[Wolfman]

I don't understand how that's even a response to what I said. Do you think the late 19th century German state is the same as the inter-war German state?

I don't know why I posted that. The main political body of the Weimar Republic was the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The Reichsrat was appointed, and the Reichstag was pretty much inherently unstable. I would call (for lack of a better term) the Weimar Republic an Illiberal Democracy. Even if you didn't agree, you've still basically picked one of the worst forms of Democracy. Of course it collapsed!

Spain, Greece, and Brazil were republics prior to the far right taking power.

The Second Spanish Republic effectively lasted 4 years. It was about as relevant as the rule of De Gasperi was in understanding Fascist Italy. The Second Hellenic Republic basically collapsed the year it started. And I guess I was wrong about the First Brazilian Republic as I'm looking at it some more.

Italy and Romania were both parliamentary liberal democracies.

The Italian Monarch had enough power to appoint the head of state, and Romania likewise had a powerful monarch.

Any constitutional state, whether a republic or a monarchy, can be defined as such.

[Fasces]

The Second Spanish Republic effectively lasted 4 years. It was about as relevant as the rule of De Gasperi was in understanding Fascist Italy. The Second Hellenic Republic basically collapsed the year it started.

Second Spanish Republic: 1931-1939
Second Hellenic Republic: 1924-1935

Regardless, what does length of a regime have to do with whether or not far right organizations enjoyed success in reaction to it?

The Italian Monarch had enough power to appoint the head of state, and Romania likewise had a powerful monarch.

The same is true in Great Britain. And the Netherlands. And in Denmark. And in Spain.

Generally, the monarch is the head of state, and appoints the head of government in a constitutional monarchy.

[Plaro]

When Russia turned from communist to Liberalism, 99 percent of the people would say on the streets when speaking about politics. Is that "the country and the people are simply being robbed".

Yeah, because the Tsar was a good guy worthy or praise. He was a completely inept loser who thought even during the Russian Civil War that the majority of the Russians liked him, despite his continued, and seemingly intentional weakening of the Russian economy and constant prodding at the population.

In my opinion if the Tsar stayed in power Russia would have been better of then with the Soviets. And economically Russian Empire was growing and expanding prior to its collapse, with the government doing its utmost to promote industrialization. It was predicted that in few decades Russian would have had the same industrial prowess on the level of Germany or at least England. I'm not even speaking how much culturally Russia had progressed at the time.

Also at least Hitler would have not went ape crazy on the Russians then.

On the other hand, if provisional government would have survived I think Russia (having Liberal tradition even less of that of Germany and Italy) most likely would have taken the direction of Right-Wing politics (Fascism/nationalism) and probably would have taken the direction that most European continent was taking at the time. Most likely it either would have been allied with Axis or at least neutral with Right-Wing government like Spain.

[Wolfman]

Second Spanish Republic: 1931-1939

Civil War started effectively ending the rule of the Spanish Republicans in 1935. If you want to talk about how long the regime lasted based on how long it claimed to exist, then it lasted until the 1970s when it dissolved its embassy.

Second Hellenic Republic: 1924-1935

Revolution started pretty much right away.

Regardless, what does length of a regime have to do with whether or not far right organizations enjoyed success in reaction to it?

If a regime collapses as soon as it starts, does it really matter in the greater scheme of things?

The same is true in Great Britain. And the Netherlands. And in Denmark. And in Spain.

And if any of their monarchs appointed a head of state based on his ability to march an army (which he wasn't present for) into the capital and not election results, the general population would suddenly have a desire for some good old fashioned regicide.

In my opinion if the Tsar stayed in power Russia would have been better of then with the Soviets.

His hilarious incompetence caused a civil war, and the winners of that war turned Russia into a world power.

And economically Russian Empire was growing and expanding prior to its collapse

They were in a significant depression, as I recall.

with the government doing its utmost to promote industrialization

By drafting the skilled workers in the two urban regions in the whole country into a war that the Russians were badly losing because of corruption and incompetence of the officer corps and horrible supply lines.

It was predicted that in few decades Russian would have had the same industrial prowess on the level of Germany or at least England. I'm not even speaking how much culturally Russia had progressed at the time.

And a decade after WWII with the Soviets they were one of the two most powerful countries on the planet.

Also at least Hitler would have not went ape crazy on the Russians then.

He wanted to exterminate all of the Russians. As much of a lunatic Stalin was, he killed people largely out of incompetence, whereas Hitler would have killed all of the Russians on purpose.

