/pol/ showed me this

It's correct and wrong.

Yes, Fascism is not the same as Hitlerism/National Socialism. The latter grew out of the ideas of the former, but is not it.

While both are authoritarian, NS is far more bloodline, 'muh purity', Hitler cult and Germanic bullshit.

Fascism wasn't meant to be based on race, or on attacking jews. It was meant to be a way to strike against both the communists, and the capitalists. Industry, and worker, united together under the state.

Everything for the state. Nothing outside the state. And in exchange, the state protects the people, teaches them, raises them up and protects them from harmful influences.
Imo, Hitler gave Fascism a bad name.

He didn't give fascism a bad name, he's a perfect example of it. The real with all these good things the state gives the people that you mentioned is that there is something the people have to give back too.

They give complete authority to the leader. The volk put all their trust in Hitler and he ended up fucking them (regardless of whether or not he was trying to do what he thought was best for them, which I think he was)

Stalin was an internationalist.

This. Retards confuse Natsoc with Third Positionism for some reason.

I'm not a fascist, but Mussolini and especially Franco look really tame compared to Hitler.

>inb4 'that wasn't real fascism, real fascism has never been tried'

Nah, he ain't fascist.

Reactionary authoritarian mixed with personality cult. NS was less proper dogma, more Hitler making it a cult about his own ideas.

>tfw no steinerism

Pretty stupid.
Nazism was a form of fascism that replaced 'nation' with 'race'.
Mussolini himself said:
>Race? It is a feeling, not a reality. Ninety-five per cent, at least. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today.… National pride has no need of the delirium of race

Ehhhh, he was a fascist at the start.
He just replaced fascist ideas with more and more German autism till it just became a bog standard dictatorship.
Strasserism was closer to fascism.

>Hitler literally has all the actually leftist elements in his party killed on the Night of the Long Knives
>"Not fascism lmao"

Thats not what race means. Why are all racists unaware of the meaning of race?

The USSR wasn't a nation state, it was an empire.
You can't have "national" socialism if your socialist state isn't nationalist, and is instead multi-nationalist.

Wtf i love Mussolini now

Fascism was developed in Catholic Southern European (and Latin American) countries while National Socialism has a Germanic character.

Mussolini said a lot of stuff...
>greeks are proud and ancient people, they should be our friends and allies in glory
>surprise invades greece

>we shall restore the roman empire and her rightful territory
>invades land in ethiopia and somalia that rome never owned

>hitler is a problem, germany is a thread and we should restore the ww1 alliance to deal with him
>signs a pact of friendship with hitler and declares war on the ww1 alliance

>we aren't ready for war, we spend all our money on tractors and modernizing farming
>declares war on half the planet before the army renovates

>i am an atheist socialist, like all modern men
>wait, i am a catholic believer, like all italians
>wait, i am actually a nationalist
>wait, nation is actually a civil thing, everyone can be italian
>wait, i am actually an internationalist, all nations can join the italian empire (via getting conquered)

His early newspaper work even has him being a pacifist and opposing the war with Austria, saying the money should be spent modernizing Italy.
In another text, he talks against the monarchy, later praises the monarchy, then against it, then supportive of it... the guy had the opinion of whatever was popular and sold at the time.

ofcourse you can, invent an indentity like americans, who is an american? pedro and chang are both american, despite being mexican and south korean respectively

the USSRs invention was the soviet citizen, be it a kazakh yurt dweller, a ukrainian steel factory worker or a buryat in baikal area

>people actually believe this

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country

Marxism is by definition incompatible with nationalism. Stop with this terrible meme what's next? People calling themselves fascist anarchists?

You are implying there is USA/American nationalism. There isn't.
Americans are patriots, but they aren't nationalist, since they haven't a nation.
The Soviet citizens were also patriotic, but not nationalists. They were internationalist. It is a requirement for an empire.

