[Ombrageux]

What are your assessments of the various historical fascist and reactionary regimes?

I think of the following:
* National Socialist Germany: Unbelievably rigorous and successful, for a time, but went too far.
* Fascist Italy: Pretty balanced overall, sided with wrong (as in, losing) side.
* Vichy France: Too weak, semi-sovereign to really do anything.
* Francoist Spain: Purely "conservative," therefore tending towards clericalism/liberalism.
* Salazaran Portugal: More interesting conservative regime? Doomed because too small?
* Legionary State/Antonescu's Romania: Former allegedly unstable/fanatical, Antonescu credited by even mainstreamers as being unusually competent and probitious ruler.
* Pilsudski's Poland: Pretty good for the Poles (signed a pact, funnily enough, with N.S. Germany).

Interestingly, only National Socialist Germany really made a religion of racism. Why?

Besides comfort, why don't Anglos produce these kinds of regime? (Henry VIII? Cromwell?)

Seems, in times of crisis, states like to consolidate around "sound" conservative authoritarians, best able to maintain a kind of order, but no good at changing the course of history. Trump?

By 1938, there were almost no liberal-democratic regimes in Continental Europe, by 1946, no Right-wing ones outside of Iberia. History is endless surprises!

[Political Interest]

Their biggest failing was genocidal racism.

They did not need to pursue racist policies. Such policies were simply not necessary or justified.

If Nazi Germany had not persecuted ethnic minorities and the disabled I think we would have a very different image of it today.

[Potemkin]

Besides comfort, why don't Anglos produce these kinds of regime? (Henry VIII? Cromwell?)

Those two cases are probably the closest we've come to having a military dictatorship in England (and its successor state the United Kingdom), if you don't count William the Conqueror. However, neither of them were conservative - they were both revolutionary figures who could even be described as "progressive" in a Marxian sense. Fascism in the 20th century was essentially a reactionary movement, in every one of its manifestations.

[Political Interest]

It is a mistake to believe that Anglos cannot produce such regimes.

The conditions simply do not exist psychologically among Anglos.

They will never accept anything totalitarian or dictatorial.

They view modes of government such as Stalinism or fascism as "un-English" or "un-American".

They are very well capable of it but they simply cannot bring themselves to it.

[Potemkin]

It is a mistake to believe that Anglos cannot produce such regimes.

The conditions simply do not exist psychologically among Anglos.

They will never accept anything totalitarian or dictatorial.

They view modes of government such as Stalinism or fascism as "un-English" or "un-American".

They are very well capable of it but they simply cannot bring themselves to it.

Indeed, and there are objective historical reasons why they would feel that way. In the Anglosphere, the transition to modernity had already been successfully accomplished by the start of the 20th century, which was not the case in most of southern Europe or even in Germany. Liberalism was already the entrenched ideology of the British ruling elite since at least the early 19th century, and the United States of America was founded on liberal Enlightenment principles. Fascism or Communism are 'un-British' or 'un-American' in the sense - and only in the sense - that they violate the fundamental principles of the ideology of the ruling class.

[Atlantis]

There is no point in a theoretical discussion ignoring the real socioeconomic conditions of each country.

* National Socialist Germany: Unbelievably rigorous and successful, for a time, but went too far.

The Nazis were successful because Germany had become one of the leading, in many fields the leading, scientific and industrial nation by turn of the century. Even after the catastrophe of WWI, most of the human resources were still in place. Their military success is entirely due to Germany's industrial and scientific strength at the time, which is certainly not due to anything the Nazis did.

The Nazis only succeeded in one thing: they destroyed Germany for good. Germany will never again become the leader in science and industry it has been a century ago. The Nazis were a bunch of dimwits who succeeded in hitchhiking the leadership of the country due to the political vacuum left by the failure of the traditional ruling elite in the wake of WWI. Considering their tremendous failure, I really don't get why anybody would ask about their "success."