On the other hand, if provisional government would have survived I think Russia (having Liberal tradition even less of that of Germany and Italy) most likely would have taken the direction of Right-Wing politics (Fascism/nationalism) and probably would have taken the direction that most European continent was taking at the time. Most likely it either would have been allied with Axis or at least neutral with Right-Wing government like Spain.

The only Rightist/Traditionalist Movement in Russia during the Civil War was the Monarchists, who were obliterated fairly quickly because no one in Russia supported them, because the Monarch was a fucking retard.

[Fasces]

Civil War started effectively ending the rule of the Spanish Republicans in 1935. If you want to talk about how long the regime lasted based on how long it claimed to exist, then it lasted until the 1970s when it dissolved its embassy.

It was not instantaneous - the government in Madrid survived until the end. Would you say the Confederate government never existed as well, and that it shouldn't be considered when talking about politics within that territory just because it was not completely sovereign within its claimed borders?

Revolution started pretty much right away.

Instability did not begin until the onset of the Great Depression, and instability, or rather the failure of parliamentary democracy to preserve order, is one of the explicit motivations far right organizations have in taking power. Again, how does length of the democratic regime in any way undermine the idea that the far right exploits failures in the democratic process. At best, you can say they were more efficient in deposing the regime to which they were opposed.

If a regime collapses as soon as it starts, does it really matter in the greater scheme of things?

Obama was only President for a year - he can't possibly be related to the genesis of the TEA Party movement or the resurgence of right-wing militias.

And if any of their monarchs appointed a head of state based on his ability to march an army (which he wasn't present for) into the capital and not election results, the general population would suddenly have a desire for some good old fashioned regicide.

It would no longer be a constitutional democracy, certainly, though your secondary claim is far-fetched - but that does not mean it was not one prior. You are defining liberal democracies as eternal by saying that their failure meant they were never one to begin with. By that definition, there are no liberal democracies and there never will be.

If there was a coup in the United States tomorrow, how can you say that means it isn't a liberal democracy today?

[Wolfman]

It was not instantaneous - the government in Madrid survived until the end.

A debatable position. The Republicans in Spain only lasted as long as it did because of significant outside support. So far as I'm concerned, the Second Spanish Republic ended in 1935.

Would you say the Confederate government never existed as well, and that it shouldn't be considered when talking about politics within that territory just because it was not completely sovereign within its claimed borders?

In talking about modern politics? It's all but completely irrelevant.

Instability did not begin until the onset of the Great Depression, and instability, or rather the failure of parliamentary democracy to preserve order, is one of the explicit motivations far right organizations have in taking power.

Factionalism started pretty much right away. Violence didn't start till later, but the political fragmentation started pretty much right away.

Again, how does length of the democratic regime in any way undermine the idea that the far right exploits failures in the democratic process. At best, you can say they were more efficient in deposing the regime to which they were opposed.

Someone is poking you in the back of the head for an hour, then someone else comes along and pokes you once. Tired of it, you punch him in the face. Who is more responsible for you flipping shit, the guy poking you for an hour, or the guy who poked you once?

Obama was only President for a year - he can't possibly be related to the genesis of the TEA Party movement or the resurgence of right-wing militias.

Yes. And?

It would no longer be a constitutional democracy, certainly, though your secondary claim is far-fetched - but that does not mean it was not one prior.

The Italian Monarch during the whole of the Italian Republican experiment had more, or similar authority as the elected representatives.

You are defining liberal democracies as eternal by saying that their failure meant they were never one to begin with. By that definition, there are no liberal democracies and there never will be.

That's not what I am saying at all, and I generally expect better from you. Democracy is where control of the government is rested in the hands of the population, or their representatives. A government where an unelected monarch has more power then the elected parliament is not a democracy. It may be moving towards it, but it itself is not.

If there was a coup in the United States tomorrow, how can you say that means it isn't a liberal democracy today?

I would doubt very much if there would ever be a coup in the US.

[Plaro]

His hilarious incompetence caused a civil war, and the winners of that war turned Russia into a world power.

No you are wrong. Russia was a great power before hand so Soviets did not make it great.

When the Tsar abdicated his power, he was not responsible for what occurred after. It was Provisional Government of the Russian Republic that governed prior to the Civil War not the Monarchy. They did not listen to ambassadors from Britain, for example, to imprison Lenin. And if it was not for the October Revolution and Bolsheviks there would probably be no outbreak of the Civil War in the first place.

They were in a significant depression, as I recall.