>greeks are proud and ancient people, they should be our friends and allies in glory
I should clarify. Mussolini did start sucking up to Germany as they got more and more powerful. Eventually instituting their own race laws.
He praised Greece in the early years, but then after 1936, seeing Hitler's ambitions
>surprise invades greece
Which
>invades land in ethiopia and somalia that rome never owned
Was an integral part of the Roman Empire. Mussolini ultimately wanted to create pic related, a whirlwind of Italian autism.
>we aren't ready for war, we spend all our money on tractors and modernizing farming
To be fair, Hitler did the same thing, though not as ill prepared.

The Soviets wanted to replace it's 200 or so nations with one: the Soviet nation, basically Russian speaking atheists.
They hadn't reached this point yet, so they (not the Batics, ofc) call WWII the 'great patriotic war'.

>The Soviets wanted to replace it's 200 or so nations with one: the Soviet nation, basically Russian speaking atheists.

A strange claim to make, seeing how:
1. It wasn't required to be an atheist. The most atheist laws were that the church pays tax and that worship should be in temples, not public. This is the extent of state atheism.
2. Russian language wasn't forced. The cyrillic alphabet was, but only on people who didn't have their own alphabet, or used retarded chinese/arabic script to write down a language clearly unfit for it. Might as well use cyrillic, which is easy to print, unlike the first two.

So how did the Soviets try to create a Russian speaking atheist nation, when they didn't force Russian language or atheism?

>Russian language wasn't forced.
I can confirm this since my parents and I live in a Post-Soviet state. My parents said they all had mainly classes regards to their national language, but there was also a mandatory choice between German or Russian.
Regards to your atheism claim, while not entirely forced, there was a repression of catholics in the USSR, a good example would be the testimonies and claims of Catholic priests in the Chronicle of the Catholic Church in Lithuania, and this lovely quote from wikipedia (although I hate citing it):
>Roman Catholic Bishops in Lithuania were denied the right to visit the Vatican in 1986 and Pope John Paul II was not allowed to visit Lithuania in 1987 on the 600th anniversary of the signing of the treaty of union between Lithuania and Poland which led to Lithuania's conversion.

greatest country on earth yadda yadda democracy yadda yadda pretty much fills the quota

shooting up mosques thousands of kilometers away from bumfuck nowhere hometown because america fuck yea isnt patriotism

He was the ultimate edgy contrarian.

You're by definition incompatible with non-retardation

Are you one of those autistic stalinaboo teenagers? Lurk more

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
>The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality. The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got

He's not arguing about Marxism. He's saying Stalin wasn't an internationalist due to his focus on improving the Soviet Union internally, a theory that he himself declared and implemented, that's why he posted the Wiki article in the first place, to show that Stalin was more concerned with the defence of the Soviet State rather than spreading Communism globally, which already failed after the independence wars, Polish-Soviet war and various revolts stamped out.

Communists really are retarded.

There's a reason the working class aren't Communists. And that's because they are usually nationalistic and religiously conservative.

So yeah, "class consciousness" would in fact take away something the working class has, their national identity and their religious identity. And then Commies wonder why they don't support you.

He just adapted to the reality. Lenin genuinely believed that Europe would revolt and turn communist soon. Stalin was more pragmatic and realised marxism and materialism is unscientific trash meme ideology and that wasn't going to happen anytime soon.

Pretty much. Marxism is apparently according to Marx supposed to be the final end point of Human progression, including no political characters. And judging by the state of Europe, it was pretty idealistic (and dreamist) of Lenin to believe Europe would go full communist.

(Checked)

Probably not which is why Italian fascism has solid verifiable grounding and German fascism is mystical woo woo bullshit.

Juche Korea is the most extremely nationalistic and patriotic society in the world. They are also the most extremely Communist.

In reality, it's capitalism that's incompatible with nationalism. If harming the interests of your own nation is profitable, the capitalists will do it without hesitation. Just look at how the US destroyed its world image, wasted trillions of dollars, and sacrificed thousands of young men in Middle Eastern wars, all so a handful of capitalists could profit. The nation is incomparably worse off now than before the wars began, while people like Dick Cheney are incomparably better off.

Look at how capitalists in Europe are destroying their own nations by importing millions of low-wage third worlders, all so they could make a little extra profit. The future of their countries, the social stability of their countries, none of it means anything to the capitalist. Also go back to the_dipshit, your epic lulz memery is not welcome here

Europe could've become Communist in 1919.

