. Especially when my house gets broken into like 4 times in a couple years. Do I blame a race? No only culture and religion. Ahhhhhhh, thank you. Ever since Emden got run out on a rail we've had no one to fill this particular niche. Pray tell, what common element(s) make up these "thug cultures" you find so irritating? Can you think of any current examples?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
darthzeta88 posted:Well generally younger people around my generation. Even my younger brother got suckered into it and spends his time in jail. I guess from poorer families to. Young and poor seem to basically fill the common elements. So, poverty and substance abuse are common elements in your eyes. Doesn't seem like much for an entire "culture" as you term it to rest on. Similarly "younger people" doesn't strike me as a particularly useful example, since young people tend to act moronic across board, heaven knows I did my share of dumb crap when I was younger. Can you be a little more specific?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:Robespierre and St Just didn't want a liberal democracy man. They wanted a state rationally governed by a politbureau with a kind of platonic state religion of virtue. They were cool. Robespierre wanted to establish a republic of virtue and terror and viewed the latter as an essential, irreplaceable component of the former. The man was wound too tight under the best of circumstances, and given the reigns of power he was totally loving nuts. When your response to moderate/reactionary concerns that you might be going too far is to actively go too drat far, you must bear a fair share of responsibility for the downfall of the revolution and rise of the corrupt Directory and Imperial state that follows. What, if anything, this has to do with modern fascism in Europe, I cannot say.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:What are revolutionaries supposed to do? Leave the old power structure to hang around for reactionaries to rally around and try to put back into power? I dunno, but maybe killing everyone that dares to say "dude, are you sure that's a good idea?" isn't that great for cementing revolutionary legitimacy. To be clear, I'm speaking to the Robespierre example here, and am in no way alluding to recent events in North Africa and the Middle East.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:France at the time was a nation of 28 million people. One million of these were members of the first and second estates - the tyrants at the apex of the system who took rents and tithes from the toilers at the edge of a sword. If the revolutionaries killed 50,000 of these institutional criminals, they spared 95% of them from completely justifiable retribution. The revolutionaries showed remarkable restraint and leniency to the murderers they deposed from power. The overwhelming majority of the first estate were economically basically the same as the third, which is why the poorer churchmen were among the first to split with their wealthier colleagues and side with the representatives of the commons during the Estates General, in particular on increasing third estate representation to reflect demographics and on voting matters. Similarly, among the second estate you had no end of minor nobles, particularly "of the robe," who weren't particularly different economically from the more prosperous members of the third estate; the huge landowning aristocrats of ancient title were the minority among that minority. You're not wrong that among the first and second estates were the true tyrants of Old Regime France, but to blanket-dismiss all non-commons as moneyed tyrants is a staggering oversimplification of the actual makeup of that regime, and ignores the complicated history of the Revolution. Also, those who died during the reign of terror, and earlier spasms of violence like the September massacres and especially the suppression of the Vendee, were often of the third estate themselves, particularly once Robespierre lost what little restraint he possessed. Ardennes posted:Yeah, there were plenty of royalist peasants who still believed in the Church and the Old Regime. Likewise, there were plenty of peasants and even workers who were monarchists and whites during the Russian Civil War. True, but there were also a lot of people who weren't particular fans of the Old Regime who ended up before revolutionary tribunals anyway, either as the result of someone using Revolutionary mechanisms to settle personal grudges, or for reasons as simple as, at the end of a hard day, saying how this ten-day week nonsense was bullshit a little too loud for your own good. What I'm driving at here is that while the First Republic was indeed threatened on all sides, and from within, from basically the first moment, and had every right to defend itself against revanchist overthrow, the way that it did so lent itself easily to abuse particularly once the reigns of power passed into the hands of zealots who say terror not as a temporary tool to be used in an emergency and then put up, but as an existential necessity which, in a proper Republic of Virtue, would remain an every-day affair. That said, I don't know that it could have gone down any differently, or even any better than it did, given the particulars on the ground. Given the benefit of hindsight, however, we ought at least be willing to learn from where things did go sub-optimally rather than simply cry "vie la guillotine!" We should really have a thread specifically for French Revolution-chat, I think.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