It is debatable; However, if there would have been a depression it would have not lasted for to long of a time and would not have probably effected the process of industrialization. The shift from traditional Russia society to that of modern began 1861 due to Alexander II reforms. The actual momentum of industrialization process did not pick up until 1890 though as heavy industries began to develop instead of small manufactures. Russian government also mead great effort to attract foreign investment to the country. It is assumed that prior to World War I half of the industries in Russian Empire's main cities were foreign owned. Reminds you of something? Like today's Chinese "Industrial Revolution"?

By drafting the skilled workers in the two urban regions in the whole country into a war that the Russians were badly losing because of corruption and incompetence of the officer corps and horrible supply lines.

I disagree, Russia had a very good army, and preformed well in WWI, with initial advancement only to be pushed back after Germans have relocated considerable amount of men and resources from the Western Front. The supply situation indeed became dire, but this was not due to an issue of supply-line in the military but because the industry was not geared to full war production. The problem of supplies began in 1915 and was resolved by 1916 once the industry was fully geared to military production (consequently putting Russian Army being back on the offensive). This obviously had a destabilizing effect on the home-front just as similarly the same policies had in Germany for example, except in Germany the government was not coup d'etated by commies. So basically Russian Empire lost the war because of political instability, as for militarily I think they could have handled the job of Easter Front, at least defensively until Germany would have exhausted itself.

And a decade after WWII with the Soviets they were one of the two most powerful countries on the planet.

Because every other country was in ruins. One country that came out in some what okay position was England, but after loosing its colonies it disappeared as a great power. Actually similarly can be said of France. Not to mention heavy debt to Americans, and US dominance of western(bloc) Europe that it still enjoy to this day.

He wanted to exterminate all of the Russians. As much of a lunatic Stalin was, he killed people largely out of incompetence, whereas Hitler would have killed all of the Russians on purpose.

Well, I guess if that is true, he would have invaded Russia anyways regardless of their government. I just like to give him at least a bit of benefit of the doubt that he was not that ape crazy towards Slavs.

The only Rightist/Traditionalist Movement in Russia during the Civil War was the Monarchists, who were obliterated fairly quickly because no one in Russia supported them, because the Monarch was a fucking retard.

White Russians? Also I think you are going to ape crazy on monarchy, you need establish more of a balance view on it. It is not The Evil Dark force, you know that, right?

[Fasces]

A debatable position. The Republicans in Spain only lasted as long as it did because of significant outside support. So far as I'm concerned, the Second Spanish Republic ended in 1935.

There are many qualities of the Second Spanish Republic. Significant outside support has never been one of them. The support given to Republican Spain by the Soviet Union and the International Brigades was absolutely dwarfed by the military aid Franco received from Italy and Germany.

In talking about modern politics? It's all but completely irrelevant.

What gave you the impression we are talking about modern politics? We are talking about the genesis of historical political movements, and the environment in which they spawned is important to note. An anti-democratic movement would have no reason to organize in a state without democracy.

You're talking absolute nonsense.

Factionalism started pretty much right away. Violence didn't start till later, but the political fragmentation started pretty much right away.

Only one-party states can be stable liberal democracies then?

Someone is poking you in the back of the head for an hour, then someone else comes along and pokes you once. Tired of it, you punch him in the face. Who is more responsible for you flipping shit, the guy poking you for an hour, or the guy who poked you once?

How could a political party, such as that of Metaxes, use the restoration of the King as a political platform, if the King is currently sitting on the throne?

Yes. And?

That's not what I am saying at all, and I generally expect better from you. Democracy is where control of the government is rested in the hands of the population, or their representatives. A government where an unelected monarch has more power then the elected parliament is not a democracy. It may be moving towards it, but it itself is not.

You stated that Italy could not have possibly been a democracy because a coup d'etat occurred. It is utter nonsense. By that same logic the French Fourth Republic, to give a prominent example, was not a liberal democracy either - and neither would the United States if, for whatever reason, a coup ever did occur.

Let's put that aside though, and address your other ridiculous claims. In all these modern, liberal democratic states, the monarch has the legal power to dissolve Parliament. Is Australia not a liberal democracy? Canada?

You are not using the term like every other scholar uses the term, or how the fascists themselves used the term.

I would doubt very much if there would ever be a coup in the US.

You're better at avoiding questions than an indicted Chicago mayor.

[Far-Right Sage]

As much of a lunatic Stalin was, he killed people largely out of incompetence

You can spout this bullshit as much as you want, but I promise you it will continue to be just that. Stalin was many things; incompetent was not generally one of them.

[Preston Cole]

Well, I guess if that is true, he would have invaded Russia anyways regardless of their government. I just like to give him at least a bit of benefit of the doubt that he was not that ape crazy towards Slavs.