Communism is a middle class movement.
The rich hate it for obvious reasons, and the poor are nationalists and religious.
Fucking Nazism was more in tune with the poor than communism, the Brownshirts were unemployed young men and the Friekorps were ex-military.

Catholics got special attention because they were heretics, not because they were religious.
If anything, this shows the orthodox church still had enough power, and is not an argument for state atheism being enforced.

While inside a temple, you could worship as you like, worship and religion were only "banned" from the public area, which made some rites harder or impossible to do, but this wasn't enforcing atheism, it was a realization that the USSR had many religions, and wanted to expand into islamic areas.

Not him, but I take issue with this idea that anyone actually made money from going to war in the Middle-East.

Sure someone produced and the U.S government bought a lot of weapons and ammunition, but that doesn't really hold a candle to the amount of inflation produced by a 3.5 trillion dollar war.

>Catholics got special attention because they were heretics, not because they were religious.
So why was Vasilii Shipilov arrested, despite the fact that he was Orthodox? Why was Alexander Argentov arrested, when he was Orthodox and only founded a seminar? What about Zdriliuk:
>Zdriliuk, a young Kiev engineer and convert to Orthodoxy, was privately ordained a priest after passing theological examinations. Three years after his ordination he was de-registered following a police search of his house that revealed a cache of religious literature as well as his distribution of such literature to believers.
There's also Vladimir Rusak, who worked in the Orthodox Patriarchate, who was arrested.
" History of Soviet Atheism in Theory and Practice, and the Believer" is a very good book, you should check it out.

>quoting from Mein Kampf incorrectly
National Socialism is ultra Fascism with some extra Antisemitism mixed in.
Also when trying to differentiate the two I would not look at the theory i.e. Mein Kampf but the practice.

There was also Father Pavel Adelheim who was a rector in an Orthodox Church, also arrested. As an orthodox he even criticized the the legal status of religion in the Soviet Union. Then he got falsely accused and was arrested.
But you get the point, I don't feel like spamming a trillion different events that happened.

You can always find individual examples, but overall state atheism wasn't enforced, communist party members went to church after dark, policemen looked the other way during some ceremonies, and as long as it was contained to the temple, nobody cared.
Trying to practice religion outside the temple was policed.

And I stand by my assertion that catholics got the worst of it, because orthodoxy and islam were spread in Russia and the USSR, while catholicism wasn't.
They were victims of the other faithful, attacked as heretics, not victims of state atheism attacked as religious idiots.
The difference in attitude and volume of arrests and persecution between orthodox and catholics support this.

Overall, it is my view that state atheism was limited to ensuring that religion is practiced in religious temples, and not in public, and that catholics were the target of their orthodox and muslim brothers (in the Abrahamic faith), rather than the (supposedly) atheist people in the party.
My arguments are that churches kept existing, faithful kept worshiping, and that there is a disparity between arrests of catholics and orthodox faithful.

I am mostly fighting against the "american", for the sake of internet culture, belief that the USSR executed people for saying God outloud or sent them to labor camps for celebrating Christmas or whatever.
I am not trying to claim it was tolerant of religious people and worship, only that it showed just a token effort to push state atheism, because it knew the people would rebel otherwise, and because many party members themselves were not atheists.

Legendary speech by Comrade Stalin on this very subject (9:33 in video)

youtube.com/watch?v=3nMDjKtTigQ

"Previously, the bourgeoisie considered the nation to be supreme, and they supported the rights and independence of nations 'above all'"

"Now, there is no trace left of this 'national principle'"

"Now, the bourgeoisie sells national rights and independence for dollars"

"The banners of national independence and national sovereignty have been thrown overboard"

"There is no doubt this banner must be raised by you, representatives of Communist and democratic parties, and carried forward if you want to be patriots of your countries, if you want to be the leading power of nations"

"There is no one else to raise it"

I bet even the Immortal Comrade would be shocked to see that the capitalists are selling not just other nations, but their own nations, all for a slightly increased profit margin.