* Fascist Italy: Pretty balanced overall, sided with wrong (as in, losing) side.

The Italian economy was much weaker.

* Vichy France: Too weak, semi-sovereign to really do anything.

What's the point? They were just puppets.

* Francoist Spain: Purely "conservative," therefore tending towards clericalism/liberalism.

The economy was far too small and weak to make it on its own. Franco's protectionism set the economy back by half a century.

* Salazaran Portugal: More interesting conservative regime? Doomed because too small?

Same as above.

Interestingly, only National Socialist Germany really made a religion of racism. Why?

It wasn't actually a religion. The part of the scientific community that didn't emigrate needed to be brought under control, just like Erdogan brings all Turkish academics under control now. And the Nazi didn't want to depend on Rome, even if they didn't go against religion, they started replacing concepts like god with concepts like Vorsehung (providence).

Besides comfort, why don't Anglos produce these kinds of regime? (Henry VIII? Cromwell?)

Imperialism in the UK is the equivalent of fascism on the continent. The British were able to direct their expansionist energry into the colonial empire, while continental empires where stifled in their expansionism. Let's not forget, prior to WWI almost every nation/empire in Europe had expansionist ambitions, even small countries like Serbia.

[Potemkin]

Imperialism in the UK is the equivalent of fascism on the continent.

No, actually it isn't. Unlike most of the rest of Europe, there was never a significant threat of revolution in Britain in the 20th century - the dividends of imperialism, the gradual introduction of social and political reform, and the (narrow) avoidance of catastrophic military defeat saw to that. There was therefore no perceived need for a reactionary ideology like fascism to suppress the workers' movement, besides which such an ideology would have violated the most basic ideological assumptions of liberalism, which had been the dominant ideology of the British ruling class for almost a century. British imperialism, particularly from the late 19th century onwards, was essentially liberal imperialism, and had little in common ideologically with fascist expansionism. This is not to say that British imperialism was morally better than fascist imperialism - it wasn't - it is merely to say that it had a very different ideological basis.

The British were able to direct their expansionist energry into the colonial empire, while continental empires where stifled in their expansionism.

Indeed. The English (and later the British) had pivoted their foreign policy ambitions away from continental Europe and towards building a global empire since the time of Henry VIII onwards. Our only real involvement in Europe was to prevent precisely such a continental European empire from ever forming. If we couldn't have Europe, then no-one could have it.

Let's not forget, prior to WWI almost every nation/empire in Europe had expansionist ambitions, even small countries like Serbia.

Indeed. And it was Britain's self-appointed task to stop them.

[Atlantis]

Indeed. And it was Britain's self-appointed task to stop them.

Or to promote them, if they served the aims of the empire.

As you yourself admitted, Anglo imperialism is the equivalent of continental fascism as an expression of expansionist energy, even if it obviously took on another form than fascism.

Today, fascism is dead while the empire is alive and kicking, albeit in its death throes.

The question is what brings the future?

The expansionism of the empire has come to a halt. No more expansion into new worlds, the markets are saturated and growth tends towards zero. We already live above what the limited resources of the planet will allow. Will the expansionist energy now flow into fascism or will humans realize the futility of material pursuits?

[Potemkin]

Or to promote them, if they served the aims of the empire.

Indeed.

As you yourself admitted, Anglo imperialism is the equivalent of continental fascism as an expression of expansionist energy, even if it obviously took on another form than fascism.

So you agree that Anglo imperialism was not fascism then? Unless, of course you believe that any form of tribal or national expansionism is by definition fascism, in which case almost every tribe and every nation in all of human history have been 'fascist'.

Today, fascism is dead while the empire is alive and kicking, albeit in its death throes.

The British Empire is dead, Atlantis, yet Anglo imperialism lives on, albeit in new forms....

The question is what brings the future?

