[Political Interest]

Does anyone know anything about the ideology of the White Russian fascists based in Harbin during the 1930s and 1940s? They were led by Konstantin Rodzaevsky and were under the patronage of the Japanese who provided them with weapons. The group was very anti-Jewish. It displayed a swastika outside its headquarters. Rodzaevsky promoted Mussolini style corporatism.

Does anyone know anything more about their ideology? Were they pan-Slavic and did they seek to restore the Tsar? If they were inclined to Mussolini's style of fascism it is possible to say that they might have wanted to. Did they hold any theories of the Aryan race and say that Slavs were also Aryans? To what extent were they influenced by German National Socialism?

[Potemkin]

"I issued a call for an unknown leader, ... capable of overturning the Jewish government and creating a new Russia. I failed to see that, by the will of fate, of his own genius, and of millions of toilers, Comrade J V Stalin, the leader of the peoples, had become this unknown leader".

He returned to Russia, where he was promised freedom and a job in one of the Soviet newspapers. Instead, he was arrested (along with his fellow party Lev Okhotin), tried and sentenced to be shot; he was executed in a Lubyanka prison cellar.

What a loser!

[Orestes]

Yeah, sure seems like Konstantin played that one well...


It's hard to find any detailed information on those people, but here's what I gather :

- The party statement written by Rodzaevsky in 1935 doesn't mention anything Aryan-ish, it also says that the future Fascist Russia will be home to all the nations of the former Empire including non - Slavic ones, and all their religions will be tolerated, minus the Jews and Judaism. Perhaps the virulent anti-semitism wasn't even as much of a direct German import, but more a continuation of the homegrown Black Hundreds' tradition.

- They generally didn't support a return to the monarchy, yet at the same time were open to considering many potential types of government.

- Appart from the swastika symbol the influence of National Socialism was probably not very pronounced ideologically, RFO were rather regarded as exclusively Japanese pawns (and referred to by some with the term "Japano-Fascists"). Especially German acts on the Eastern Front made them reluctant to sympatise with Hitler, they did not like the Nazi attitude towards Christianity and the condescending views of Alfred Rosenberg on Slavs either (he became the Minister of Occupied Teritories in the East).

The heavy anti-Jewishness and Orthodox Christian slant kind of reminds me of Iron Guard.

[Political Interest]

I see. Even though they did not have an Aryan inclination, they still made use of the swastika which would suggest they were imitating German National Socialism. Mussolini integrated NS Aryan concepts into his policies.

[Section Leader]

The Swastika had been used as a nationalist symbol by Russians before the Nazis even existed.

Here it is on a Bolshevik pamphlet.



Tsar Nicholas II had one on the radiator of his car.

[Potemkin]

The Swastika had been used as a nationalist symbol by Russians before the Nazis even existed.

This is correct. I believe at one stage the swastika was even being used as a cap badge by the Red Army during the Russian Civil War, before being gradually replaced with the red star.

The swastika, in fact, was used for centuries as a symbol of good luck and comradeship in Europe before the Nazis took it over and forever ruined its reputation. One more reason to hate the Nazis, I guess.

[Far-Right Sage]

The swastika, in fact, was used for centuries as a symbol of good luck and comradeship in Europe before the Nazis took it over and forever ruined its reputation. One more reason to hate the Nazis, I guess

As a fellow student of history, Potemkin, wouldn't you say that the "ruin" you speak of is entirely temporary and related to the reigning ideology of the era? Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire were considered the greatest villains for centuries, yet today statues stand to his glory in the Mongolian capital.

[Potemkin]

As a fellow student of history, Potemkin, wouldn't you say that the "ruin" you speak of is entirely temporary and related to the reigning ideology of the era? Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire were considered the greatest villains for centuries, yet today statues stand to his glory in the Mongolian capital.