>i dont understand soviet terminology

sure thing nations stopped existing, thats why we all had to learn russian

>stalin was a nazi

Wow, who knew, such shock, many surprise.
If I hadn't seen the french version that aired on TV earlier, with their nationalist manlet hijacking the revolution and becoming a nationalist despot warmonger, I might've blinked here.

>I am mostly fighting against the "american", for the sake of internet culture, belief that the USSR executed people for saying God outloud
Oh well I'm not arguing for that either.
You could say this whole devolved into a misunderstanding of each other. However, I wouldn't really consider the various Anti-religious campaigns declared by Krushchev, Stalin and Andropov to be a "token effort".

A good example of it not being "token effort" would be how many churches operated between 1959 and 1965.
In 1959 there were about 22,000 open churches, then in 1965 there were only about 7,873.
>The campaign also included a restriction of parental rights for teaching religion to their children, a ban on the presence of children at church services
>The state carried out forced retirement, arrests and prison senteces to clergymen who criticized atheism or the anti-religious campaign, who conducted Christian charity or who made religion popular by personal example.
Dimitry V. Pospielovsky. A History of Soviet Atheism in Theory, and Practice, and the Believer, vol 1: A History of Marxist-Leninist Atheism and Soviet Anti-Religious Policies, St Martin's Press, New York (1987) pg 84

You'd have to be either insane or comically naive to think nobody made money from wars in the Middle East. If nobody could make money from them, they wouldn't be initiated in the first place.

Even Trump said, "we've wasted 5 trillion dollars in the Middle East." Those $5 trillion weren't flushed down the drain. Those 5 trillion dollars were "transferred" from the pockets of regular US taxpayers to the pockets of Military-Industrial Complex capitalists, massively enriching a small handful of people, all while American soldiers were being maimed, wounded, and killed based on lies.

>However, I wouldn't really consider the various Anti-religious campaigns declared by Krushchev, Stalin and Andropov to be a "token effort".

I consider them a token effort in the context of their other campaigns.
Don't want tatars near the border where they might join the invading enemy as they historically have? Force them to move half the planet away, in ore trains, without their property, and with minimal supplies, and they can build new houses when they get there. Now THAT is a dramatic policy, an all out assault on a perceived problem. They didn't do that against religious worship.
Comparing the problems they did seriously attack to their attack of religion, I rate it a token effort, by their own standards, as set by themselves.

>A good example of it not being "token effort" would be how many churches operated between 1959 and 1965.
This is the result of church property being confiscated, like monastery forests, farms and so on, and the churches having to pay taxes. They simply couldn't afford to continue working, not that they were forced to close.
Also number of churches declined worldwide from the times changing and people embracing a more secular life, though of course not by such a fast rate as your numbers show.
Additionally, on the money angle, in the socialist state people didn't have much money, since a lot of stuff was taken care of by the state, and there wasn't need for commerce. Also there were less publicly wealthy people - merchants, lords, factory owners, etc. This reduced donations to churches, which they in the past counted on to secure their existence.

About the public preaching, as I have stated they did in fact ban public worship. The children thing I wasn't aware of, and criticizing the government was not restricted to religion, it was idiotically considered treason in all walks of life.

Also, if you want more arguments against me, go for Romania.
I was there a few years ago, and the guide told us of all the churches that were destroyed or forced to move to build the square, highway, and so on in the capital.
Of course these can be excused to be non-atheist reasons, since the place was needed regardless of whats on it, but unlike other properties, the church wasn't compensated for the destruction and land claims.