The expansionism of the empire has come to a halt. No more expansion into new worlds, the markets are saturated and growth tends towards zero. We already live above what the limited resources of the planet will allow. Will the expansionist energy now flow into fascism or will humans realize the futility of material pursuits?

You sound almost like a Marxist, Atlantis....

[Kaiserschmarrn]

The success of National Socialism in Germany cannot really be assessed based on such a short time period. Unless one believes that having an economy permanently and totally geared for war is ideal, beneficial and sustainable, we only have a few years by which to judge it and hence the long-term outcome is unknown.

[Ombrageux]

Those two cases are probably the closest we've come to having a military dictatorship in England (and its successor state the United Kingdom), if you don't count William the Conqueror. However, neither of them were conservative - they were both revolutionary figures who could even be described as "progressive" in a Marxian sense. Fascism in the 20th century was essentially a reactionary movement, in every one of its manifestations.

I am not sure I agree with that. Certainly, Hitler put limits on his left (removing the Strassers, decapitating the SA), there were also clearly progressive elements (whether or not they were good or bad). For instance, Hitler was not interested in returning to Christian morality, but rather was looking to found a new morality based on perceived evolutionary self-interest (hence the tolerance for polygamy). Hence, the limitations on women's professional opportunities, for example, was not based on bigoted Christian reflexes, but on something self-consciously new. He also had no interest in preserving the power of the old conservative elite and rapidly eliminated their power (Von Papen, Von Neurath, much of the officer corps..). Hitler was adamantly opposed to classism.

Conversely, the most ideological Nazi organizations tended to be socially progressive: the Waffen-SS was notorious for being less stuffy and more egalitarian/meritocratic than the Wehrmacht and people assumed the so-called "Adolf Hitler Schools" were meant for poor children. I think the Nazis were ideological revolutionaries of a type, quite different from the reactionary regimes of Iberia and the Balkans. (And more revolutionary, to be sure, than the somewhat more progressive phenomena of Italian Fascism or Argentine Peronism.)

Kaiser - Indeed! Though I am not limiting "success" to economics, we'll never know more generally. (Besides the Nazis' catastrophic and murderous rule in East, which even had they won, would have meant effectively eternal war.)

Fascinating period!

Edit: to fix quote.

[Potemkin]

The success of National Socialism in Germany cannot really be assessed based on such a short time period. Unless one believes that having an economy permanently and totally geared for war is ideal, beneficial and sustainable, we only have a few years by which to judge it and hence the long-term outcome is unknown.

The Nazis did not create an economy "permanently and totally geared for war" until the last few years of WWII. In fact, it could be argued that they delayed too long before doing so, mainly because of their fears of a repeat of the collapse of civilian morale in 1918. The British were running a war economy from 1939 onwards, whereas the Germans only put their economy on a total war footing from 1943 onwards. Goebbels even gave a famous speech in February 1943 to announce the launch of "total war".

The Nazis had six years of peace and six years of war. Their record in peacetime was mixed - their (limited) central planning and interventions in the economy ended mass unemployment in Germany before it ended in the rest of the West, but their persecution of political and racial opponents was brutal and triggered a massive brain-drain, and their foreign policy was disastrous, leading directly to a world war which they lost. And I'm not even going to mention their wartime record....

[Atlantis]

So you agree that Anglo imperialism was not fascism then? Unless, of course you believe that any form of tribal or national expansionism is by definition fascism, in which case almost every tribe and every nation in all of human history have been 'fascist'.

You know that fascism can have a very broad meaning. It is clear that historical fascism is history. And it is equally clear that history does not repeat itself in exactly the same form. We have to try and see the underlying patterns, the forces bubbling up from the collective unconscious that coagulate into the external world.

That Anglo imperialism is equivalent to fascism doesn't mean that it is fascism. It means that it is another external expression of the same inner forces. The question is, will these same forces coagulate into fascism if the route of expansion (taken by imperialism) is blocked? Or can we channel these forces through less destructive channels?

