National Socialism

Can someone explain national socialism to me? Why is it bad? Why didn't it work and could it work? Killing jews is bad but is the ideology bad as a whole? There isn't actually a lot information about it. And not even neonazis actually know much about it. To me it seems like neonazis wouldn't actually be accepted as NatSoc and that it might actually work.
inb4
>go back to /pol/
yeah i've been there but i want to hear the arguments from people who are interested in humanities
I don't accept arguments as
>hurr many people dieded that's why wrong

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrbauer
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Riese
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

it focuses on the collective and does not offer room for the individual on his/her own...I think
Collectivism

So you think that western capitalism is epitome of systems? Prussia apparently had a very good centralized economic system, which currently Japan "uses" - USA doesn't like it so it won't let them call it that. Some ecoanon wrote this. I myself am sure that European socialistic democracies are a lot better than US system everyone is moch healthier here and has better education - you have to pay a lot of taxes sure but we don't have as many problems.

>Muh individualism
I agree that fascism doesn't know how to balance the collective with the individual but flipping to individualism altogether is a fundamental betrayal of that ideology.

>Why is it bad?
It was a totalitarian regime focused on total genocidal war. Why should it not be bad?

If you want to base your political system on nationalism in the modern day, you have to constantly keep the people in a state of impassioned emotion. The people have to believe in things like national glory, existential crises that must be overcome, dangerous outside threats, and so on. Like communism (like all collectivism, really), NatSoc functions alright in wartime. War creates the necessary strong emotions and sense of unity in the people. But all this falls apart in peacetime. In peacetime, the people don't feel threatened or in crisis. Instead, they just want to make good money, have good quality of life, and have fun. The powerful emotions that allow a nationalism-based and/or collectivist political system to exist aren't there any more, and suddenly that collectivist state is a fish out of water. Suddenly it's getting badly outcompeted by liberal republics that have a strong competitive edge in peacetime because they are set up to be capitalist powers to begin with.

>man is entirely an economic creature, devoid of all sacrificial and heroic qualities unless war is going on
Embarrassing post.

>i think

You believe, I prefer the collective over the individual. The individualist will never get us to Mars.

I never used absolutes like "entirely". That's your misreading of what I'm saying. But when it comes to trends, I think that my paragraph is accurate.

it's shit

Couldn't the /pol/ kids pick something cooler? Being into Hitler is the meme right equivalent of those kids in middle school that were "punks" because they liked Sum41

Why is totalitarian regime bad? A right person can make much more progress in a nation in a week than democracy could in decades.

Why does Hitler have to be part of it? It's not Hitler i'm interested in but the application of the ideology.

I could perhaps make "progress" by killing you and using your money to fund scientific research. Doesn't mean it would be the right thing to do.

What is "cooler" according to you? Communism where noone has anything to eat?

OMG how dare u want 2 hear anythin but

>hitler did nothing wrong
>hitler did nothing wrong
>hitler did nothing wrong
>hitler did nothing wrong

all day errday on the Veeky Forumstory channel

regurgitated platonism "the right man" is always an elusive Idea in the grandest scheme of Ideas, blathered on by platonists and those that descent from platonism with all the passion and fury of their hearts but no sense

Most people on this website are from places like the US, Canada, and western Europe which hold Liberal ideals like individual rights in very high regard. For example, we accept that our criminal justice system will allow some number of guilty men to go free because it also lowers the chances of wrongful conviction which is even more abhorrent. Nobody can deny that a wise and benevolent dictator would be better than even the best democracy, but what about his successor? When you give powers to the government they don't go away. Your next dictator might well decide that your degenerate postings on Veeky Forums demonstrate that you are an enemy of the people, and there will be nothing to stop him.

But what if the dictator is elected by majority?

That doesn't mean anything if he has unlimited power. As they say, "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

He still shouldn't be able to violate the individual rights of the citizens. They have inalienable rights that they posses purely by virtue of being humans. Governments may end up not respecting those rights, but they exist regardless.

I mean, if the populace trusts a person enough to elect him as dictator would it be wrong?

Yes.

Why? I just don't get it. It just seems that you are prejudiced against anything else than democracy. Sometimes problems require harsh solutions which democracy couldn't do. Democracy seems really succeptible to social problems and degradation and especially foreign influence.

