NationStates

Reikoku wrote:That, and Japan could serve to tie up the British Empire and Soviet Union in those regions. When it didn't declare war on the USSR, Hitler raved about how the Japanese Emperor was a weak man and could end up like the Czar. Which showed how much he actually regarded his "ally."

I mean this with no disrespect, but I've read several Hirohito biographies. In spite of being an Emperor of Japan, he does come across as a man with weak convictions and was indecisive. A lot of people could come to the opinion that he was weak. Hirohito did not break from Japan's military brass until all options were exhausted and the war situation was hopeless in 1945.

Instead of being proactive or being an assertive decision maker, he was content to spend time on Marine Biology and delegate out to other people. Hirohito does appear to have deferred to other people the majority of the time, in spite of having the power to say no and have his word be obeyed. Although, I'm sure that in Hirohito's mind- he was doing his best to behave as a proper Emperor and fulfill his role to his nation's benefit.

Saiwania wrote:I mean this with no disrespect, but I've read several Hirohito biographies. In spite of being an Emperor of Japan, he does come across as a man with weak convictions and was indecisive. A lot of people could come to the opinion that he was weak. Hirohito did not break from Japan's military brass until all options were exhausted and the war situation was hopeless in 1945.

On the contrary, I'd assert that the Showa Emperor was a man of strong convictions who was devoted to his role of being the Emperor. He showed a strong work ethic and firmly believed in his national role. The issue that Hitler had with him was that he was a pragmatic constitutional figure who preferred careful decision-making over pretending to be a warlord.

Olthar wrote:Nazis are bad.

Woah there, madam! That's an ad hom! Can you not refrain from disparaging them just because you disagree with the Holocaust?

Liriena wrote:

Olthar wrote:Nazis are bad.

Woah there, madam! That's an ad hom! Can you not refrain from disparaging them just because you disagree with the Holocaust?

That isn’t an ad hom.

Torrocca wrote:

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:Just because communism is evil doesn't mean that the holocaust conducted by the Nazis should be ignored.

Nazism's clearly not even because Kustonia pulled the 332 million (a number more than three times the size of the debunked Black Book of Communism's 100 million number of people killed by Communism) number straight from his ass /s

Stalin's kill count is still pretty high, with at least 20 million deaths (probably far more) under his belt. Whether or not Kustonia's number is accurate, communism is still responsible with atrocities that are arguably on par with the Nazis. Other communist dictators also racked up numbers of deaths that were close to Stalin's.

Edit: You're right, Kustonia's number is inaccurate.

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Nazism's clearly not even because Kustonia pulled the 332 million (a number more than three times the size of the debunked Black Book of Communism's 100 million number of people killed by Communism) number straight from his ass /s

Stalin's kill count is still pretty high, with at least 20 million deaths (probably far more) under his belt. Whether or not Kustonia's number is accurate, communism is still responsible with atrocities that are arguably on par with the Nazis. Other communist dictators also racked up numbers of deaths that were close to Stalin's.

Edit: You're right, Kustonia's number is inaccurate.

Yes, I understand that Stalin was an atrocious, authoritarian fuckwad. That wasn't the point I was making.

FelrikTheDeleted wrote:

Liriena wrote:Woah there, madam! That's an ad hom! Can you not refrain from disparaging them just because you disagree with the Holocaust?

That isn’t an ad hom.

Let me have this one bad joke, please?

Liriena wrote:

FelrikTheDeleted wrote:
That isn’t an ad hom.

Let me have this one bad joke, please?

:^) Alright, Ill let you have this one and the next two.

Torrocca wrote:That wasn't the point I was making.

I'm well aware. It was a point I was making because I don't like communism. Your point was that Kustonia made the number up, and after some research and finding nothing stating that number he gave, I agree with you.

---

On a slightly different note. I don't understand how anyone in their right mind can think that Nazism is redeemable. It will be the same genocidal ideology that it was back in the '30s and '40s.

Kustonia wrote:

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
I'll never understand this trend of people thinking evil is cool.

National Socialism is NOT evil, it is the political process of life itself. National Socialism is more than just "cool", it is our natural instinct.

Muh appeal to nature

Kustonia wrote:If you want to know what evil is, just look at Communism and it's 332 million victims.

Mmmm... not nearly enough.

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:

Torrocca wrote:That wasn't the point I was making.

I'm well aware. It was a point I was making because I don't like communism.

