[Daktoria]

...so I picked up this book recently, and it starts on a rather interesting premise - that the destruction of the 30 Years' War lead to a German tradition of absolutism from the decay of the electoral Holy Roman Empire. On top of that, the dominance of Protestantism not only lead to anti-semitism beginning with Martin Luther, but it also lead to national liberalism's welfare state with work ethic suggesting capital's obligation to support universal health care and public pensions.

The ironic part about this is how the final withering of the Holy Roman Empire took place following the invasion of Napoleon when the smaller states were consolidated into the Confederation of the Rhine. Despite this, Germany absorbed Napoleon's secular enlightened despotism both towards democracy and absolutism, yet it still held a grudge against France and used Spain (the Austrian Hapsburgs' fellow branch) as a casus belli to provoke war. It was from this war that German national identity was finalized, and the final straws of Christian grace disappeared from
German culture. As Heinrich Heine said:

Christianity - and that is its greatest merit - has somewhat mitigated that brutal Germanic love of war, but it could not destroy it. Should that subduing talisman, the cross, be shattered, the frenzied madness of the ancient warriors, that insane Berserk rage of which Nordic bards have spoken and sung so often, will once more burst into flame. This talisman is fragile, and the day will come when it will collapse miserably. Then the ancient stony gods will rise from the forgotten debris and rub the dust of a thousand years from their eyes, and finally Thor with his giant hammer will jump up and smash the Gothic cathedrals. (...)

"Do not smile at my advice -- the advice of a dreamer who warns you against Kantians, Fichteans, and philosophers of nature. Do not smile at the visionary who anticipates the same revolution in the realm of the visible as has taken place in the spiritual. Thought precedes action as lightning precedes thunder. German thunder is of true Germanic character; it is not very nimble, but rumbles along ponderously. Yet, it will come and when you hear a crashing such as never before has been heard in the world's history, then you know that the German thunderbolt has fallen at last. At that uproar the eagles of the air will drop dead, and lions in the remotest deserts of Africa will hide in their royal dens. A play will be performed in Germany which will make the French Revolution look like an innocent idyll.

Anyway, does anyone think fascism could have appeared in Europe without the Protestant Reformation leading to the devastation and mutation of Germany?

[Fasces]

Considering that fascist ideology can be primarily seen as Catholic (corporatism and distributism were early fascist ideas, developed by the Catholic Church), and that the 'father' of fascism was Charles Maurras, a Catholic integralist supporter of the Ancien Regime, I think your thesis lacks considerable base. Even in Germany, the basis of political fascism was in Austria and Bavaria, both Catholic states.

In any case, influence may very well exist, in the same way we can ask "Would fascism exist without the Roman Empire?" or "Would fascism exist if England won the 100 Years War?" The questions are meaningless - all events are connected through causal mechanisms. It seems to me to be a very useless though experiment.

[Daktoria]

I'm not sure how you're identifying distributism as fascist. It's pacifist, supports small scale private property, emphasizes family values rather than nationhood as the basis of community, and revolves around subsidiarity rather than institutionalization.

Maurras also condemned decadence which is the opposite attitude of fascism's predecessors, Fin de siècle and futurism. He also opposed racism, and his anti-semitism can be seen as a confused impression from Protestantism. He grew up during the time period of German unification and elevation, and his opinion on the Catholic Church was favorable because of its hierarchic secrecy, not because of its populism. When Protestantism took off, it removed secrecy by encouraging universal literacy via the printing press, so it's easy to see how he ignored Martin Luther's anti-semitism as well.

As for German fascism, I'm not sure why you're claiming Bavaria was its base at all either. In fact, the Bavarian People's Party stood side by side Zentrum in opposing radical ideologies during the Weimar Republic.

[Fasces]

I'm not sure how you're identifying distributism as fascist. It's pacifist, supports small scale private property, emphasizes family values rather than nationhood as the basis of community, and revolves around subsidiarity rather than institutionalization.

We are not talking explicitly about fascism, but proto-fascism. Distributism was seen as a syncretic alternative among early far-right thinkers, though ultimately abandoned in favor of integralism, and with it, corporatism.

Maurras also condemned decadence which is the opposite attitude of fascism's predecessors, Fin de siècle and futurism. He also opposed racism, and his anti-semitism can be seen as a confused impression from Protestantism. He grew up during the time period of German unification and elevation, and his opinion on the Catholic Church was favorable because of its hierarchic secrecy, not because of its populism. When Protestantism took off, it removed secrecy by encouraging universal literacy via the printing press, so it's easy to see how he ignored Martin Luther's anti-semitism as well.

You're reaching, and seeing what you want to see. Anti-semitism was not far removed from Catholicism at the time, even if this was influenced by Protestant thinkers, it would be only an indirect relationship, something no one will deny, as everything indirectly influences everything else.

As for the other influences, yes, fascism developed in certain directions away from Maurras - however, the fact remains that other fascist movements, such as clerical fascism or Brazilian Integralism, did not share such influences. If we are asking whether fascism would have existed, the answer remains yes, even if it might have a different legacy.

