Why Fascism? - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By pugsville
#14832586
starman2003 wrote:Of course it is. Why do you think a regime elite is willing to be coercive when need be? They strongly believe their ideology and program is right.

Anyhow exactly does thsis differentiate them from any other government form?

starman2003 wrote:No, the nazis rose to power because the depression induced people to support them. They relied on the ballot not an armed coup, and they enjoyed very substantial support.

Substantial support but not majority they need for the enabling act was only passed through armed thuggery. They would not allow free and fare elections, Their government dictatorship was only achieved and maintained by violence, and thuggery.

starman2003 wrote:The nazis were enthusiastically supported by the bulk of Germans.

Based on what? there was not free expression.

starman2003 wrote: Goering helped with rearmament even if he wasn't a capable warrior. You don't overrun half a continent with nonentities. Military leadership was brilliant. The regime saw the worth of Doenitz, Guderian and Manstein.

you'd be surprised how often successful armies had dunces. Napoleon overran Europe with Murat. German high command was populated with yes men. The administration was riddled with cronies and corruption. Goering was a poor military leader and administrator (if so far as he showed talent it was politics). My argument isn't the all Nazi appointments were dunces. Certainly the Military made most of it's own appointments the German army wasn't totally nazified, , The top German high command appointed by the Nazis were yes men (Brauchitsch, Jodl, ) The administration (the Gaultilers) and the Nazi party itself was generally corrupt throughout.


The Nazis generally appointed yes men or cronies, they were generally corrupt they relied on thugs, and they repelled most the top scientists.
User avatar
By starman2003
#14833022
pugsville wrote:Anyhow exactly does thsis differentiate them from any other government form?


Like I said before, emphasis on the State and its agenda, clearly distinguishing them from democracy.


Substantial support but not majority they need for the enabling act was only passed through armed thuggery. They would not allow free and fare elections, Their government dictatorship was only achieved and maintained by violence, and thuggery.





Mass rallies, enthusiastic supporters. Failure of any significant opposition to develop even after the war was lost.




Napoleon didn't make decisions himself? I don't know much about Napoleonic generals but surely there were good ones--Soult(?).



IIRC his IQ was 139 and the Luftwaffe played a key role in the early victories.



Brauchitsch was fired, and from what I've read, Jodl was prepared to disagree e.g. in the summer of '42 "If you drop your paratroopers on Tuapse you will lose your paratroopers."



What government doesn't appoint those who agree or go along with those in power?
By pugsville
#14833033
starman2003 wrote:Mass rallies, enthusiastic supporters. Failure of any significant opposition to develop even after the war was lost.

in totalitarian , thug terror society public opinion is hard to judge.

starman2003 wrote:Napoleon didn't make decisions himself? I don't know much about Napoleonic generals but surely there were good ones--Soult(?).

The point Murat was a military idiot. The Coalition defeated Napoleon in 1813-14 with Schwartzenberg who was pretty inept as well. Throughout military history military idiots on winning sides is more common than you would imagine.

starman2003 wrote:IIRC his IQ was 139 and the Luftwaffe played a key role in the early victories.

IQ isn't a good guide to organisational, decision making skills. Goering was poor commander, a bad organiser, hopelessly and totally corrupt.


starman2003 wrote:What government doesn't appoint those who agree or go along with those in power?


The Nazis much more so than you average government. They were particularly subject to cronyism, yes men, and corruption.

Really when the Government makes a cult of violence and rules threw brutality and terror, without any checks ads balances, that the governing class just loot society for their own benefit and their cronies shouldn't be that big a shock.
User avatar
By starman2003
#14833399
pugsville wrote:in totalitarian , thug terror society public opinion is hard to judge.


Most Germans identified with the basic nazi goals--regaining territory lost under Versailles, restoring German power. And again in many circumstances "thug terror" can be a necessity. Sacrifices are often essential but unpopular, and any leadership worth the name must be prepared to do what is necessary to accomplish essential goals. To a considerable degree, he Chinese were able to implement a one child policy. No matter how vital that might be, it's nearly unthinkable under democracy. Only a "thug" system can bring it about. You shouldn't be so judgemental; in view of the threat to the whole planetary environment due to high consumption (to cite one example) the alternatives could be either "thug" or catastrophe.