Dusz posted:Also, I think your view of France is still a bit anachronistic. While no sans-culotte would support killing of loyal supporters of the revolution, I think it is safe to say they had little love not just for aristocrats but for deserters and traitors of lower classes as well. French sentiment was really rather angered at the time, and not all that forgiving or merciful to their (admittedly vile and vicious) enemies. For some anecdotal proof, go and check out the sans-culotte version of the revolutionary anthem, especially note the part about lampposts. Or for that matter, the full version of the Marseillaise, which certainly gave little sympathy to the foreign invaders of "impure blood". It should also be pointed out that, especially as the Terror approached its crescendo, "loyal supporter of the revolution" became a harder and harder thing to prove if you stood accused of betraying that revolution. While they certainly had other motivations as well, the increasing arbitrariness of denouncements (and fear that their names were on the next list) was a large part of why the Thermidorians overthrew Robespierre. You're certainly correct though in pointing out it was a time of very high, and at times rather ugly, passions as well. In any number of ways, France still hasn't gotten over the divisions fostered in 1789. Also really minor nitpick: during WWII the US only executed one dude ever, a guy named Eddie Slovik.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
Dusz posted:I think you leave out something important about the First estate. It is true that the French nobles were not necessarily wealthy. However, it is wrong to try to bring them down to the level of the Third estate. You see, even poor noblemen never lost their noble title, and the prestige and privilege that came with it. And the prestige it had was far form non-existent, it could be used as leverage for royal appointments and work (military, clergy as well as the royal administration), and freed you from some burdens and taxes. In fact, part of why the aristocrats were so unpopular at the time was because in the 18th century, they had often used their nobility as leverage, which harmed the middle class in the process. Well yeah, I left that out as I was responding to the claim that the members of the First and Second Estates were all tyrants and the existential enemies of the Third, which is just not true as evidenced by what actually went down at the Estates General. Also, the nit-picker that is innate in me as a DnD poster compels me to point out that the nobility were of the Second estate, not the First.  quote:The other thing is that, like I said, the choice was not between successful national defense with the Jacobins and national defense without them. It was instead the choice between the Jacobins and dissolution of the republic. In no small part because of their less savory characteristics, they were the only ones that were able to reconstitute the society to wage total war. In fact, it were those characteristics which got them into power in the first place, as the more radical and uncompromising alternative to the wavering Girondins. While I'd certainly agree that the Jacobin's radical, and I'd go as far as to say violent, nature predisposed them to rise to the forefront under those conditions, I am less certain that in their absence the Republic would have been necessarily doomed. Sure, the Girondins and other moderates were much less zealous and doubtless some among them would have countenanced some sort of compromise with the forces of reaction, but I'm not convinced enough of them wouldn't have at least tried to marshal forces to defend the new state, and once armies started to march they'd have had no choice other than win or be the first to the gallows once the king is back on his throne. This is admittedly entirely counterfactual, since we know what actually did happen.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
chaos rhames posted:I have never even heard of any capitalist saying that the belgian occupation of the congo, for example, was necessary. So you've never read the works of a certain (possible) leader of the civilizing forces, then. Newt Gingrich defended the Belgian occupation of the Congo in his PhD dissertation, in case you didn't get the joke.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:I think you underestimate just how radical the strategies of the Jacobins really were and how big of a shambles the french armed forces were in the immediate aftermath of the revolution. "Trying" to marshal forces isn't even close to what had to be done to save the republic, which was the immediate introduction of mass conscription and gearing up for total war. I am entirely aware of the fiasco that was the initial campaign against the monarchist armies, and what a seachange the levee en masse was. That the Jacobins were better suited to the task than the moderates does not preclude those moderates coming to a similar conclusion subsequently out of desperation later on had the Jacobins not been on the seen. But as I already admitted, this is counterfactual as balls, and not really worth further pursuing as it inevitably devolves into the worst kind of "what-if" alt-history garbage.