As for German fascism, I'm not sure why you're claiming Bavaria was its base at all either. In fact, the Bavarian People's Party stood side by side Zentrum in opposing radical ideologies during the Weimar Republic.

So? This does not change the fact that the base of power of the early Nazi movement was in Bavaria.

[Daktoria]

We are not talking explicitly about fascism, but proto-fascism. Distributism was seen as a syncretic alternative among early far-right thinkers, though ultimately abandoned in favor of integralism, and with it, corporatism.

Oh, I certainly agree that distributism is a third way ideology, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily hand in hand with fascism.

Can you show what overlaps you see in common between distributism and fascism?

You're reaching, and seeing what you want to see. Anti-semitism was not far removed from Catholicism at the time, even if this was influenced by Protestant thinkers, it would be only an indirect relationship, something no one will deny, as everything indirectly influences everything else.

Outside of Ancient Rome and the Spanish Inquisition, I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

As for the other influences, yes, fascism developed in certain directions away from Maurras - however, the fact remains that other fascist movements, such as clerical fascism or Brazilian Integralism, did not share such influences. If we are asking whether fascism would have existed, the answer remains yes, even if it might have a different legacy.

You just said Maurras was the father of fascism.

So? This does not change the fact that the base of power of the early Nazi movement was in Bavaria.

Can you explain this? I'm not familiar with Bavaria having fascist history.

[Fasces]

Oh, I certainly agree that distributism is a third way ideology, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily hand in hand with fascism.

Can you show what overlaps you see in common between distributism and fascism?

None. I am talking about the development of fascist ideology, not what it ultimately was. Some within the Accion Francais preferred distributist ideas to corporatist ones, at the time when fascism was not yet a word and Mussolini wore red. It went nowhere - but remains evidence of the close hand Catholicism played in proto-fascist ideology, and ultimately, fascism itself.

Outside of Ancient Rome and the Spanish Inquisition, I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

Nor am I sure why anti-Semitism must indicate Protestant influence.

You just said Maurras was the father of fascism.

Yes, and? He did not himself codify the fascist concept, and diverged in many ways from Mussolini's own ideas, most notably with regards to clericism and monarchism. The point is that far-right syncretic thought could have, and did, develop in a myriad of different ways.

Can you explain this? I'm not familiar with Bavaria having fascist history.

The early Nazi leaders were from Munich, and operated out of Bavaria. A high degree of early Nazi members came from Bavaria, and even today far-right membership in the region far outstrips anywhere else in the country.

[Daktoria]

Nor am I sure why anti-Semitism must indicate Protestant influence.

You might want to look at Martin Luther. He was rather anti-semitic in his doctrine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Lut ... tisemitism

Orthodoxy wasn't prevalent in Germany, and I'm not familiar with atheist anti-Semites in Weimar Germany either.

Yes, and? He did not himself codify the fascist concept, and diverged in many ways from Mussolini's own ideas, most notably with regards to clericism and monarchism. The point is that far-right syncretic thought could have, and did, develop in a myriad of different ways.

Are you saying we've wasted all this time talking about Maurras?

Everyone's familiar with Mussolini establishing corporatism, but the question is where did the cultural influences before corporatism arise from? I thought you were actually onto something with Maurras considering that France is the home of syndicalism and the Fin de siecle.

If anything, Protestantism relates with futurism (fascism's artistic predecessor) anyway. The Protestant Work Ethic would encourage people to perform good deeds and industrialize rather than living an organic, relaxed lifestyle. I'm not familiar with clergy having any influence on fascism at all. Clerical fascism seems to be an adaptation of religion towards fascism after the fact.

The early Nazi leaders were from Munich, and operated out of Bavaria. A high degree of early Nazi members came from Bavaria, and even today far-right membership in the region far outstrips anywhere else in the country.

Right, I certainly agree, but this doesn't mean Bavarian identity revolved around Nazism. Heck, the word "Nazi" was used by Bavarians to make fun of National Socialists, especially after the failed Beer Hall Putsch.

[Figlio di Moros]

Nor am I sure why anti-Semitism must indicate Protestant influence.


You might want to look at Martin Luther. He was rather anti-semitic in his doctrine.

So were the people during the black plague that slaughtered, pillaged, and exiled Jews from any road they travelled who spider-hole they rested at on the Rhine. Also, so were the Plantegenets, when they exiled them, several times. Also, the French, Italians, etc.- the Spanish inquisition forced conversions, and Catholics in Spain and Italy continued to baptize Jewish babies, and then seperate them from their parents. Notice one thing about these incidences of Anti-semetism?

On the other hand, it should be noted that it was Oliver Cromwell, who headed a Puritan government that'd make Pat Robertson cream his pants, who re-opened the British Isles to Jews.

[foxdemon]

Christianity - and that is its greatest merit - has somewhat mitigated that brutal Germanic love of war, but it could not destroy it.

