National socialism.

[Nilpnt]

So we all know the what the Nazi's are. My question is: If the Nazi's didn't... well go nuts... would their ideology still be widespread? Would we still have National Socialist countries today? Or would it have taken the same fate as Communism?

[Maurepas]

I dont think so, Case in point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_Spain

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalist_China

Both of which met revolutionary ends regardless of neutrality(Spain) or being part of the Allies in WWII(China)...

[Czardas]

Considering that no fascist state has ever outlasted a single leader, I suspect the Nazis would have died out as a species when Hitler kicked the bucket.

Of course, if they hadn't been led by a nutcase like Hitler in the first place, they probably would have been even more successful.

[La Rosa Nera]

With the Nazi's you have to remember a bit of history. The night of the long knives. That night Hitler betrayed some of his friends to their death. These were the people who would have most likely kept a moderate eye on how things were going and stood in staunch opposition to some of the more inhumane ideas propagated by the heads of the party at that time.
Going on that, socialism would probably have wound up living on a great deal longer.

[Oh my Days]

Who says that they "went nuts"?

The holocaust was wrong, for sure, but you can't exactly say that they "went nuts", it was just one of the bad aspects of the regime, but if the holocaust hadn't happened then National Socialism would be a lot less unpopular, yes.

[Yootopia]

So we all know the what the Nazi's are. My question is: If the Nazi's didn't... well go nuts... would their ideology still be widespread?

When was it particularly widespread, outside of August 1942?

[Maurepas]

Who says that they "went nuts"?

The holocaust was wrong, for sure, but you can't exactly say that they "went nuts"

I do believe you have to be crazy to want Genocide and to declare war on all your neighbors at once, so they definitely "went nuts", im afraid,

[Yootopia]

With the Nazi's you have to remember a bit of history. The night of the long knives. That night Hitler betrayed some of his friends to their death. These were the people who would have most likely kept a moderate eye on how things were going and stood in staunch opposition to some of the more inhumane ideas propagated by the heads of the party at that time.
Going on that, socialism would probably have wound up living on a great deal longer.

I dunno, the SA were just angry bums. As much as bum fights between the Red Front and SA were hilarious for all onlookers, it was probably one of Hitler's better calls to dispense with them.

[Maurepas]

So we all know the what the Nazi's are. My question is: If the Nazi's didn't... well go nuts... would their ideology still be widespread?

When was it particularly widespread, outside of August 1942?

Geographically it went from Spain to China...and had siginicant movements for it in the Western Hemisphere...but, thats not what you meant was it?

[Yootopia]

So we all know the what the Nazi's are. My question is: If the Nazi's didn't... well go nuts... would their ideology still be widespread?

When was it particularly widespread, outside of August 1942?

Geographically it went from Spain to China...and had siginicant movements for it in the Western Hemisphere...but, thats not what you meant was it?

Errr the KMT were in power in China back when Hitler was kicking about in jail. As to Franco's Spain, it wasn't all that similar to Hitler's regime...

[Maurepas]

So we all know the what the Nazi's are. My question is: If the Nazi's didn't... well go nuts... would their ideology still be widespread?

When was it particularly widespread, outside of August 1942?

Geographically it went from Spain to China...and had siginicant movements for it in the Western Hemisphere...but, thats not what you meant was it?

Errr the KMT were in power in China back when Hitler was kicking about in jail. As to Franco's Spain, it wasn't all that similar to Hitler's regime...

True, but they were in power until Imperial Japan kicked them out, and then we began pushing them back in it, the KMT were one of the Allies...

and, take away the Racial overtones, and I dont see that much difference between Franco and Hitler...

[Yootopia]

True, but they were in power until Imperial Japan kicked them out, and then we began pushing them back in it, the KMT were one of the Allies...

Yeah but how is that very relevant?

And indeed how was the KMT all that similar to the Nazis in terms of the economy and the like?

and, take away the Racial overtones, and I dont see that much difference between Franco and Hitler...

