Comments by "Person AA" (@personaa422) on "A Short History of Mussolini and Fascism | TIKhistory WW2 Q&A 18" video.
-
@DrCruel I never left. It likewise seems that you're still fighting the lost battle in trying to deny history, and say that National Socialist were and are socialists.
It is always interesting to see how you fascists tend to rewrite history, like calling a broad ideologically diverse reformist movement "neo-marxist" and "black supremacist," most likely because you too despise the ability of black people to exist within this country. But of course, to fascists like you, everything is an attack on your fragile white identity. Of course the right revels in the cases of violence and ignores the peace of the overall movement, because they want to do exactly what they did last time with the nazis, and sieze more and more state power by fearmongering about scary leftists and cultures that they don't want to deal with. Note, of course, that of the countries you mentioned few actually have the same material problems as the countries where the protests were taking place. Interesting, that. But of course you blame this on conspiracy, rather than reflect on why it happened. But please, keep lying to protect your fascist and nazi right wing counterparts. These protests more than anything have exposed that their nazi roots truly have not left the american Reich- sorry, Right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DrCruel The problem being, of course, thatfascists out of favor with other conservatives are frequently dismissed as "left wing."
The "left wing" in reality started as a name for pro-socialists, anarchists, and classical liberals in France, and by extension, to anyone who generally was not in favor of rule by an aristocracy or king, though it has changed much since then. I'm not right wing, but you are. I'm particularly annoyed by fascists attempting to overthrow democratic governments and replacing them with despotic fascist aristocracies, as for example has happened in Chile, Afghanistan and Cambodia and is presently being attempted in Venezuela. Of course, you seem to be more than fine with these exercises of tyranny.
The irony, again, is that the fascists are almost always right wing racists, and if not, right wing "Identitarians," (which is functionally the same thing) that exist in the world today, and quite flagrantly so at that. It's that traditional conservative hypocrisy thing I suppose.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DrCruel Funny you should mention exterminating any potential rivals. Are you talking Pinochet's actions towards alleged communists? Or perhaps the USA's actions itself?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_violations_in_Pinochet%27s_Chile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAT_Buford
No doubt, just keep deflecting again again. Except that this is exactly the sort of behavior you right wingers have engaged in, time and time and time again, from the Monarchists across europe to the National Socialists in Germany, Conservatives in the usa, and so on, right down to the modern day. There's a whole historical record of these atrocities, often against rival conservative factions, but more often the left generally - no doubt now attributable to "left wing deviations" if not direct action by the "left fascist" devils themselves.
"Now try to explain to me how the US wasn't responsible for funding the Khmer Rouge as they slaughtered two million people by bombing them."
And, as expected, we have more historical revisionism. So I suppose even counting that as true (it largley wasn't) we should just ignore the instrumental role in the USA allowing and funding the Rouge before that fact, helping them come to power, and then cracking down on political dissidents?
1
-
@DrCruel No, I know you're not talking about Pinochet destroying the innocent protesters and union leaders of his country. Your observation seems to be about sworn enemies going at it. The conservative tradition, instead, is to find some movement, ally with the factions involved in supporting that movement - then murdering their allies at some convenient point, claiming they are the only representatives of that movement (which they would be at that point; they'd killed off all the rivals to that claim), and that further fighting against them is a blow against what those that the conservatives have murdered had stood for.
As an example. Take the German National People's Party, the mainstream Conservative party of the Weimar Republic, before the nazis. Of course, them and the nazis fought far less than the nazis and the socialists fought, so they eventually found allies in eachother, through Papen who not only got hitler elected, but acted as his first Vice-Chancellor. Of course, many were purged at a later date because they wanted a different type of conservative government, a monarchy, rather than Hitler's traditionalist dictatorship. Just one example of many, all of which you seem to ignore.
Not an isolated incident, mind. Orwell spent a good portion of his words condemning the authoritarian imperialism between rival western nations, and how realistically, the conservatism of nazi germany as well as the conservatism of figures like Churchill were separated not in ideology, but in degrees of application of said ideology. But didn't we go over this earlier? You can also look at the history of other conservative nations like the USA during the Cold War. And so on.
This kind of treachery is quite common among conservatives. That the National Socialists would ally with their conservative citizens, that they learned so much from is, in this context, not unusual at all - and that one would eventually betray the other even less extraordinary. The same murderous betrayal came between the conservative Christians and conservative Muslims, the various Conservative factions of the USA, and the destruction of any sort of freedom in Chile with the help of their American allies.