The point Murat was a military idiot. The Coalition defeated Napoleon in 1813-14 with Schwartzenberg who was pretty inept as well. Throughout military history military idiots on winning sides is more common than you would imagine.


The nazis weren't military idiots. Guderian, Manstein, Doenitz, Rommel and others pioneered highly effective techniques.

The Nazis much more so than you average government. They were particularly subject to cronyism, yes men, and corruption.

Really when the Government makes a cult of violence and rules threw brutality and terror, without any checks ads balances, that the governing class just loot society for their own benefit and their cronies shouldn't be that big a shock.


For such a system, the reich sure came far. Of course there were serious faults and errors (I'm not a nazi). But the fascist regime was most effective at strengthening the state vis a vis others. The real test of fascism vs democracy was in May-June 1940.Both sides were evenly matched, and look what happened. Ultimate failure stemmed mainly from geopolitical accident not inherent faults. The democracies should thank their lucky stars Adolf didn't have anywhere near their resources (and even then soviet power had to do much of the work....).
By pugsville
#14833470
starman2003 wrote:The nazis weren't military idiots. Guderian, Manstein, Doenitz, Rommel and others pioneered highly effective techniques.

No the Nazis by and large were military idiots. There strategic leadership was extremely poor. The german general staff and German army were not creations of the Nazi party, the Generals developed under a system of organisation , doctrine and tactics that had little to do with Nazi party. The Army was not entirely nazifiied.

The nazi influence was generally for the worse. They promoted yes men and cronies, created factionalism and rivals the lead to poor war effort in many many.

Hitler, Goring were strategic idiots who interfered for the worse in military matters,


starman2003 wrote:For such a system, the reich sure came far. Of course there were serious faults and errors (I'm not a nazi). But the fascist regime was most effective at strengthening the state vis a vis others. The real test of fascism vs democracy was in May-June 1940.Both sides were evenly matched, and look what happened. Ultimate failure stemmed mainly from geopolitical accident not inherent faults. The democracies should thank their lucky stars Adolf didn't have anywhere near their resources (and even then soviet power had to do much of the work....).

The Germans got lucky in 1940. Gamelin's idiocy shaped the campaign. If the German army had given into Hitler they would have re-run the schliffen plan in late 1939 and failed miserably.
User avatar
By starman2003
#14833804
pugsville wrote:No the Nazis by and large were military idiots. There strategic leadership was extremely poor. The german general staff and German army were not creations of the Nazi party, the Generals developed under a system of organisation , doctrine and tactics that had little to do with Nazi party. The Army was not entirely nazifiied.


But Hitler had the sense to maintain the general staff or professional army whereas Roehm wanted to do away with it. And he was quick to see the value of Guderian's new method of warfare.

The nazi influence was generally for the worse. They promoted yes men and cronies, created factionalism and rivals the lead to poor war effort in many many.

Hitler, Goring were strategic idiots who interfered for the worse in military matters,


Even Trevor Roper said "Hitler was far from a fool when it came to military matters." He saw the brilliance of Manstein's plan for an attack through the Ardennes when Halder called it a "crackpot idea." Hitler also correctly foresaw the feasibility of a long tank gun when German engineers didn't like the idea (the T-34 showed Adolf was right). Also read Shirer on the generals's view of Hitler's "stand fast' order of December 1941. At first they thought it was crazy then at least one considered it Adolf's greatest achievement.



The Germans got lucky in 1940. Gamelin's idiocy shaped the campaign. If the German army had given into Hitler they would have re-run the schliffen plan in late 1939 and failed miserably.