Genghis Khan was always regarded as a hero in Mongolia. Even the Soviets indulged this trait of the Mongolian people, despite the Russians' negative historical experiences at the hands of the Golden Horde. Too tolerant for their own good, the Soviets.... Anyhoo, the same 'rehabilitation' is unlikely to occur for Hitler, since the German people themselves have, overwhelmingly, rejected Hitler's historical legacy and have (unlike Mongolia) proven themselves to be a successful nation even without that historical legacy. Furthermore, I was referring to the 'ruin' suffered by the swastika as a near-universal symbol of good luck and comradeship among the Indo-European peoples, rather than to the 'ruin' suffered by the fascist cause.

[Section Leader]

Germans, even those of an illiberal and fascist mindset, in my experience reject Hitler completely because his bungling destroyed Germany and impoverished the German people to a greater extent than happened after the First World War. Hitler called the German people cowards in the days before his suicide and said that they deserved destruction since their defeat at the hands of the Slavs meant they weren't fit to lead the Aryan race. Hitler is still residually and surreptitiously liked to a very small extent in Austria, but he will never be admired or respected in Germany. I hate Hitler because the activities of the regime he led to overwhelming defeat has resulted in the total and utter vilification of virtually all authoritarian and nationalist ideals.

[Preston Cole]

I hate Hitler because the activities of the regime he led to overwhelming defeat has resulted in the total and utter vilification of virtually all authoritarian and nationalist ideals.

I think that was largely not his fault. Seeing himself lead the German people, rearm his country to the teeth, take over France and the rest of Europe like it was a playground fight... all of this fed his megalomania into believing he could destroy every ill that had threatened and persecuted the German nation and nationalism in general: communist infestation, democratic degeneration, the proponents of Versailles, etc. In righteously pursuing his enemies he forgot the limitations of the German military, though it's true that some form of insane irresponsibility contributed to the tragedy on the Eastern Front (how else could we explain his idiotic refusal to reinforce the weak Romanian-Hungarian flanks in Stalingrad by invoking nonsensical shit like "the flanks will be held with National Socialist ardor?"). He killed far more than he could eat, but it's understandable considering the Germans' burning longing for revenge. That he impoverished Germany even more than WWI had is just a twisted turn of fate when you feel powerful for a moment and wish to snap the necks of your more powerful and more numerous enemies.

[Section Leader]

I think that was largely not his fault. Seeing himself lead the German people, rearm his country to the teeth, take over France and the rest of Europe like it was a playground fight... all of this fed his megalomania into believing he could destroy every ill that had threatened and persecuted the German nation and nationalism in general: communist infestation, democratic degeneration, the proponents of Versailles, etc. In righteously pursuing his enemies he forgot the limitations of the German military, though it's true that some form of insane irresponsibility contributed to the tragedy on the Eastern Front (how else could we explain his idiotic refusal to reinforce the weak Romanian-Hungarian flanks in Stalingrad by invoking nonsensical shit like "the flanks will be held with National Socialist ardor?"). He killed far more than he could eat, but it's understandable considering the Germans' burning longing for revenge. That he impoverished Germany even more than WWI had is just a twisted turn of fate when you feel powerful for a moment and wish to snap the necks of your more powerful and more numerous enemies.

I do accept that what happened afterwards etc. wasn't entirely his fault. I see Germany's defeat as a dying man trying to achieve his ambitions too much too soon. He started to become irrational after his doctor informed him that he would probably be dead within 10 years. Ultimately the post-war world was the result of a conflagration of unsettled scores combined with opportunistic liberal demonisation of not only the National Socialist dictatorship itself (which in itself doesn't concern me a great deal), but of any philosophical tenets it had any affiliation with. Hitler just wasn't level-headed enough to be Fuehrer after the war started, and that is why I blame him for the current order in the west.

[starman2003]

....in my experience reject Hitler completely because his bungling destroyed Germany...

Sure, he goofed at times. But so did his enemies. Basically Adolf lost because he was just so greatly outnumbered and outgunned by his enemies. Authoritarianism wasn't at fault; others things being equal, it was a great advantage, as the 1940 campaigns showed. If/when dictatorship finally triumphs here, it won't have the reich's chief disadvantage.

I hate Hitler because the activities of the regime he led to overwhelming defeat has resulted in the total and utter vilification of virtually all authoritarian and nationalist ideals.

