Left-Wing Discussion Thread II: Behind 700,000 Bunkers

[Proctopeo]

The failures of past French republics weren't devastating on the scale of the failed Communist regimes.

Only one of the first four republics didn't end in mass murder tho

Different scale of devastation.

[War Gears]

Neither did a lot of the Nazis originally. I don't see how their genocidal policies in the Second World War somehow prevents socialists from becoming them, especially considering the ethnic cleansing and mass executions done by the USSR (as well as the fascistic characteristics of Stalinism). Utopian views of the revolution aside, most of us don't kid ourselves what would happen to "enemies" whether they be from the opposing class, class traitors, etc.

Mussolini, Hitler, Mosley, Kita, Marinetti, Plenge, Strasser brothers, Goebbels, these are just examples from the top of my head. I'm sure that I could name numerous other figures. Those are some of the most prominent though.

>Mussolini
>Nazi

BAHAHAHA

Also, I'm pretty sure their constant, continual escalations against Jews, Slavs, and basically everyone else, combined with Hitler's own Mein Kampf, AKA the quintessential holy book of Nazi ideology, meant they were going to strive for genocide regardless of if they originally even considered that as a means to an end.

Furthermore, unlike Nazism, literally nothing about Socialism or Communism advocates genocide.

If you read my original post, it was related to Fascism as a whole rather than just Nazism. Marinetti and Kita weren't Nazis as well, one was an Italian futurist who had to deal with Nazi labeling his movement "degenerate art," and Kita was a Japanese socialist who wanted a Buddhist world theocracy.

Yet.

Fascism is the last ploy of socialists who cannot obtain power.

Hmmm

They murdered their fellows who were frustrated with their compromise and wanted to see the revolution gone through with.

Are you an angel sent by God? Because it seems you're intent on proving my point for me.

[Kubra]

Only one of the first four republics didn't end in mass murder tho

Different scale of devastation.

I don't recall the end of the soviet union having involved being occupied by germans.

[Proctopeo]

Different scale of devastation.

I don't recall the end of the soviet union having involved being occupied by germans.

[Kubra]

I don't recall the end of the soviet union having involved being occupied by germans.

well you're thinking the middle of the soviet union, ain't ya?
horrible time, that. And not just because of germans, mind you.

[Sanctissima]

I don't buy into "The End of History" either, but it stands to reason that future Communist regimes will go down the same route as their predecessors, simply due to probability and practically every past historical precedent. The ideology has not resulted in successful states, and this is unlikely to change in the future.

"was we mucked it up three times already" any reason for the French not to have a go at a fourth republic

I mean, considering how the Fourth Republic went full Commie and imploded... yes.

[Tekeristan]

[

Hmmm

They murdered their fellows who were frustrated with their compromise and wanted to see the revolution gone through with.

Are you an angel sent by God? Because it seems you're intent on proving my point for me.

'Leading members of the left-wing Strasserist faction of the Nazi Party (NSDAP), along with its figurehead, Gregor Strasser, were also killed'
"During the 1920s and 1930s, the SA functioned as a private militia used by Hitler to intimidate rivals and disrupt the meetings of competing political parties, especially those of the Social Democrats and the Communists."
"Hitler declared the success of the National Socialist, or Nazi, brown revolution."
"Many stormtroopers believed in the socialist promise of National Socialism and expected the Nazi regime to take more radical economic action, such as breaking up the vast landed estates of the aristocracy. When the Nazi regime did not take such steps, those who had expected an economic as well as a political revolution were disillusioned."

I mean, Nazi Germany was known for its socialist policies and antics.

"But in origin the National Socialists had been a radical anti-capitalist party, and this part of the National Socialist programme was not only taken seriously by many loyal Party members but was of increasing importance in a period of economic depression. How seriously Hitler took the socialist character of National Socialism was to remain one of the main causes of disagreement and division within the Nazi party up to the summer of 1934." Bullock 1958,

Where there socialists within the party? Yes. Radical elements, perhaps. But there were other socialist parties, even communist parties at the time, often in conflict with the Nazi party. The rowdy socials were purged or silenced, and no great change followed. By no means a socialist coup. Reading down, turns out there was quite a bit of conflict inside the party regarding how far the 'social' elements would be taken. Can you guess who won?

Ever since, socialists and fascists have always just had the best of relationships..