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Could have worked for Hitler if he'd listened to his military and both spent more time building up plus continued driving through to Moscow and beyond, rather than his plan based on "well the Russians are all stupid inferior Slavs and they'll soon break so we can take our time". While I'll never contest that Generalplanost was anything other than genocidal dumbassery, I don't think that even had he listened to his generals Hitler could have won the war in the East. While yes he invaded before the army thought it was ready, the longer he waited was more time Stalin had to rebuild the Red Army from the 30s purges and debacle in Finland; indeed, Stalin had essentially been gambling on the (expected) Battle of France lasting much longer than it did to allow him to complete his modernization when he decided to go with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:His generals told him "actually we shouldn't invade the East until 1949 if ever, this isn't a good idea at all. Our industry is still not up to the task and the Russians could easily hold us". He told them they were going to invade anyway. And as a matter of fact. Poland was also invaded a good couple of years before his generals thought he should, etc, etc. I can't tell if you're arguing against anything I said or not, but regardless I'll point out that even having suffered the appalling destruction that they did during the war, the Soviets had nukes by 1949, and despite this being the second counterfactual road I've wandered down in as many pages, I'd hazard they'd have managed it that much sooner if they hadn't had to rebuild pretty much everything from the Polish border up to a day's drive from Moscow previously. quote:Nazi Germany was a history of plans being sped up just because Hitler or one of his underlings thought it would be a good idea with an essential reliance on "we're the master race so we can exceed the old plans". Almost without exception these resulted in long term problems, or would have if not for the whole thing being snuffed out. Absolutely.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
bpower posted:UK conservatives are just like those in most western countries. They're no way nearly as crazy as the Republicans. Counterexample: Thatcher.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:Or the marble / attention economy? Oh lord don't start that shitshow again, this thread's gotten bad enough already.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
ekuNNN posted:If there's one thing leftists can agree on it's hating fascism. If.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:I can't remember off the top of my head but I think Rosenberg supported the idea of an independent Ukranian buffer state which was more than he was willing to give the Lithuanians. As far as the Baltic states were concerned, he considered Estonia to be the most Nordic, then Latvia with Lithuania dead last - If I'm remembering correctly I think he wanted to forceable relocate a good chunk of the Lithuanian population to Russia to make way for Germans. I don't remember Rosenberg's exact racial hierarchy in the Baltic states and other Eastern territories, but he did champion creating an anti-bolshevik puppet state in Ukraine (which a non-trivial amount of Ukrainians would have likely jumped at), and was predictably ignored by pretty much everyone else because he was a flaky loon. Not that you didn't already mention that, of course.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
Noctis Horrendae posted:Reading the ramblings of a madman is arguably one of the most interesting things you can so when you run out of proper reading material. ekuNNN posted:Counterpoint: the una-bomber manifesto is really really boring. So is Mein Kampf. Not all rambling madmen are interesting rambling madmen, some are just long winded and full of themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:Why didn't Spain go fascist? It had all the ingredients including a sense of national humiliation wrought by the final collapse of empire in 1898. But you had a military junta instead of the fascist Falange. In short? For all we may rightly fault the man, Franco always knew the way the wind was blowing, and as a classic conservative nationalist saw early on that while it was occasionally useful to hitch his cart to the fascist horse, he knew not to let that horse get the bit between its teeth. This is of course a very perfunctory explanation of the exceedingly complicated political situation in the 2nd Spanish Republic.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:The international far right love Croatia because the Ustase were insanely zealous and brutal. To add to this for those unfamiliar with just how bad the Ustase regime was: They were the only non-German fascists to build their own extermination camp.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:UKIP is winning the european elections there, I think. NPR had a bit about the European Parliament elections this morning, in which UKIP expects to do decently as it's obscure-enough of an election that only the motivated and/or nuts (ie: UKIP voters) bother to vote in it (plus there may be heavy rains, depressing turnout even further).
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Jun 3, 2024 02:30 |
|
|
TheNakedFantastic posted:This sounds awesome! There's any number of problems it'd solve, in a definitive manner!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 21:47
|
|