The general bodycount was lower, the economy was run differently (less intervention as things progressed in Spain for one) and the ideology of fascism was twinned with that of an existing religion, instead of creating a new church, for just a few things.

[Aggicificicerous]

Of course, if they hadn't been led by a nutcase like Hitler in the first place, they probably would have been even more successful.

The NAZI party was a tiny, irrelevant fringe party until Hitler took over. If it hadn't been for him, it probably never would have progressed beyond that.

[Yootopia]

Considering that no fascist state has ever outlasted a single leader...

What about the USSR?

[Czardas]

Of course, if they hadn't been led by a nutcase like Hitler in the first place, they probably would have been even more successful.

The NAZI party was a tiny, irrelevant fringe party until Hitler took over. If it hadn't been for him, it probably never would have progressed beyond that.

Exactly. Historically speaking, however, they would have been more successful, since there wouldn't have been a paranoid but charismatic whackjob forever associated with their name and their policies in practice wouldn't have been revealed to be such a failure.

[Czardas]

Considering that no fascist state has ever outlasted a single leader...

What about the USSR?

Technically, it wasn't fascist. Moreover, the spirit of Lenin continued to hang over all of the following leaders, who were successively weaker and less successful in their execution of their duties until the state eventually fell apart under its own weight.

[Yootopia]

Of course, if they hadn't been led by a nutcase like Hitler in the first place, they probably would have been even more successful.

The NAZI party was a tiny, irrelevant fringe party until Hitler took over. If it hadn't been for him, it probably never would have progressed beyond that.

Exactly. Historically speaking, however, they would have been more successful, since there wouldn't have been a paranoid but charismatic whackjob forever associated with their name and their policies in practice wouldn't have been revealed to be such a failure.

Aye but if you're a political irrelevance you're likely to stay that way.

[Maurepas]

True, but they were in power until Imperial Japan kicked them out, and then we began pushing them back in it, the KMT were one of the Allies...

Yeah but how is that very relevant?

And indeed how was the KMT all that similar to the Nazis in terms of the economy and the like?

and, take away the Racial overtones, and I dont see that much difference between Franco and Hitler...

The general bodycount was lower, the economy was run differently (less intervention as things progressed in Spain for one) and the ideology of fascism was twinned with that of an existing religion, instead of creating a new church, for just a few things.

True, but, Im saying thats just cosmetic, and of course the whole premise of the OP was Nazism without the bodycount...

And, it was relevant because the KMT, despite being on the winning side, and despite not having a Holocaust, still met a violent end, like Nazism, so Im thinking Nazi Germany, as well as any theoretical copy-cats would meet a similar fate...

[Maurepas]

Considering that no fascist state has ever outlasted a single leader...

What about the USSR?

Technically, it wasn't fascist. Moreover, the spirit of Lenin continued to hang over all of the following leaders, who were successively weaker and less successful in their execution of their duties until the state eventually fell apart under its own weight.

Idk, I think a case could be made for Stalin being stronger and more successful, at least...

[Yootopia]

Considering that no fascist state has ever outlasted a single leader...

What about the USSR?

Technically, it wasn't fascist.

I would disagree. It was basically run with an interventionalist, pretty much war economy, using the power of the military to keep everyone else shut up, and it glorified the might of its own party to the full. That's basically a fascist state right there.

[Cybach]

I dont think so, Case in point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_Spain

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalist_China

Both of which met revolutionary ends regardless of neutrality(Spain) or being part of the Allies in WWII(China)...

National Socialism != Fascism.

So that fails. The political systems in Italy and Spain were vastly different to the National Socialist one in Germany. Only daft people can directly compare the two and call them the same, or state that they arose and fell out of the same circumstances. The argument can be made that National Socialism was fascist in nature, but it was not a true fascist party.