But we've already gone over this ground before. No honour among thieves. Go figure.
1
-
@DrCruel Orwell spent a good portion of his words condemning the authoritarian imperialism between rival western nations, and how realistically, the conservatism of nazi germany (sic) as well as the conservatism of figures like Churchill were separated not in ideology, but in degrees of application of said ideology."
Interesting thesis, and best of all, it's true. Let's see what you have to oppose it.
"Among the intelligentsia, it hardly needs saying that the dominant form of nationalism is Communism – using this word in a very loose sense, to include not merely Communist Party members but ‘fellow-travellers’ and russophiles generally. A Communist, for my purpose here, is one who looks upon the U.S.S.R. as his Fatherland and feels it his duty to justify Russian policy and advance Russian interests at all costs. Obviously such people abound in England today, and their direct and indirect influence is very great."
-George Orwell, Notes on Nationalism
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/notes-on-nationalism/
And... predictably, this has nothing to do with what I said.
1
-
@DrCruel Simple. They weren't, you're a liar.
As usual, rather than actually telling the simple truth about history, you literally try to blame everything on the left, on "progressives." If one actually examines history, you find first and foremost that the average progressives of the era had little to no ideological or material connection to the Bolsheviks or socialism at all, unlike what you conspiratorially attempt to assert. Second, we find that support for the war fell strongly on ideological lines and did not shift with the changes to the war outside the country until the US was drawn in, which again, would contradict your ahistorical and conspiratorial notion that "the Left" shifted their ideology according to who the soviets were allied with. Rather, the whole US became "rabid war hawks" when we were attacked. Now, conflating progressivism with socialism is the least of your errors, but it's one worth pointing out, right alongside the simple fact that it was conservatives that held us back from the war so long along with their capitalist partners, because they were profiting from nazi germany's pro-private policy, and the conservatives they funded ideologically agreed with the far-right fascist beliefs that had begun to take over Europe. Now, the Soviets and Nazis were not what you'd call "comrades," nor did the soviets have "agents" in washington, though the nazis did attempt to assert so in order to push back against Americans supporting the war effort, just as you're doing.
Now, in reality, none of what you say is true, and is so easily contradicted that I've now become convinced that the only method of debate you're aware of is restating your premise over and over, and when faced with contradicting facts, run away or attempt to argue by citing opinion pieces or irrelevant snippets of dialogue. After all, despite continually restating these points, they have all been explicitly disproven by me and others, to which you have offered no response. To repeat myself though, the soviets had no socialist allies under Hitler, both because Hitler was a far-right anti-socialist and because a temporary agreement both planned on betraying counted to neither as an alliance. Funny you bring up Churchill though, given his explicit support of what you have claimed to be socialist and anarchist ideals, though you deflect away from that fact when confronted with it. Now of course, Stalin was well aware of the temporary nature of his dealings with Hitler, and unlike the Western powers that had so vocally endorsed his beliefs, he separated from the far right dictator. Now of course, I understand you hate all those you call "socialists," but that is no excuse to lie about history. After all, the west did not "save" Stalin's "vicious socialist empire," they were military allies, and the argument can easily be made that the countries who benefitted the most were the Western nations that had either been taken or were on the brink of collapse. Stalin was also not fighting a "rival socialist empire," nor did he ever have any "german socialist nationalist allies." If you're attempting to refer to the Nazis, I'll again remind you that they were far right anti-socialists, and that Stalin never had any intentions of loyalty or prolonged, even mid-term alliance with them, and that for all his hatred of the Western powers, he worked with them and praised them far more than he ever did the Nazis. Now of course, your suspicion rests on a faulty assumption, but we already knew this. For Stalin to have allied more closely with the Nazis than the Allies because of ideological similarity, he would a) have to have actually allied closer with the nazis than the allies and b) had any sort of ideological similarity. In actual history, we find neither. Of course, the far right anti-socialist nazis and the far left socialists did not actually have all that many ideological similarities, much less enough to qualify calling them both "so ideologically similar," but that's just one fact of many I suspect you have no interest in admitting to. Further, your post rests on the assumption that alliances or cooperation/ceasefires between countries or groups is always based on shared ideology, which the whole of WW2 should have taught you not to assume, had you actually researched it. So to reiterate, the nazis were far right anti-socialists, and you can condemn socialism and Stalin especially without lying about them, a fact you seem yet to have grasped. I am deeply sorry you feel this kinship with nazi policies that forces you to apologize for them continuously, perhaps it's due to the anti-socialist nazis and your anti-socialist self being so ideologically similar to eachother? Something worth considering.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DrCruel
The problem is that my supporting cites verify what you are pretending are "lies," whereas your opinion pieces prove you wrong. Thus the conundrum.