On the other hand, you can't necessarily blame Communism itself for the crimes of the Bolsheviks or those of Maoists and so forth. Communism itself, unlike Nazism, isn't an ideology that grew its roots off the idea of mass-murder and genocide in the name of uplifting a "superior" group of people. The two ideologies are entirely incomparable. The only comparisons you can draw is when authoritarianism happens in the name of Communism, like Stalin's regime; even then, Communism itself, as an ideology, wasn't created with the goal of mass-murder in mind. Nazism wouldn't be what it is, however, without fundamental foundations to itself like Hitler's Mein Kampf, which very clearly espouses the eradication of "Judeo-Bolshevik subhumans".

Liriena wrote:Muh appeal to nature

Agreed. I see nothing Natural about Nazism, and Kustonia's post is less than specific.

Torrocca wrote:

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:I'm well aware. It was a point I was making because I don't like communism.

On the other hand, you can't necessarily blame Communism itself for the crimes of the Bolsheviks or those of Maoists and so forth. Communism itself, unlike Nazism, isn't an ideology that grew its roots off the idea of mass-murder and genocide in the name of uplifting a "superior" group of people. The two ideologies are entirely incomparable. The only comparisons you can draw is when authoritarianism happens in the name of Communism, like Stalin's regime; even then, Communism itself, as an ideology, wasn't created with the goal of mass-murder in mind. Nazism wouldn't be what it is, however, without fundamental foundations to itself like Hitler's Mein Kampf, which very clearly espouses the eradication of "Judeo-Bolshevik subhumans".

Plus, there's an argument to be made that some of the events usually referred to as "crimes" of communism would not fall into the category of purposeful, systematic, premeditated attempts to exterminate millions, but rather into the category of spectacular failures of socioeconomic policy (like the Great Leap Forward).

Liriena wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
On the other hand, you can't necessarily blame Communism itself for the crimes of the Bolsheviks or those of Maoists and so forth. Communism itself, unlike Nazism, isn't an ideology that grew its roots off the idea of mass-murder and genocide in the name of uplifting a "superior" group of people. The two ideologies are entirely incomparable. The only comparisons you can draw is when authoritarianism happens in the name of Communism, like Stalin's regime; even then, Communism itself, as an ideology, wasn't created with the goal of mass-murder in mind. Nazism wouldn't be what it is, however, without fundamental foundations to itself like Hitler's Mein Kampf, which very clearly espouses the eradication of "Judeo-Bolshevik subhumans".

Plus, there's an argument to be made that some of the events usually referred to as "crimes" of communism would not fall into the category of purposeful, systematic, premeditated attempts to exterminate millions, but rather into the category of spectacular failures of socioeconomic policy (like the Great Leap Forward).

Stalin killed Kulaks, and deported and ended up killing many Crimean Taters; those crimes must be factored in too. Now I think this conversation should be continued in a different thread though.

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:

Liriena wrote:Plus, there's an argument to be made that some of the events usually referred to as "crimes" of communism would not fall into the category of purposeful, systematic, premeditated attempts to exterminate millions, but rather into the category of spectacular failures of socioeconomic policy (like the Great Leap Forward).

Stalin killed Kulaks, and deported and ended up killing many Crimean Taters; those crimes must be factored in too. Now I think this conversation should be continued in a different thread though.

As I said, some of the events. Stalin did in fact commit at least one actual genocide... the fucking cunt.

Albydia wrote:

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
The vast majority of Italian fascism's stupidities did not begin until their association (and eventual subordination) with the Nazis.

Right. Also, it's funny how the self-proclaimed "White Nationalist" has nothing to say about the fact that Colonial Empires and segregation would still exist if it weren't for Hitler's stupidity.

White nationalist is not the same as white supremacist. White nationalism, if taken at face value, would want all races to live apart and would believe that all have the right to exist, so they would not support colonizing or exploiting other races.

New Anderia wrote:The party was going somewhere until Hitler took over and forced out the Blackshirts and other progress oriented members in the Night of Long Knives, a shame what the madman did to the party, the movement, and of course the jews and other so-called subversives.

The Nazi Party was literally going nowhere before Hitler got involved. As you can see in this chart, party membership isn't even visible until after Hitler joins and becomes a major player in party affairs and speeches.

Saiwania wrote:In your view, is Nazism only a unique phenomenon confined to one place and era in world history or does it have potential for an indirect successor movement via the alt-right or a political party like France's Front National or Greece's Golden Dawn party?

Regrettably, Nazism never truly died after the regime collapsed, and lives on in a number of countries.

National socialism is another failed materialist theory, it appeals to the dregs of society and got vanquished by the so-called "untermensch."

It took 14 years for Adolf Hitler to rise to power and he had intended for his Third Reich to last for 1,000 years but it only lasted for 12, because his invasion of the Soviet Union had failed and he had aligned too many other industrialized nations against Germany.