[Kubra]

"was we mucked it up three times already" any reason for the French not to have a go at a fourth republic

I mean, considering how the Fourth Republic went full Commie and imploded... yes.

aw they replaced it with another republic that time, not an empire or semi-fascist rump state. Apparently they're thinking of sticking with the whole republic thing.

[Sanctissima]

I mean, considering how the Fourth Republic went full Commie and imploded... yes.

aw they replaced it with another republic that time, not an empire or semi-fascist rump state. Apparently they're thinking of sticking with the whole republic thing.

Napoleon was a good goy who dindu nothin'.

But in all seriousness, the Fifth Republic is much better and stable. The mistake of the Fourth Republic was kicking out De Gaulle in favour of a regime of economic illiterates whose only real lasting achievement was gutting France's colonial empire.

[MERIZoC]

aw they replaced it with another republic that time, not an empire or semi-fascist rump state. Apparently they're thinking of sticking with the whole republic thing.

Napoleon was a good goy who dindu nothin'.

But in all seriousness, the Fifth Republic is much better and stable. The mistake of the Fourth Republic was kicking out De Gaulle in favour of a regime of economic illiterates whose only real lasting achievement was gutting France's colonial empire.

Not sure if you can call the cause of the downfall of the 4th Republic it's "achievement"....

[Sanctissima]

Napoleon was a good goy who dindu nothin'.

But in all seriousness, the Fifth Republic is much better and stable. The mistake of the Fourth Republic was kicking out De Gaulle in favour of a regime of economic illiterates whose only real lasting achievement was gutting France's colonial empire.

Not sure if you can call the cause of the downfall of the 4th Republic it's "achievement"....

I was being sardonic.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It seems pretty likely to result in a welfare state. Or maybe a class dictatorship of engineers. One or the other.

I prefer the welfare state.

PLENTY of that stuff loaded up in the asteroids.
I believe there's enough gold in one type of asteroid to crash the gold market.

Indeed, you're correct.

I would be shot for disagreeing with that system so I wouldn't because I would be dead.

Contrary to popular belief, us socialists are not fascists.

>"I prefer the welfare state [to the centrally planned economy]"
>"us socialists..."
I'm amazed no one else saw the immense irony here.

[Torsiedelle]

I prefer the welfare state.



Indeed, you're correct.



Contrary to popular belief, us socialists are not fascists.

>"I prefer the welfare state [to the centrally planned economy]"
>"us socialists..."
I'm amazed no one else saw the immense irony here.

It wasn't just me?

[Kubra]

aw they replaced it with another republic that time, not an empire or semi-fascist rump state. Apparently they're thinking of sticking with the whole republic thing.

Napoleon was a good goy who dindu nothin'.

But in all seriousness, the Fifth Republic is much better and stable. The mistake of the Fourth Republic was kicking out De Gaulle in favour of a regime of economic illiterates whose only real lasting achievement was gutting France's colonial empire.

>gutting the empire
lol idk how you could expect france to keep it in the first place
Also, insofar as the time period in question covers 2 Napoleons, you gotta specify which.

[Sanctissima]

Napoleon was a good goy who dindu nothin'.

But in all seriousness, the Fifth Republic is much better and stable. The mistake of the Fourth Republic was kicking out De Gaulle in favour of a regime of economic illiterates whose only real lasting achievement was gutting France's colonial empire.

>gutting the empire
lol idk how you could expect france to keep it in the first place
Also, insofar as the time period in question covers 2 Napoleons, you gotta specify which.

Maybe, y'know, not consider surrendering to the other side when you're WINNING the war.

I mean fuck, at least De Gaulle was smart enough to go full neo-colonialism after the fact.

In terms of the Napoleons, I'll go with both. Each was a self-absorbed ass, and the former was infinitely more talented than the latter, but both provided a much better system of government to that of most of the French republics.

[Kubra]

>gutting the empire
lol idk how you could expect france to keep it in the first place
Also, insofar as the time period in question covers 2 Napoleons, you gotta specify which.

Maybe, y'know, not consider surrendering to the other side when you're WINNING the war.

I mean fuck, at least De Gaulle was smart enough to go full neo-colonialism after the fact.

In terms of the Napoleons, I'll go with both. Each was a self-absorbed ass, and the former was infinitely more talented than the latter, but both provided a much better system of government to that of most of the French republics.

Winning? Where, indochina? Algeria?
>Napoleon III's government was better
It's hard to describe any governing body as better when it's got its head of state in a position to be captured in battle in 1870.
That's a wee bit too much centralisation, innit?