>A right person can make much more progress in a nation in a week than democracy could in decades.
Or he can run it right into a fucking wall, as happened with the OP's example.

>Why is totalitarian regime bad?
Destruction of traditional society, suppression of all kinds of free through,

What is a traditional society? Democratic society? Democracy is a novelty. If the person is nationalist than tradition and free thought can stay. I myself think that if populace elects dictator by majority and his ruling party then its okay and the person is propably the best in the country.

>muh degeneracy
>muh j00s

my word you people really do spam the same arguments over and over again just disguising the true intent

>inb4 le I didn't say j00s so I didn't mean j00s loool i'm not a stormfag proselytizing honest officer xDDDD

Let me take a wild guess... You're prejudiced against democracy because you're a kid who has no experience with political violence and how horrible it is.

What about country financing lobbyists to push their interests in other country? You're the one not willing to discuss and hoping that i just shut up or something.

>What is a traditional society
Well that's relative, but most often it is not a totalitarian one.

>If the person is nationalist than tradition and free thought can stay
>You are allowed to have opinion, as long as it is the allowed one
>All nationalists supported Hitler

>I myself think that if populace elects dictator by majority and his ruling party then its okay and the person is propably the best in the country
So you actually like democracy?

I'm not really prejudiced against anything. Just trying to understand some stuff. I don't have any experience with political violence. Do you have any?

>Well that's relative, but most often it is not a totalitarian one.
Actually we were Monarichies for most of our history(European countries) so that's not valid.
>So you actually like democracy?
Never said that i don't. It can certainly reach some desirable ends.

>Actually we were Monarichies for most of our history(European countries) so that's not valid.
Monarchies were not totalitarian. Only from the most ideological of leftists have I heard such opinion.

>Never said that i don't. It can certainly reach some desirable ends.
Why do you think fragile totalitarian regimes might be better?

>Monarchies were not totalitarian. Only from the most ideological of leftists have I heard such opinion.
what????? They definitely were. Depending on monarch you'd get more or less liberty but he could definitely execute you if he wanted.

>Why do you think fragile totalitarian regimes might be better?
I never said they were better just maybe immune to some of the biggest problems today if a right dictator was elected.
This thread is to discuss NatSoc. You think NatSoc is fragile? Why?

>what????? They definitely were.
Lad, do you know what is a totalitarian regime?

>You think NatSoc is fragile? Why?
I was not talking fascism in general. Most of the regimes rise and fall with their fuhrer, Nazism would hardly be an exception.

>It just seems that you are prejudiced against anything else than democracy
Democracy has made my country safe and prosperous, so I guess I'm kind of fond of it.

So you can't even discuss anything else? Pretty close-minded if you ask me.

Wait...weren't you just advertising close-minded form of goverment?

In itself its not that bad unless you are an individualist

I made some discussion points earlier in the thread. If you want to accuse me of being prejudiced against your government of choice then I guess I am guilty as charged. As far as I can tell national socialism leads to war and oppression which rubs me the wrong way.

You can have both nationalism and socialism in the same country if that's what you are asking, but nazis were more than the name implied, and it wasn't THAT socialist either, especially after Hitler turned on the SA who represented the more populist aspect of the party.

Don't know why anybody would want a Hitler-style autocratic leader-worship based dictatorship though.

I just want to discuss is i'm not implementing it or anything. I'm definitely ethno-nationalist but i'm thinking about way in which etho-nationalist country could work and just want to discuss it. So no, i weren't.
But it was tried just once. All other ideologies had more chances to be tried. Is the system based on oppression and war? what would happen after all jews got exterminated? would it work then?? I'm just trying to fuel discussion on taboo subject.

yeah i'm actually thinking about what the party was actually about and not only the name. So centrist economically and conservative socially. If it was nationalist and didn't kill jews just ship them somewhere else would you be okay with it?

You know what true individualism is? Anarchy

The superego defines man more than the ego.

Men did not evolve living as individuals but as groups. The human is evolved to think and function as part of a tribe. Man without tribe ceases to be a man, as our entire psychology is based around being part of a group of men. Game theory computer models have demonstrated that in-group altruism is the most adaptive (sucessful) social strategy from a evolutionary perspective.