Absolute hogwash!! As I just said Hitler favored Manstein's plan before the bulk of the "real pros."
By pugsville
#14833812
starman2003 wrote:Even Trevor Roper said "Hitler was far from a fool when it came to military matters." He saw the brilliance of Manstein's plan for an attack through the Ardennes when Halder called it a "crackpot idea." Hitler also correctly foresaw the feasibility of a long tank gun when German engineers didn't like the idea (the T-34 showed Adolf was right). Also read Shirer on the generals's view of Hitler's "stand fast' order of December 1941. At first they thought it was crazy then at least one considered it Adolf's greatest achievement.


Hitler was rank amateur making arbitrarily decisions of whims and diced ideas he had. He was a fool when it came to military matters. Most politicians are,. Just the Fascist system allowed he to get his way because he was "the leader" not because he was able to argue for or explain why his ideas were better.

Hitler the master strategist. really.
User avatar
By starman2003
#14834116
pugsville wrote:Hitler was rank amateur making arbitrarily decisions of whims and diced ideas he had. He was a fool when it came to military matters. Most politicians are,. Just the Fascist system allowed he to get his way because he was "the leader" not because he was able to argue for or explain why his ideas were better.


We all know Adolf goofed at times but I'll stick with Trevor-Roper. The allies made their share of goofs but had vast resources to recuperate and come back; Adolf didn't. Besides his acceptance of blitzkrieg, Manstein's plan and stand fast, he correctly foresaw that the Allied landing would come in Normandy instead of the Pas de Calais, where the bulk of the "pros" expected it.
By pugsville
#14834510
starman2003 wrote:We all know Adolf goofed at times but I'll stick with Trevor-Roper. The allies made their share of goofs but had vast resources to recuperate and come back; Adolf didn't. Besides his acceptance of blitzkrieg, Manstein's plan and stand fast, he correctly foresaw that the Allied landing would come in Normandy instead of the Pas de Calais, where the bulk of the "pros" expected it.


so you agree with trevor Roper that
"a terrible phenomenon, imposing indeed in its granite harshness and yet infinitely squalid in its miscellaneous cumber, like some huge barbarian monolith; the expression of giant strength and savage genius; surrounded by a festering heap of refuse, old tins and vermin, ashes and eggshells and ordure, the intellectual detritus of centuries"

"Trevor-Roper's picture of Hitler as a somewhat insane leader, fanatically pursuing lunatic policies, "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Trev ... and_Hitler
By pugsville
#14834519
appear on Hitler as a military leader.

Major Paul A. Braunbeck, Jr. - A MILITARY LEADERSHIP ANALYSIS OF ADOLF HITLER

http://dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a397896.pdf

"The Operations Staff of the O.K.W., which was originally designed to perform this function, became nothing more than an avenue for Hitler to use to distribute his orders to the military commanders. The commanders, in turn, had no input into the making of grand strategy and often had no idea what troops were being assigned to different areas of responsibility. This, of course, lead to numerous heated arguments between Hitler and his subordinate commanders to the point that many either resigned or were replaced if they failed to agree with Hitler’s decisions"
"He lacked the experience of commanding troops in the field and never served as a staff officer which severely handicapped his ability to assess and analyze a military situation logically from the viewpoint of a seasoned military officer. Hitler consistently deployed troops into combat with complete disregard for such matters as supply, logistics, and sustainment. Once new weapon systems were developed, Hitler’s only concern was seeing that they were dispatched to the front as soon as possible without considering whether the men responsible for the equipment had been fully trained or if the weapon had been tested under combat conditions prior to its use."
"As a result, Hitler refused to accept any reports of his enemy’s superiority, no matter how reliable the reports may have been, and would counter these assertions by pointing out the deficiencies of the enemy as compared to Germany’s production figures."
"A major fault in Hitler’s military leadership was his belief that victory on the battlefield could be attained merely through the power of his own will."
"In the face of his will, the essential elements of the ‘appreciation’ of a situation on which every military commander’s decision must be based were virtually eliminated. And with that Hitler turned his back on reality"
"He did not care to discuss the matter with anyone and would ignore those around him until he had reached his decision"
"Hitler did not approach decision-making in a logical, well-thought-out manner."
User avatar
By starman2003
#14834820
pugsville wrote:"Hitler did not approach decision-making in a logical, well-thought-out manner."