[Sanctissima]

Maybe, y'know, not consider surrendering to the other side when you're WINNING the war.

I mean fuck, at least De Gaulle was smart enough to go full neo-colonialism after the fact.

In terms of the Napoleons, I'll go with both. Each was a self-absorbed ass, and the former was infinitely more talented than the latter, but both provided a much better system of government to that of most of the French republics.

Winning? Where, indochina? Algeria?
>Napoleon III's government was better
It's hard to describe any governing body as better when it's got its head of state in a position to be captured in battle in 1870.
That's a wee bit too much centralisation, innit?

Indochina was admittedly a lost cause, but the Algerian War was being won by Salan. Then the Fourth Republic decided to go full moralist and just hand victory over to the rebels. Admittedly, that's pretty much exactly what De Gaulle did too after the fact, but at least he did it on relatively favourable terms.

And yeah, centralizing your administration on one guy was... probably not the best idea. Still, when he was in power France prospered much moreso than under the prior republics, and you can't really blame a man for losing to Bismarck. Bismarck was top tier.

[Kubra]

Winning? Where, indochina? Algeria?
>Napoleon III's government was better
It's hard to describe any governing body as better when it's got its head of state in a position to be captured in battle in 1870.
That's a wee bit too much centralisation, innit?

Indochina was admittedly a lost cause, but the Algerian War was being won by Salan. Then the Fourth Republic decided to go full moralist and just hand victory over to the rebels. Admittedly, that's pretty much exactly what De Gaulle did too after the fact, but at least he did it on relatively favourable terms.

And yeah, centralizing your administration on one guy was... probably not the best idea. Still, when he was in power France prospered much moreso than under the prior republics, and you can't really blame a man for losing to Bismarck. Bismarck was top tier.

As Galula notes in his seminal work on Algeria, the french would probably have to deal with a lingering low intensity conflict for maybe half a decade after their initial victory, as the brits had in Malaya. Meanwhile, and this is my insertion, the french would be plagued by insurgency at home, with FLN cells within french cities proper continuing armed conflict for the entirety of the remainder of struggle in Algeria. Doubt even De Gaulle could have dealt with that. Given his disengagement with Algeria, he may have agreed.

Sure, but Bismark wasn't in command of the armies, Moltke the Elder was. And Moltke wasn't even up front until it came time to accept Napoleon III's surrender, his schtick was vague orders via telegraph and letting his field officers sort it out (which for anyone else is bad commanding, but uniquely good for the Prussians).
And that aside, the third republic colonised Africa, made Paris cool, and fucked up the germans. Idk what more you want.

[Sanctissima]

Indochina was admittedly a lost cause, but the Algerian War was being won by Salan. Then the Fourth Republic decided to go full moralist and just hand victory over to the rebels. Admittedly, that's pretty much exactly what De Gaulle did too after the fact, but at least he did it on relatively favourable terms.

And yeah, centralizing your administration on one guy was... probably not the best idea. Still, when he was in power France prospered much moreso than under the prior republics, and you can't really blame a man for losing to Bismarck. Bismarck was top tier.

As Galula notes in his seminal work on Algeria, the french would probably have to deal with a lingering low intensity conflict for maybe half a decade after their initial victory, as the brits had in Malaya. Meanwhile, and this is my insertion, the french would be plagued by insurgency at home, with FLN cells within french cities proper continuing armed conflict for the entirety of the remainder of struggle in Algeria. Doubt even De Gaulle could have dealt with that. Given his disengagement with Algeria, he may have agreed.

Sure, but Bismark wasn't in command of the armies, Moltke the Elder was. And Moltke wasn't even up front until it came time to accept Napoleon III's surrender, his schtick was vague orders via telegraph and letting his field officers sort it out (which for anyone else is bad commanding, but uniquely good for the Prussians).
And that aside, the third republic colonised Africa, made Paris cool, and fucked up the germans. Idk what more you want.

Should have fought it out anyway. You don't just give up territory because holding it is hard. That's how nations become weak and die. You fight it out tooth and nail until victory is yours.

And yes, I agree that credit for the military victory at Sedan goes to the Prussian officers and soldiers on the field of battle, but let's not forget who orchestrated the war in the first place, and made damn sure Germany was in a position to win. Napoleon III went up against the Iron Chancellor, and lost. There's no shame in that.