I have answered the question in full, though. Your question is based on false premises, a lie. That's why, when asked to support the question, you deflect ff into anecdotal evidence, or side-happenings, rather than actually supporting it. This tells me that you can't actually prove your point, so of course, you deflect. So please do stop dodging the question. Please do tell us why socialists were against Hitler, then fought against the right wingers allied to Hitler, then fought those right wingers begging for help when Hitler betrayed them, then betraying the people who allied with hitler before Hitler's corpse was cold. Or are you sticking with "you got nothing on me copper" variants?
1
-
@DrCruel Well I'd actually like you to provide proof of your assertions, buddy, I hate to break it to you, but at best your evidence covers the actions of one regime, and a few dictators. You're well aware that they were not universally loved among socialists, correct? Or is that another lie you're going to tell?
I do love this strategy you're trying, though. Pretend to somehow be in the right by citing information, but rather than actually relying on the content of the citation and quotes, you act as if their mere presence will excuse you narrow focus, and historical revisionism. I hate to break it to you, but that doesn't work. I can't wait to see the next response in which you do the same, deflect, move the goalposts, and then blame me for not following your one-off train of thought.
gain, to reiterate in more detail.
Socialists were always against Hitler:
" ... Hitler gave military assistance to the fascist rebels who ultimately crushed the young [Spanish] republic. The ASU, influenced by these events—especially by the deaths of several ASU members who joined the International Brigade in its fight to save the Spanish Republic—and by the Popular Front line of the Comintern, shifted its emphasis from anti-interventionism to collective security against fascism."
Then the capitalists were allied to Hitler:
‘That word “socialism” is the trouble,’ said Hitler. He shrugged his shoulders, appeared to reflect for a moment, and then went on: ‘I have never said that all enterprises should be socialized. ...Unless they were so guilty, I should consider it a crime to destroy essential elements in our economic life. Take Italian Fascism. Our National-Socialist State, like the Fascist State, will safeguard both employers’ and workers’ interests while reserving the right of arbitration in case of dispute.’
Then the capitalists begged the "socialist exploiters" to save their miserable hides:
"Stalin met with Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt at the Tehran Conference and began to discuss a two-front war against Germany and the future of Europe after the war. Berlin finally fell in April 1945. Fending off the German invasion and pressing to victory in the East required a tremendous sacrifice by the Soviet Union, which suffered the highest casualties in the war, losing more than 20 million citizens, about a third of all World War II casualties. The full demographic loss to the Soviet peoples was even greater."
Then the capitalists betrayed the people who saved them before Hitler's corpse was cold:
"Operation Paperclip was a secret United States intelligence program in which more than 1,600 German scientists, engineers, and technicians were taken from former Nazi Germany to the U.S. for government employment after the end of World War II in Europe, between 1945 and 1959"
https wwwhistory news/what-was-operation-paperclip
"As James Q. Whitman reminds us in Hitler’s American Model, Nazi Germany learned many of its practices by studying the Jim Crow laws in the United States. In fact, as Whitman points out, Charles Vibbert, a Frenchman, argued in 1930, “The Ku Klux Klan are the fascists of America. The moment has come where Trump supporters have been revealed as not being believers in democracy or freedom but white supremacy and dictatorship. They were never patriots, they were white nationalists. Their conspiracies and violence replaced truth and justice. ‘The American Way’ was paved by white supremacy and enslaved black people. While fascists today might not wear hoods or swastikas, opting instead for red hats and confederate flags, their attempt to overthrow the US government this past week could have ended very differently."
https://www.encyclopedia.com/economics/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/american-student-union
https://www.rferl.org/a/did-us-lend-lease-aid-tip-the-balance-in-soviet-fight-against-nazi-germany/30599486.html
Again. Will you answer the question, or are you sticking with another "you got nothing on me copper" variant?
1