>Implying hitler wanted war with england and france

A dictator should select his successor with a public veto

He wasn't implying that. And Hitler did want war with Poland and Russia. Well, of course he would have preferred to just take all the land without war, but that wasn't going to happen.

this is what i'm thinking.

>totalitarian regime
not inherent to national socialism
>total genocidal war
again, not inherent to national socialism

The Jews were not the only group Hitler tried to exterminate. It wasn't just a war to take Russia and Poland, it was a war to empty those lands of people and replace them with German settlers.

So you think NatSoc is just ethnic nationalism socially and centrist economically? You think it could work as democracy? Would it be even called natsoc then?

I don't believe this. There were SS divisions from slav and arab countries and there was even Russian division fighting for Germans. Sure they killed many slavs but that's war.

If you read hitler's second book he clearly lays out his motives and strategy.

>Russia will invade eastern Europe in less than a decade
>Russia + Eastern Europe would be stronger than us
>Therefore I must...
>1. reclaim German lands lost in ww1
>2. bring Finland and Austria into the Reich
>3. ally with England and Italy to ensure that the French won't help the Russians

As soon as Churchill declared war, Hitler knew that everything was fucked to hell.

>having wars

what are you trying to say?

Lets look at the major crises that have plagued the US the last two decades
>2008 banking crisis caused by private, predatory banks which would cause the housing crisis
>Iraq and Afghanistan wars fomented by Israeli and Saudi interests (which is easily proven)
>civil unrest sparked by racial tensions
>mass illegal immigration

National Socialism had the answers to all of these issues

...

You're retarded.

But under National Socialism there would be many other problems don't you think?

Like being attacked by jewish bankers?

Staybrainwashed

You can reed up on the plan.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrbauer

No but definition of race is very loose that's what i'm struggling with figuring out. Not even the bestest white nationalists know who to include and who don't. What if the state decided that you're not white enough?
btw. why aren't there ID's noone can see that i'm up for discussion(i'm OP) not to blindly just support anything

Are you blind
Goldman Sachs
Lehman Brother
Bear and Stearns

Its slapping you in th face with it's circumcised cock and all you can say is "its not happening!".

Okay whatever i don't want to discuss what hitler planned and what he didn't plan but the system and it's viabillity.

>never a single scrap of paper regarding Generalplan Ost was found

fascist ideologies that actually give a shit about race are dumb

the line is "citizen of the country" versus "non-citizen". the government acts in favor of the former and neither acts in favor nor aggresses against the latter. wherever possible, divisions between the former (such as race, religion, $$$) are removed because they make society less healthy.

Yeah, so we can never be sure. There is a lot of mysterious Nazi shit that we will never fully understand. Like this.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Riese

Why are they dumb? would you want to live with low IQ monkeys in your country and then lock all of them up because they are monkeys and sustain them in prison? that's dumb i think. And if one race are citizens but are tribalistic and help one another to fuck over the majority then it's still okay? Race is most significant factor in culture.

user no you are monkey now

shhhhhh..

It was just shitty social de,ocrat policies with nationalistic flair. It mostly survived off the fact it was a war time economy, stealing shit from countries it occupied to keep its own economy afloat. It also had to sell off major assets of its state to private corporations from America to ensure it didnt fuck up anymore.

Living in Nazi Germany was similiar to living in NK, a lot of the conditions didnt change from weimar Germany if you didn't live in an industrial city or had relatives in military positions, you never really got much better. Just a "feeling" of betterness from the shitty propaganda they fed you.
The state also shoved its dick wherever it went, spying on its citizens, killing dissenters, the usual tolitarian nonsense.

Hitler was a moron who expanded too much too fast. and subsequently got his ass kicked because of it. His entire country was burned because of this too

tl;sr shitty dictatorship thats only famous for killing jews and starting ww2

I think there's no point to fascism if it's not about race.

>Not even the bestest white nationalists know who to include and who don't.

>What are haplogroups

you can very easy check via mitochondrial and y-chromosome dna

I wonder what Mussolini would say about that...

probably depends on whether he was more scared of evola's magic or hitler's army at the moment

It brought a lot of technological improvement to the world. And a lot of great ideas. Never spied on its citizens as much as US is spying currently. And people generally had it a lot better then during crisis. If they won they would eventually be much bigger power than US.