As for the Third Republic, it was fine, but let's not forget this is the same government that decided to surrender to Nazi Germany rather than fight out a guerrilla war. Even the Communists in France weren't willing to just give up, and promptly took up arms after Pétain cucked out.

[Kubra]

As Galula notes in his seminal work on Algeria, the french would probably have to deal with a lingering low intensity conflict for maybe half a decade after their initial victory, as the brits had in Malaya. Meanwhile, and this is my insertion, the french would be plagued by insurgency at home, with FLN cells within french cities proper continuing armed conflict for the entirety of the remainder of struggle in Algeria. Doubt even De Gaulle could have dealt with that. Given his disengagement with Algeria, he may have agreed.

Sure, but Bismark wasn't in command of the armies, Moltke the Elder was. And Moltke wasn't even up front until it came time to accept Napoleon III's surrender, his schtick was vague orders via telegraph and letting his field officers sort it out (which for anyone else is bad commanding, but uniquely good for the Prussians).
And that aside, the third republic colonised Africa, made Paris cool, and fucked up the germans. Idk what more you want.

Should have fought it out anyway. You don't just give up territory because holding it is hard. That's how nations become weak and die. You fight it out tooth and nail until victory is yours.

And yes, I agree that credit for the military victory at Sedan goes to the Prussian officers and soldiers on the field of battle, but let's not forget who orchestrated the war in the first place, and made damn sure Germany was in a position to win. Napoleon III went up against the Iron Chancellor, and lost. There's no shame in that.

As for the Third Republic, it was fine, but let's not forget this is the same government that decided to surrender to Nazi Germany rather than fight out a guerrilla war. Even the Communists in France weren't willing to just give up, and promptly took up arms after Pétain cucked out.

>throw money and bodies away at an increasingly unpopular war for an even greater period of time
That's how countries str8 up collapse instead tho. Like, suing for peace early is how countries avoid going bolshevik.

Bismark was great, no question, but his impact on the matter of the french is minimal. He did not make the conditions for victory, he merely recognized that they were present in the first place, it was enough to bait dumb ol' napoleon into fighting and then telling Moltke "go nuts!" Bismark's main strength (a big one, mind you) was mostly in german affairs proper.
I mean, Napoleon could have always not been baited, or set up a system of military organization that didn't involve him riding a horse up front, or at least one that would survive his capture.

Wanna know who was out fighting the guerrilla war in the french countryside
~the party of a thousand shot~

[Sanctissima]

Should have fought it out anyway. You don't just give up territory because holding it is hard. That's how nations become weak and die. You fight it out tooth and nail until victory is yours.

And yes, I agree that credit for the military victory at Sedan goes to the Prussian officers and soldiers on the field of battle, but let's not forget who orchestrated the war in the first place, and made damn sure Germany was in a position to win. Napoleon III went up against the Iron Chancellor, and lost. There's no shame in that.

As for the Third Republic, it was fine, but let's not forget this is the same government that decided to surrender to Nazi Germany rather than fight out a guerrilla war. Even the Communists in France weren't willing to just give up, and promptly took up arms after Pétain cucked out.

>throw money and bodies away at an increasingly unpopular war for an even greater period of time
That's how countries str8 up collapse instead tho. Like, suing for peace early is how countries avoid going bolshevik.

Bismark was great, no question, but his impact on the matter of the french is minimal. He did not make the conditions for victory, he merely recognized that they were present in the first place, it was enough to bait dumb ol' napoleon into fighting and then telling Moltke "go nuts!" Bismark's main strength (a big one, mind you) was mostly in german affairs proper.
I mean, Napoleon could have always not been baited, or set up a system of military organization that didn't involve him riding a horse up front, or at least one that would survive his capture.

Wanna know who was out fighting the guerrilla war in the french countryside
~the party of a thousand shot~

Now Kubra, you should know that my opinion on such matters is that Commies get the cross. Rebellions can be swiftly crushed, if the government is willing to do what's necessary. Silence dissenters and carry out the war until its conclusion.

And I suppose you're right about the Franco-Prussian War. Bismarck really did just leave out low-quality bait and Napoleon gobbled it up hook, line and sinker. I guess anyone with a remote understanding of geopolitics could have done it.

And as much as I disagree with the Maquis' political ideology, they were pretty much the only people in France proper who were willing to resist the people invading their country and carry out the much needed guerrilla war. They were based as fuck.

[Kubra]

>throw money and bodies away at an increasingly unpopular war for an even greater period of time
That's how countries str8 up collapse instead tho. Like, suing for peace early is how countries avoid going bolshevik.