Publius is somewhat correct here. Hitler's primary rationale for invading Russia was Lebensraum, and less significantly practicing the National Socialist racial hierarchy. Russians were compared to the hordes of Huns and Mongols who attacked European culture in past times, the predecessors of the Bolshevik horde (somewhat true regarding the Bolshevik threat). It makes little difference whether Russians were communist, capitalist, liberal or fascist. Perhaps Hitler would have been a bit more supportive of a fascist Russia in his talks concerning Russian entry into the Axis, but that would have cancelled his pan-Germanic expansionist project.

Still, Operation Barbarossa was a good idea as far as anticommunism is concerned. Possibly the best anticommunist project to date. All those Cold War containment ops are just wank-offs.

[Wolfman]

Well, I guess if that is true, he would have invaded Russia anyways regardless of their government. I just like to give him at least a bit of benefit of the doubt that he was not that ape crazy towards Slavs.

I kind of got to this point and decided that you aren't worth my time. Hitler's entire reason for invading Russia was to get Russian Oil and exterminate all of the Russians. There is no "benefit of the doubt" on this. It is a simple historic fact that he himself stated more then once. If you do not understand this, you need to read a goddamn book that isn't just sucking off Hitler.

[starman2003]

Hitler's entire reason for invading Russia was to get Russian Oil and exterminate all of the Russians.

Na, the principal goal was Lebensraum. And exterminating Russians wasn't essential; they could migrate to siberia, beyond the planned area of German settlement.

[Wolfman]

Do you want me to find exact quotes of Hitler talking about exterminating all of the Russians in the world?

[Fasces]

They can be countered rather easily by similar quotes of Hitler extolling Slavic superiority.

Hitler's policy on the Slavs was malleable and complex.

[Wolfman]

My understanding is that he only talked about how awesome Slavs were after they started kicking his ass. And if by "malleable and complex" you mean "he killed more then 5 times the number of Slavs as Jews", then yes, I agree.

[starman2003]

From what I've heard, the plans for barbarossa envisaged going only as far as the Urals; whoever still lived in siberia wasn't of great concern.

he killed more then 5 times the number of Slavs as Jews"

Based on media hype, you'd think the reverse was true, which says something about which group is top dog around here....

[Wolfman]

From what I've heard, the plans for barbarossa envisaged going only as far as the Urals; whoever still lived in siberia wasn't of great concern.

He talked about exterminating the Russians. You cannot exterminate the Russians if you do not take over their whole country. Though it wouldn't have surprised me if he planned on stopping Barbarossa at the Urals, and then picking up the Anti-Russian campaign later on.

Based on media hype, you'd think the reverse was true, which says something about which group is top dog around here....

The 5 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, most of the 31 million Slavs were killed in conflict.

[starman2003]

He talked about exterminating the Russians. You cannot exterminate the Russians if you do not take over their whole country. Though it wouldn't have surprised me if he planned on stopping Barbarossa at the Urals, and then picking up the Anti-Russian campaign later on.

According to what Shirer wrote, the goal of barbarossa was just to take over the best Russian land, to the Urals. The russians were to starve, or, if they could, emigrate to Siberia. I never heard of a second phase to take siberia; the ultimate goal was to establish a defensive line against Asiatic Russia....

The 5 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, most of the 31 million Slavs were killed in conflict.

I dunno; vast numbers of Russian civilians were killed or starved in places like Leningrad, and many captured soviet troops were left to starve.

[Decky]

I dunno; vast numbers of Russian civilians were killed or starved in places like Leningrad, and many captured soviet troops were left to starve.

You are correct, Wolfie is lying as usual, the majority of Soviet casualties during the second world war were civilians.

You have to remember that you are talking to a man who thought that the Russian civil war was still happening during operation Barbarossa

[Wolfman]

According to what Shirer wrote, the goal of barbarossa was just to take over the best Russian land, to the Urals.

And that's fine. Barbarossa was a step towards what Hitler had been saying for quite awhile, exterminate the Russians.

The russians were to starve, or, if they could, emigrate to Siberia. I never heard of a second phase to take siberia; the ultimate goal was to establish a defensive line against Asiatic Russia....

So, Hitler literally saying he wants to exterminate all of the Russians means nothing to you because you haven't heard of a military operation called "exterminate all of the Russians"?

I dunno; vast numbers of Russian civilians were killed or starved in places like Leningrad, and many captured soviet troops were left to starve.

If my options were "killed in conflict" and "killed in a death camp", I would put that firmly in with "killed in conflict"