>war time economy

You forgot 1933-1936, when most of the economic sucess occured. The war hurt the economy.

The Reich's economy was successful because it nationalized the central bank and prohibited usury.

So do you include Slavs(R1a)? Or Finns(N3) or only westerners like spaniards and Anglos(R1b)???What about Greeks(J)?

except not, Nazi Germany's economy was in so much debt that it had to go to war to ever hope in getting rid of it. (and the war just killed their country.)

Technological improvements or not, it still had a shitty debt based economy.

If nazi germany lasted more than it had, it would of collapsed in a decade or two in a similiar fashion to Yugoslavia. No clear successors, power struggle, and crippling debt.

The people chose my leaders in '98, he was shit then and was shit till he died, but he was for the "pueblo" and the poor, wrecked the economy and handed it to friends and political allies, then we were left with an even worst succesor who fucked everything up further.

user from Venezuela, also all of this happened after 10 years of the biggest oil bonanza, which they stole, so fuck no, dictatorial regimes can be controlled by no one, especially when they're "democratic"

As long as they have I and R then they have cromagnon and indo-european descent.

Wasn't most of the debt because of Versailles? Or did they just refuse to pay reparations?

But that just means that your people are dumb and subhuman so nothing suprising actually. Nothing about the system.

the nazisozi party cancelled all foreign debts form versailles

Debt from loans the nazi germany government took themselves.

pic related

No, there was a moratorium on debts from Versailles in 1932. Germany barely paid any reparations before then anyway

Maybe OP, what you may consider is having a leader who can be given emergency powers for set time periods in times of distress by an elected government?

Who did they take teh loans from? US has huge debt aswell but it's irrelevant basically - noone can force it out of them. Same as Japan - the loans are from corporations within Japan who are constatnly lending money to Japan to improve infrastructure and improve economy.

The parlament is a huge setback on everything. Person elected by intelligent nation will be intelligent himself and then can proceed to change policies instantly. A huge part of the parlament can be financed by different nations and corporations and not even care about the people as what is happening in US. Slowing down the needed reforms because it would hurt some corporations and stuff.

Have the decision to give emergency powers be given by popular vote by the citizens?

Either way I would suggest an elected government at least be the one to decide who the next leader would be, because otherwise you can end up like North Korea, Soviet Union post Stalin, or like Rome with its civil wars and power struggles.

>I really like coming up with fictional governments, I'm that kind of geeky.

The individual must be strong for the collective to be strong.

Not a selected government but another popular vote after leaders death.

If he didn't, he wouldn't have been an autistic fuck and went to war with Poland.

>There were SS divisions from slav and arab countries
There were no Arab SS divisions.

>Sure they killed many slavs but that's war
Sure the Nazis invaded Poland in a war of conquest and massacred Polish leaders in Operation Tannenberg, Intelligenzaktion, Palmiry massacre, and AB-Aktion which killed ~128,000 Poles. And sure the Nazis conducted the war in the most brutal way possible, bombing Warsaw into dust. And sure they forced all the remaining Poles into ghettos and forced labour camps. And sure the Nazis set up all their concentration camps and death camps in Poland. And sure Polish people were forced into ghettos and starved to death (90,000). And sure Polish people were brutally oppressed. And sure the Nazis began "Germanization" of Poland by suppressing and trying to erase any trace of their history and culture, which included plans to completely restructure Warsaw. And sure they eventually bombed Warsaw into dust once more during the Warsaw uprising. And Sure the Nazis brutally persecuted Poles for their catholic faith, most famously killing the now canonized Saint Maximilian Kolbe And sure Nazis started burning hospitals down, murdering thousands of sick polish people and raping Polish women on a mass scale. And sure they were even kidnapping thousands of Polish children to brainwash them to be subservient to their Nazi overlords. and sure at the end of it all over 2 Million non Jewish Poles were killed by the Nazis, But that's just war!

>Can someone explain national socialism to me? Why is it bad?

You can't pose this question in such innocent terms without being disingenuous. We all know where you're coming from.

No it didn't. They had many of their own problems as well, like being run on a fucking war economy that would've collapsed by the 50s at least

this