Ultimately, the aim of the fascists too is imperialism, as we have seen with the Nazis. They are just less successful at that game than the Anglos. The Islamists like the right-wing racists are determined to go down the road of fascism. At least the islamists are logical in that their reach is global, the right-wing racists are in a dead end with nationalism. The political center is our last defense against fascism.

Imperialism is nationalism on steroids. The same applies to fascism. To stop fascism is to nip nationalism in the bud. That can only be achieved by cooperation in the framework of international bodies such as the EU. The UK isn't ready for the EU because it mentally holds onto imperialism.

[Atlantis]

The Nazis did not create an economy "permanently and totally geared for war" until the last few years of WWII. In fact, it could be argued that they delayed too long before doing so, mainly because of their fears of a repeat of the collapse of civilian morale in 1918. The British were running a war economy from 1939 onwards, whereas the Germans only put their economy on a total war footing from 1943 onwards. Goebbels even gave a famous speech in February 1943 to announce the launch of "total war".

Do you have any figures to prove that claim? A propaganda speech by Goebbels doesn't constitute proof.

their (limited) central planning and interventions in the economy ended mass unemployment in Germany before it ended in the rest of the West,

The Nazi propaganda about their alleged economic success have been disproved numerous times. In fact, the economy was on the way up by the time the Nazi took power in 1933. Even large scale infrastructure projects like the Autobahn, often attributed to the Nazis, had already been planed previously. They just happened to arrive at a time when the economy was improving.

And I'm not even going to mention their wartime record....

Surely, their wartime economy could have proven beneficial to them if they had been able to hold onto their conquest like the Anglos.

[Potemkin]

Imperialism is nationalism on steroids. The same applies to fascism. To stop fascism is to nip nationalism in the bud. That can only be achieved by cooperation in the framework of international bodies such as the EU.

So, according to your logic, fascism = imperialism = nationalism?

The UK isn't ready for the EU because it mentally holds onto imperialism.

Translation: The UK isn't ready for the EU because it mentally holds onto nationalism.

Do you have any figures to prove that claim? A propaganda speech by Goebbels doesn't constitute proof.

I thought this was well known, Atlantis. Wikipedia mentions it in passing: "Britain immediately put their economy on a war footing, Germany resisted equivalent measures until later in the war." Wiki link

The Nazi propaganda about their alleged economic success have been disproved numerous times. In fact, the economy was on the way up by the time the Nazi took power in 1933. Even large scale infrastructure projects like the Autobahn, often attributed to the Nazis, had already been planed previously. They just happened to arrive at a time when the economy was improving.

While luck certainly had a lot to do with it, the Nazi economic policies during the 1930s were broadly sensible and pragmatic, though not as spectacularly successful in terms of building up heavy industry as those of Stalin's Soviet Union during the same period.

Surely, their wartime economy could have proven beneficial to them if they had been able to hold onto their conquest like the Anglos.

Indeed. The fact that we were largely successful in our conquests and remained in power for a century or more in most of our colonies meant that we were able to simply erase the more embarrassing aspects of our imperial history. The victors, after all, get to write the history books.

[Atlantis]

So, according to your logic, fascism = imperialism = nationalism?

No, nationalism
a) > imperialism
b) > fascism > imperialism

Translation: The UK isn't ready for the EU because it mentally holds onto nationalism.

Since nationalism has already morphed into imperialism in the UK, the Brits hold onto imperialism and have no clear idea of what nationalism actually means

I thought this was well known, Atlantis. Wikipedia mentions it in passing: "Britain immediately put their economy on a war footing, Germany resisted equivalent measures until later in the war."

That's hardly a meaningful reference. What you want are defense budget figues comparing side by side the UK with Germany, while deducing from the British figures the part that wasn't strictly speaking for the European theater. I don't believe you can prove your point. Perhaps it just looks to you like that because the UK has always been at war, while post-WWI Germany needed time to gear up for the war.