This passage reflects a 20th century outlook on Germans as the most warlike of Europeans. If we travelled back in time to an earlier period, say the 17th century, and asked people which nation they thought was the most warlike, they would have said France, maybe Spain. France traditionally was the great power of European. As recently as the day of Napoleon, the Germans weren't regarded as having a superior martial prowess. The French still owned that reputation.

As a reaction to the Napleonic conquestion of the German states, the Prussians got serious about training effective miliatry leaders and they created an institution to foster military compedence. We know such institutions today as military staff colleges. Napleon had some staff himself, but only at his general HQ. The Prussians extended trained staff officers to all levels of organisation. Furthermore, they had professional officerts who spent peace time planning for future military operations. Again, nothing out of the ordinary by modern standards, but it was the Prussians who did this first.

We see the effectiveness of the Prussian system in the Fraco-Prussian wars of the 19th century and both attempts to know France out of the war in WWI and WWII (it worked on the second occasion), so that Germany wouldn't need to fight on two fronts.

It was this reputation for martial proficency, aquired from the later 19th century and into the 20th, that leads modern europeans to regard the Germans as innately warlike.

Given the other cristisms of the author's ideas presented on this thread and his apparently unconsidered opinion of Germans, I would be inclined to not give him much heed. However the book may be of marginal untility if you run short or toilet paper.

[Daktoria]

This passage reflects a 20th century outlook on Germans as the most warlike of Europeans. If we travelled back in time to an earlier period, say the 17th century, and asked people which nation they thought was the most warlike, they would have said France, maybe Spain. France traditionally was the great power of European. As recently as the day of Napoleon, the Germans weren't regarded as having a superior martial prowess. The French still owned that reputation.

I really don't buy that. Prussia historically had a very militant history (e.g. Teutonic Knights, separation from Poland, invasions from Sweden, Frederick the Great), and even going back to the Ostrogoths during the Roman Empire, we see a militant German identity.

As a reaction to the Napleonic conquestion of the German states, the Prussians got serious about training effective miliatry leaders and they created an institution to foster military compedence. We know such institutions today as military staff colleges. Napleon had some staff himself, but only at his general HQ. The Prussians extended trained staff officers to all levels of organisation. Furthermore, they had professional officerts who spent peace time planning for future military operations. Again, nothing out of the ordinary by modern standards, but it was the Prussians who did this first.

Oh, I certainly agree that Napoleon encouraged Prussian development, but the Junker class (which founded Frederick the Great's officer corps) was born out of free imperial cities. Frederick the Great was also one of Napoleon's idols.

http://books.google.com/books?id=hWJksW ... ty&f=false

We see the effectiveness of the Prussian system in the Fraco-Prussian wars of the 19th century and both attempts to know France out of the war in WWI and WWII (it worked on the second occasion), so that Germany wouldn't need to fight on two fronts.

It was this reputation for martial proficency, aquired from the later 19th century and into the 20th, that leads modern europeans to regard the Germans as innately warlike.

Given the other cristisms of the author's ideas presented on this thread and his apparently unconsidered opinion of Germans, I would be inclined to not give him much heed. However the book may be of marginal untility if you run short or toilet paper.

Except Heinrich Heine was around before the Franco-Prussian War even happened...

[foxdemon]

Except Heinrich Heine was around before the Franco-Prussian War even happened...

I see. Well, his ideas to me read like catholic proaganda. And I'm serious about the French being traditionally regarded as the martial nation of europe. The accendence of the Germans to this status is a recent pheonoma.

It must be said that thie idea of the remormation leading to facism is a big stretch of thought. It is not unlike the butterfly flapping it's wings leading to events cascading in one direction rather than another. Sure, everything in interconnected, but can we really derive a direct causual reltaionship between the reformation and facism due to one piece of catholic proaganda?

But don't through it out. If not reserve for the toilet, you can use it to kindle fires.

[KlassWar]

...A play will be performed in Germany which will make the French Revolution look like an innocent idyll...

For all intents and purposes, the French Revolution was an innocent idyll.

Its main failing was not trying hard enough to break the spine of the reaction. They used the guillotine too sparingly. It was this way because the petty-bourgeois wavered. They compromised with the conservatives and quit trying to burn the Church into a bad memory. They compromised with the aristocrats and the haute-bourgeoisie, instead of letting the proletarians destroy the Old Order. They compromised with the moderates, instead of drowning them in blood.

Robespierre didn't have the requisite class perspective and consciousness to do what he HAD to do. That's why it fell, and there's where modern European history starts to go wrong.

...yet it still held a grudge against France and used Spain (the Austrian Hapsburgs' fellow branch) as a casus belli to provoke war. It was from this war that German national identity was finalized, and the final straws of Christian grace disappeared from German culture...

Actually 18th-19th century Spain were ruled by the dynasty of the Borbones. This was a French dynasty. The dynasty is still reigning in Spain, with the current king being Juan Carlos de Borbón.