Better phrased as "...activities of his regime led to overwhelming defeat, resulting in the total... Sure, Adolf has given authoritarianism a bad name. But in light of all the evidence for the obsolesence of democracy, I'm still confident authoritarianism will come back (even if it may take quite some time for new circumstances to overshadow the historical baggage of the reich). Heck, by postponing the final triumph of fascism/wholism/authoritarianism, Adolf, in the final analysis, may have done it a great service. Even if it takes 50--100 years to come back, at least by that time it'll have all kinds of wondrous technology Adolf couldn't have dreamed of.

[Section Leader]

Sure, he goofed at times. But so did his enemies. Basically Adolf lost because he was just so greatly outnumbered and outgunned by his enemies. Authoritarianism wasn't at fault; others things being equal, it was a great advantage, as the 1940 campaigns showed. If/when dictatorship finally triumphs here, it won't have the reich's chief disadvantage.

Better phrased as "...activities of his regime led to overwhelming defeat, resulting in the total... Sure, Adolf has given authoritarianism a bad name. But in light of all the evidence for the obsolesence of democracy, I'm still confident authoritarianism will come back (even if it may take quite some time for new circumstances to overshadow the historical baggage of the reich). Heck, by postponing the final triumph of fascism/wholism/authoritarianism, Adolf, in the final analysis, may have done it a great service. Even if it takes 50--100 years to come back, at least by that time it'll have all kinds of wondrous technology Adolf couldn't have dreamed of.

Hitler was completely unstable under stress, by the end of the war he was totally losing it daily. At the start of 1945 when he heard that the Waffen-SS were not doing better than the Wehrmacht, he ordered the Leibstandarte AH, Das Reich, Wiking and Totenkopf divisions to cut off their cuff badges, he also requested that the same be done to the uniforms of dead soldiers. The order was never carried out because in the end even the SS had lost any respect they once had for his word. Authoritarianism and all associated beliefs will return, ideals always do, but Hitler greatly harmed it and prevented the 20th century from being what it could have been.

[starman2003]

Hitler was completely unstable under stress,..

Even Shirer saw some merit in his controversial "stand fast" order of 1941-42 and in his handling of the situation in Italy in 1943.

Authoritarianism and all associated beliefs will return, ideals always do, but Hitler greatly harmed it and prevented the 20th century from being what it could have been.

Which was nowhere near as good as what the 21st/22nd centuries can be, so I won't worry too much about the past.

[Far-Right Sage]

Anyhoo, the same 'rehabilitation' is unlikely to occur for Hitler, since the German people themselves have, overwhelmingly, rejected Hitler's historical legacy and have (unlike Mongolia) proven themselves to be a successful nation even without that historical legacy.

That seems to be a bit short-sighted.

It has been less than a century since the conclusion of the war and its immediate consequences are still very much ongoing, in Europe, East Asia, the Middle East, etc. The federal republic is, as I'm sure you can objectively appreciate, a puppet regime of NATO and outsiders; German soil is still occupied territory. It's a bit irrational to conclude what the feelings of people will be far down the line. Neoliberalism will fall, just as any other ideological hegemon in history, and when it does, the people not just in Germany but everywhere else, will view politics, morality, and history through an entirely different prism.

I can speak for those in the areas surrounding my cousins and extended family in Sachsen; what people will say in certain settings is entirely different from the image that is projected of the broader community on the media. Denazification was a brainwashing process; this has to be understood. And when the military and economic power of its architects runs out, so will the anti-national ideology and benefactors of the current regime which is a dishonorable one for any German man, woman, or child to live under.

Finally, what has to be understood is that most of the people now living in the country were not alive for the war or its preceding years. The overwhelming majority of people in any society, throughout time, will believe anything if A)Their parents raise them to believe it; B)It is taught to them in primary schools; C)It is reflected in the media; D)Most others they speak to in society believe it.

Again, the belief you're referring to (rejection of the legacy of NS Germany) is an outgrowth of this. Most Germans alive today were born into the situation and know only what they have known from birth. This doesn't make the present situation any less temporary than the first round of National Socialism proved to be.