National Socialism incorporated quite a few fascist elements. And due to it's authoritarian nature it was dubbed a fascist party by political analyst who sought to shelve it. But it was much too socialist and liberal for the other fascist nations which were heavily rooted in conservatism. For which the acceptance of sexual promiscuity/extra-marital shenanigans, the acceptance of unwed mothers, it's strong green/nature/animal conservation policies and oppression of the Church. All of which was far from the case in Italy, Croatia or Spain. The party, NSDAP, heavily incorporated elements from both left and right-wing politics which was anathema for almost all other fascist parties which kept strictly to rightist policies.


But to answer the OP's question;


I think no. What many people fail to understand is that the NSDAP was a "reactionary" party to the consequences of 1918, and the following injustices suffered by the German people in the following decade (Illegal annexation of the Sudetenland by the Czech, illegal annexation of the Memelland by the Lithuanians, the Danzig question, the discrimination Germans suffered in the Polish corridor, the occupation of the Ruhr by the French/Belgians in the 20s, questionable removal of Silesian and Eastern Prussian territories from German proper, etc...). As well as the terrible economic situation in Germany, which made the great depression in the US look like a fairy tale. Which led to Hitler's famous statement "You can oppress us, you can kill us. But we will never surrender." As well as the general militant attitude that was starting to spread through Germany in the early 30s as a result of the mismanagement of the 20s. By the 30s various powers such as France and Britain became concerned, as well as there was a strong pro-German sentiment due to the hindsight perception that the Germans suffered unfair hardships during the 20s.

However these concessions and attempts to reconcile Germany with the rest of the World Community came too late, and the militancy that was spreading through Germany like a disease had too firm of a hold. The German people, and NSDAP, wanted blood to revenge the "injustices" of the past. In the end the Germans had their revenge in a way. It was a grand-war with over 50 million dead. The Empires of France and Britain, the main malefactors of their grievances were economically crushed and their Empires in shambles, even though they were technically militarily victorious. I personally view it as a partial Pyrrhic victory when one considers the powers the two nations held before WW2, and their status after the War. However Germany also paid a harsh price for the exaction of old grievances, a 40 year occupation and a temporary splitting into two nations. However if one considers how much land France and Britain lost with the dissolution of their Empires, and also the fact that Germany is the most powerful economy in Europe today and the most influential nation in the EU, as well as losing only roughly 20% of their territory as a result of the war. The question is who was really the loser of the war.


However today. As I mentioned above. There is no incentive. Why should the Germans or any other people, vote for a "reactionary party?" Germany today is the most influential nation in the EU. The strongest economy in Europe. The richest nation in Europe in terms of total assets. It is a member of the G8. It is a respected and recognized power by the rest of the world. There is simply no incentive like there was in the 20-30s to vote a radical and reactionary party like the NSDAP.

[Aggicificicerous]

Of course, if they hadn't been led by a nutcase like Hitler in the first place, they probably would have been even more successful.

The NAZI party was a tiny, irrelevant fringe party until Hitler took over. If it hadn't been for him, it probably never would have progressed beyond that.

Exactly. Historically speaking, however, they would have been more successful, since there wouldn't have been a paranoid but charismatic whackjob forever associated with their name and their policies in practice wouldn't have been revealed to be such a failure.

Aye but if you're a political irrelevance you're likely to stay that way.

Indeed. Without Hitler, the NAZI party would have been relegated to the ditch like all the other thousands of small parties that offer a "different" perspective and never get anywhere.

[Carbarosia]

Removed.

[Yootopia]

True, but, Im saying thats just cosmetic, and of course the whole premise of the OP was Nazism without the bodycount...

States that glorify violence but don't actually act on it are pretty rare, though.

And, it was relevant because the KMT, despite being on the winning side, and despite not having a Holocaust, still met a violent end, like Nazism, so Im thinking Nazi Germany, as well as any theoretical copy-cats would meet a similar fate...

The KMT still basically runs Taiwan, you know...

[Maurepas]

*snip*

Those are more societal concerns than political ideology, and speaks more of how the German people were more willing to accept those things than that of Catholic Spain...