Generally authors have to give a very negative assessment of Hitler, or their views won't even be published. As I wrote before, I'm well aware that Adolf goofed. But he got pretty far for someone with such putative issues, and ultimate defeat owed more to geopolitical accident than the faults of the reich. The democracies had better thank their lucky stars that Hitler didn't have half their resources, and over half of the work of beating him was done by another totalitarian dictatorship.
By pugsville
#14835147
starman2003 wrote:Generally authors have to give a very negative assessment of Hitler, or their views won't even be published. As I wrote before, I'm well aware that Adolf goofed. But he got pretty far for someone with such putative issues, and ultimate defeat owed more to geopolitical accident than the faults of the reich. The democracies had better thank their lucky stars that Hitler didn't have half their resources, and over half of the work of beating him was done by another totalitarian dictatorship.


Just dismal that it's bias is not any sort of argument.

The Nazi regime was riddled with corruption. from Goring vast plundering of the economy to the block level Nazi collection of the winter relief.

The Nazi regime had massive wide spread cronyism where people were appointed solely by who they were, rather than ability to do the job. The Gaulitiers venal corrupt non entities.

The Nazi regime promoted yes men , people who would not question the leaders decision. This is a core element of Nazi dogma the leadership principle. The Nazi organisation enabled the poor decisions to be imposed form the top down.
User avatar
By starman2003
#14835180
pugsville wrote:Just dismal that it's bias is not any sort of argument.


So English isn't your first language? :lol: But it's true that in order to be published, by a standard or mainstream publisher, any work must be anti-nazi. The result is that current works emphasize the flaws of the nazi regime instead of its strengths.You can't conquer half a continent with an inferior system composed of morons, or people who think only of personal aggrandizement.

The Nazi regime had massive wide spread cronyism where people were appointed solely by who they were, rather than ability to do the job.


But Hitler liquidated Roehm and his followers who took the official program seriously. They preferred to let the existing elites, the conservative businessmen and Junker generals, run things because they were more experienced and competent.

The Nazi regime promoted yes men , people who would not question the leaders decision.


Plenty of people questioned it. Even Goering questioned Adolf's view on a certain aircraft.
#14841998
The vast majority of people who call themselves fascists today know absolutely nothing about what fascism was. They are mostly hobbyists who have absorbed an Americanised, cartoon version of fascism, constructed with Hollywood images and 1950s misreadings of inter-war fascism by American white supremacists. A lot of these "fascists" would not be able to accept fascism as it was if it was presented to them in its real form. They would find it too left wing and too national. Americans who tried to adopt fascism to US conditions were far more obsessed with colour racism than the original fascists were. Fascists in inter-war Europe did not really hold any enmity towards non-whites but American white supremacists were somehow able to interpret continental fascism in such a way. Interestingly enough there were many Nazis who saw the global south as their natural allies against the Western powers. They thought that the Arabs were a kindred people of Germans.
User avatar
By starman2003
#14842094
Political Interest wrote:The vast majority of people who call themselves fascists today know absolutely nothing about what fascism was. They are mostly hobbyists who have absorbed an Americanised, cartoon version of fascism, constructed with Hollywood images


About a decade ago, Seth Tyrssen's "American Fascist Party" combined traditional American values with the fascist title and imagery. It seemed like a joke. I and a few others argued it should be the other way around--planned fascist policies and an interim, present system facade.


Fascists in inter-war Europe did not really hold any enmity towards non-whites


Nazis were contemptuous of blacks. The notion of white or aryan racial supremacy appealed to American racists, even if fascist i.e. anti-democratic ideas didn't.

Here I quote a few sentences from the post in the […]

Turn, turn, turn

The timelines have not gotten much attention in t[…]

Trump, Oh my god !

Old friend. What are you doing to me! SARCASM. […]

Will Russia interfere or will China butt in? Chi[…]