Germans, even those of an illiberal and fascist mindset, in my experience reject Hitler completely because his bungling destroyed Germany and impoverished the German people to a greater extent than happened after the First World War.

The consequences of the defeat cannot be blamed on the German leadership. This can be said about any war in history if one's horse loses (that there are terrible consequences), but it never negates the value in fighting.

Hitler called the German people cowards in the days before his suicide and said that they deserved destruction since their defeat at the hands of the Slavs meant they weren't fit to lead the Aryan race.

The first thing people fail to understand about Hitler both as a person and as a politician is that his ideology had to do with some much more than simple German nationalism.

[Potemkin]

The first thing people fail to understand about Hitler both as a person and as a politician is that his ideology had to do with some much more than simple German nationalism.

Precisely right. In fact, I would submit that many Germans , even those who supported the Nazis, failed to understand this point even at the time. Hindenberg and von Papen, for example. Traditional conservatives saw Hitler as merely a traditional German nationalist and conservative, rather like them in fact, albeit somewhat distressingly vulgar and violent. By the time they realised their mistake, of course, it was too late.

[starman2003]

Anyhoo, the same 'rehabilitation' is unlikely to occur for Hitler, since the German people themselves have, overwhelmingly, rejected Hitler's historical legacy ...

Eventually I'll think he'll be vindicated, to an extent at least. A major failure of democratic government, triggered by the consequences of pro-Israel policy, could go a long way toward turning current values and perceptions on their head. I very much doubt nazi ideology itself will revive. But anti-democratic views would become much more respectable, even fashionable--this in addition to a possible physical overthrow of the system itself.

[Plaro]

^
I agree with you starman, you might as well have spoken for me.

I just want to add though, I think what will definitely begin to stop happening probably sooner rather than later, is that WW2 will stop having any barring on issues of today. We will not hear about how, if one does this the Nazis will come back, there will be no more movies about WW2 (specifically for a reason of having a WW2 movie), and no one will call another fascist or Nazi as a derogative term. This is bond to happen, it always does, time moves on and things are forgotten. If people attempt to cling to the past to much, something usually happens to force them to do so. I think something similar happens on a greater societal level as well.

[starman2003]

^
I agree with you starman, you might as well have spoken for me.

Thanks.

I just want to add though, I think what will definitely begin to stop happening probably sooner rather than later, is that WW2 will stop having any barring on issues of today.

For at least 40 years the "lessons" of WWII have been completely irrelevant to issues of today--to the point where remembrance does a complete disservice to the cause of real solutions. The problem today is not a dictator taking away people's freedom, but too much "freedom," to have 10 kids, overconsume, loot the treasury and vote for idiots. The problem isn't a holocaust but lack of a program aimed at ridding us of those who should go, like the severely retarded or people in the last 6-12 months of their lives. By constantly harping on the "evils" and failures of dictatorship people are slamming the one and only door to a better future. We sorely need stronger leadership, able not only to tackle problems on earth but propel us to the stars.

We will not hear about how, if one does this the Nazis will come back, there will be no more movies about WW2 (specifically for a reason of having a WW2 movie), and no one will call another fascist or Nazi as a derogative term. This is bond to happen, it always does, time moves on and things are forgotten. If people attempt to cling to the past to much, something usually happens to force them to do so. I think something similar happens on a greater societal level as well.

Well I dunno.....while the passage of time--and demise of the "greatest generation"--will help, I doubt perceptions will really change (almost 180 degrees) until democracy really screws up. Already it's been seven decades since the reich and essentially nothing has changed. The holocaust is still amplified, Adolf is still slammed in the same way....

[Far-Right Sage]

This is because the same lot who consolidated their defeat of the Axis remain entrenched in power - British and American neoliberals, as well as remnants of the Soviet bureaucracy to a great degree (Vladimir Putin).

Do you believe the narrative of modern Western moralism, WWII, and the story of the Second World War would remain exactly the same if China, Iran, India, or Brazil were the leading hegemons?