Bismark was great, no question, but his impact on the matter of the french is minimal. He did not make the conditions for victory, he merely recognized that they were present in the first place, it was enough to bait dumb ol' napoleon into fighting and then telling Moltke "go nuts!" Bismark's main strength (a big one, mind you) was mostly in german affairs proper.
I mean, Napoleon could have always not been baited, or set up a system of military organization that didn't involve him riding a horse up front, or at least one that would survive his capture.

Wanna know who was out fighting the guerrilla war in the french countryside
~the party of a thousand shot~

Now Kubra, you should know that my opinion on such matters is that Commies get the cross. Rebellions can be swiftly crushed, if the government is willing to do what's necessary. Silence dissenters and carry out the war until its conclusion.

And I suppose you're right about the Franco-Prussian War. Bismarck really did just leave out low-quality bait and Napoleon gobbled it up hook, line and sinker. I guess anyone with a remote understanding of geopolitics could have done it.

And as much as I disagree with the Maquis' political ideology, they were pretty much the only people in France proper who were willing to resist the people invading their country and carry out the much needed guerrilla war. They were based as fuck.

Could the french administration stand another round of algerians drowning in the Seine? The only way to carry on the war as you'd like is for the French to simply become vichy again, and that ain't a guarantee of a non-red France.

Honestly? yes, anyone could have. But not anyone could have federated the squabbling german princes, and politically maneuvered the conditions necessary for the conquest of Schleswig and the follow-up austrio-prussian war. That was real mastery. I have not said that Bismark was not great, but that the franco-prussian war in general is the most overrated of his works.

Oh, so these commies don't get the cross?

[Sanctissima]

Now Kubra, you should know that my opinion on such matters is that Commies get the cross. Rebellions can be swiftly crushed, if the government is willing to do what's necessary. Silence dissenters and carry out the war until its conclusion.

And I suppose you're right about the Franco-Prussian War. Bismarck really did just leave out low-quality bait and Napoleon gobbled it up hook, line and sinker. I guess anyone with a remote understanding of geopolitics could have done it.

And as much as I disagree with the Maquis' political ideology, they were pretty much the only people in France proper who were willing to resist the people invading their country and carry out the much needed guerrilla war. They were based as fuck.

Could the french administration stand another round of algerians drowning in the Seine? The only way to carry on the war as you'd like is for the French to simply become vichy again, and that ain't a guarantee of a non-red France.

Honestly? yes, anyone could have. But not anyone could have federated the squabbling german princes, and politically maneuvered the conditions necessary for the conquest of Schleswig and the follow-up austrio-prussian war. That was real mastery. I have not said that Bismark was not great, but that the franco-prussian war in general is the most overrated of his works.

Oh, so these commies don't get the cross?

They simply needed to dig in their heels and fight it out. If Salazar managed it in Portugal under worse circumstances, I'm sure the French could have pulled it off as well.

I relent on the point of the Franco-Prussian War. You are correct.

And yes, Commies always get the cross. It's just... postponed, in some cases. Even De Gaulle was smart enough to gradually politically disenfranchise the Maquis when he got in power.

[United Muscovite Nations]

An ordinary man with a formula fights to change the society. Does he succeed?

[Kubra]

Could the french administration stand another round of algerians drowning in the Seine? The only way to carry on the war as you'd like is for the French to simply become vichy again, and that ain't a guarantee of a non-red France.

Honestly? yes, anyone could have. But not anyone could have federated the squabbling german princes, and politically maneuvered the conditions necessary for the conquest of Schleswig and the follow-up austrio-prussian war. That was real mastery. I have not said that Bismark was not great, but that the franco-prussian war in general is the most overrated of his works.

Oh, so these commies don't get the cross?

They simply needed to dig in their heels and fight it out. If Salazar managed it in Portugal under worse circumstances, I'm sure the French could have pulled it off as well.

I relent on the point of the Franco-Prussian War. You are correct.

And yes, Commies always get the cross. It's just... postponed, in some cases. Even De Gaulle was smart enough to gradually politically disenfranchise the Maquis when he got in power.

but the colonial empire of Portugal ended with coup after coup and 40% of the national budget going towards fighting in Africa. It seems that continuing to fight fucked them over more than it helped. Perhaps Salazar should have just gave em independence?
Well sure but the PCF still ended up getting an uncomfortably large share of the vote. 20% is a lot a country with like 20 different left parties.