The victors, after all, get to write the history books.

In addition to being allowed to keep the booty.

The trouble is that a business model based on the war economy needs constantly new wars to be profitable, in addition to having to win these wars too. The Anglos will never be able to recoup the cost of the Iraq war. I think the economic problems we have seen since 2008 are at least partly due to this problem. The real estate bubble was just the trigger.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

The Nazis did not create an economy "permanently and totally geared for war" until the last few years of WWII. In fact, it could be argued that they delayed too long before doing so, mainly because of their fears of a repeat of the collapse of civilian morale in 1918. The British were running a war economy from 1939 onwards, whereas the Germans only put their economy on a total war footing from 1943 onwards. Goebbels even gave a famous speech in February 1943 to announce the launch of "total war".

The Nazis had six years of peace and six years of war. Their record in peacetime was mixed - their (limited) central planning and interventions in the economy ended mass unemployment in Germany before it ended in the rest of the West, but their persecution of political and racial opponents was brutal and triggered a massive brain-drain, and their foreign policy was disastrous, leading directly to a world war which they lost. And I'm not even going to mention their wartime record....

They started preparing for war early on, but obviously this was secret and quite limited at first. Their objective was autarky, which required territorial expansion which in turn required militarisation of the economy and population. Their policies should be viewed and judged accordingly.

As Atlantis mentioned, the infrastructure and public investment programmes were already planned, although they were massively expanded under the Nazis and obviously if you are preparing for war industry and manufacturing benefits. This was financed by debt, expropriations and later war spoils.

I don't think even the Nazis were under any illusion that this was a sustainable way to run the economy in peace times.

[Potemkin]

They started preparing for war early on, but obviously this was secret and quite limited at first. Their objective was autarky, which required territorial expansion which in turn required militarisation of the economy and population. Their policies should be viewed and judged accordingly.

As Atlantis mentioned, the infrastructure and public investment programmes were already planned, although they were massively expanded under the Nazis and obviously if you are preparing for war industry and manufacturing benefits. This was financed by debt, expropriations and later war spoils.

All of this is true, but my point remains: the Nazis failed to adopt an economy which was fully geared up to fight a total war, in which almost all production is directed towards the war effort rather than civilian consumption, due to their fears of a repeat of the collapse of civilian morale in 1918 which cost Germany the First World War. In fact, they waited until 1943 before doing so, by which time it was already too late. Britain had a war economy from 1939 onwards - we had little fear of a collapse of civilian morale, and we had learned the lessons of the First World War. In fact it could be argued that it was Lloyd George who invented the concept of "total war" - one of his own generals criticised him in 1916 for "having the War on the brain", and Lloyd George rounded on him and told him that of course he had the War on his brain, and that he wished all of his generals would also have the War on their brains too. As soon as war was declared in 1939, the British went onto a total war footing, devoting almost all economic production to the war effort. The Nazis, by contrast, seemed to have an almost relaxed attitude towards the War, which wasn't helped by their early spectacular military successes against Britain and France. The War seemed to be progressing with dream-like ease for the Nazis. It wasn't until their defeat at Stalingrad that the Nazi leadership suddenly seemed to wake up.

I don't think even the Nazis were under any illusion that this was a sustainable way to run the economy in peace times.

Indeed. Hitler planned for decades if not centuries of brutal occupation, guerilla warfare and civilian enslavement and massacres. In other words, eternal war.

[Thunderhawk]

Was Salazar really fascist? I think of his education policy, and it strikes me as regressive. It tries to recreate a past social order (the poor are to be stupid but able craftsmen, with an educated ruling aristocracy) despite new technologies and modes of thinking. Other fascist regimes take inspiration and symbols from the past, but they try to make a new order taking new technology and modes of thinking into account. I don't recall anything special about his colonial policies either.

To me, if he is a fascist, then he is an 'Amish among luddites' kind of fascist.