He failed because Britain refused to surrender. Bare in mind that the challenges of invading the soviets were known to the general staff, and they still preferred their chances with that option than with Operation Sealion.

Hitler failed because he flubbed the diplomacy game. His plans relied on Britain allying with the German Reich, and he assumed they would do this based on some vague racial guff once the might of Germany was demonstrated to be worthy or some shit.

Had someone who wasn't a racist been in charge of that specific aspect of the plan, and focused on aligning the Reich and British interests, it's possible the war would have gone substantially differently.

Let's not forget Mosley was pretty close to being prime minister at one point. Had a few votes on his Keynesian plan gone his way (I believe it is 12), he would not have resigned from the labour party to found his alternative, and would likely have been the next Prime Minister. So even without Germany actively trying to align Britain it could have gone very differently.

With the Empire and the Reich on the same side, the US stays out of it, or even joins in to help. The Soviets end up defeated, and the world becomes a fascist nightmare.

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:

Torrocca wrote:That wasn't the point I was making.

I'm well aware. It was a point I was making because I don't like communism. Your point was that Kustonia made the number up, and after some research and finding nothing stating that number he gave, I agree with you.

---

On a slightly different note. I don't understand how anyone in their right mind can think that Nazism is redeemable. It will be the same genocidal ideology that it was back in the '30s and '40s.

You just have to do the math yourself. Of course, the internet won't give it to you. If you add up all of the deaths of people committed by the state over the course of communism's history from Lenin, to Stalin, to Mao, to the Khmer Rouge, to North Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba, you would get a figure that adds approximately to 332 million.

Kustonia wrote:

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:I'm well aware. It was a point I was making because I don't like communism. Your point was that Kustonia made the number up, and after some research and finding nothing stating that number he gave, I agree with you.

---

On a slightly different note. I don't understand how anyone in their right mind can think that Nazism is redeemable. It will be the same genocidal ideology that it was back in the '30s and '40s.

You just have to do the math yourself. Of course, the internet won't give it to you. If you add up all of the deaths of people committed by the state over the course of communism's history from Lenin, to Stalin, to Mao, to the Khmer Rouge, to North Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba, you would get a figure that adds approximately to 332 million.

Actually, it adds to 16 trillion, but we're hoping to beat that high score once Jeremy Corbyn becomes PM.

Liriena wrote:[Actually, it adds to 16 trillion, but we're hoping to beat that high score once Jeremy Corbyn becomes PM.

I fail to see how deaths caused by your ideology is in any way humorous.

Lol @ the 332 million victims of Communism. I'm as anti-Communist as anyone but that's just fucking absurd. Even the commonly cited figure of 100 million is likely too high.

Saiwania wrote:With my thoughts out of the way, what do you think went wrong with National Socialism?

It was racist and militarist. It believed in the need for an apocalyptic race war.

Was the NSDAP evil from the beginning or was it primarily Adolf Hitler and his cohorts who hijacked the party from the founders of the ideology?

Yep.

Is it still even National Socialism if antisemitism is divorced from the platform but most of the other Fascist or social Darwinist elements are kept intact?

No. Then it's just generic fascism.

Is Nazism something that can be modernized or salvaged in any way?

No. It's racist, violent and genocidal. There is no way for it not to be.

What are your opinions on the Communist or Capitalist variations of neo-Nazism- the rumored NazBol (National Bolshevism) and NazCap (National Capitalist) movements on the internet?

NazBol is a meme with very few unironic followers. NazCap more or less doesn't exist.

In your view, is Nazism only a unique phenomenon confined to one place and era in world history or does it have potential for an indirect successor movement via the alt-right or a political party like France's Front National or Greece's Golden Dawn party?

Nazism could only exist in Germany at the time it did, but neo-Nazi movements could become popular again. I doubt it though.

In the best interests of complying with the rules of this website, please do not post neo-Nazi responses or glorify Adolf Hitler or the Holocaust. Thank you.

Unfortunately we do have at least one edgelord doing that. I would say we should ban them, but then somebody would call me a Nazi.

And a summary of my thoughts on Nazism:

National socialism dragged literally every other far-right ideology into the cesspit of being forever associated with them.

...and that's a good thing

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:

Liriena wrote:Actually, it adds to 16 trillion, but we're hoping to beat that high score once Jeremy Corbyn becomes PM.

I fail to see how deaths caused by your ideology is in any way humorous.

Don't be so PC, brah.

Liriena wrote:

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:I fail to see how deaths caused by your ideology is in any way humorous.

Don't be so PC, brah.

I'm not being PC; I'm just telling it how it is.