>They simply couldn't afford to continue working, not that they were forced to close.
Can you cite any kind of sources? Would be good to actually read up more.
>1959 Nikita Khrushchev initiated his own campaign against the Russian Orthodox Church and forced the closure of about 12,000 churches. By 1985 fewer than 7,000 churches remained active. Members of the church hierarchy were jailed or forced out, their places taken by docile clergy, many of whom had ties with the KGB.
>Attacks on Judaism were endemic throughout the Soviet period, and the organized practice of Judaism became almost impossible. Protestant denominations and other sects were also persecuted. The All-Union Council of Evangelical Christian Baptists, established by the government in 1944, typically was forced to confine its activities to the narrow act of worship and denied most opportunities for religious teaching and publication.
loc.gov/exhibits/archives/anti.html

Regards to Romania:
>That the regime was aware of the impact of religion and wanted to maintain control is evident from the fact that at the time of allowing religious manifestations it was careful to eliminate any possible religious opposition. In 1955, Father Vasile Leu, who had escaped from Romania together with Father Florian Gâlda˘u in 1948, was kidnapped in Austria by Soviet Intelligence and, after being imprisoned in Moscow, was transferred to Romania
Romînia Libera˘, 21 June 1963; 6 July 1963.

Can you explain to me, why would Soviet Intelligence be this dedicated to chasing a pastor all the way from Austria?

Why is it bad to prevent a gang of degenerate boylovers from swindling impressionable people?

>While closing a number of monasteries down, the regime wanted to assure the West that its policy did not represent a general persecution of the church but more the implementation of socialisation in the country.
Orthodoxy and the Cold War, Religion and Political Power in Romania, 1947-65, Lucian N. Leustean p.157

Your own source contradicts your claim. If they were confined "to the narrow act of worship", that still means they were allowed to exist, and believers were allowed to pray.

Religious groups weren't allowed to propagandize or indoctrinate their backwards, medieval beliefs into the minds of citizens, which is completely warranted and justified. No society should allow their citizens to be victimized by obscurantist zealots

Don't bother with this tankie retard, he's citing no documents and your post about monasteries contradicts his donations statement.

I'm more of debating that Atheism wasn't a "token effort", whether it was "bad or not" is up to you.

Again, not what I'm arguing for. My argument is that State-atheism wasn't "token effort", not that it was the end goal of the Soviet Union atheism policy.

by end goal I mean everyone to be atheist.

>Can you cite any kind of sources? Would be good to actually read up more.

No, I don't remember where it comes from.

Backstory: I'm from Bulgaria, and love sci-fi, and during the Commie days we couldn't walk into a store and buy foreign literature, since we'd be on a black list.
So what you do is you buy 5 imported sci-fi novels, and 5 commie politics/culture books to cover them. That way you are a well rounded reader, and not a rebel in waiting.
So I ended up with a lot of commie printed books, which I might as well read, and many of them were apologetic or revisionists or that period, and of religion, and of the USSR and Stalin and so on. Careful critique, too.

My views are shaped by those books, all of them, that I can't pinpoint to. If I remember something, it must've been repeated by a few authors in a few books, but of course this is of zero value to you. Do your independent research, make a thread on Veeky Forums bashing me if you come to different conclusions.

Sorry I have to cop out that way, its the circumstances of my "education" and the reality of low-investment non academic Veeky Forums discourse.
If its any consulation, you are doing a better job convincing me than I am convincing you.

As for Nikita Khrushchev, he personally was much more anti-religion than the rest of the party, as stated by the party itself.
As a mayor of Moscow he started unpopular destruction of temples for public projects, as a committee member he tried to push for state-wide destruction, and the rest of the party voted him down, and then as dictator he finally did it.
This was a result of him disliking that Stalin reintroduced the Orthodox Church as a way to get more recruits to fight Germany during the war.

Rude. You praise his posts for their sources, yet yours just insults me. Emulate him.

I haven't read that book, but this is a review of it on a website I use.

>No, I don't remember where it comes from.
I am inclined not to believe most of your statements, then, sorry.
+ The communist books you mentioned also make it rather suspicious of revisionism.
This was a good discussion, though, learned some more stuff whilst reading up on my own.

He's taking things out of context in his 1st paragraph, the 1215 priests killed is taken from this entire statement:
>From 1917 to 1922, 28 Russian bishops and 1215 Orthodox priests were executed, while the clergy were deprived of civil rights.

Secondly, the election of Munteanu had more than two opponents, which is why two "main opponents was mentioned. Here's the citation from the book:
>Munteanu received 458 votes while his opponents, despite their previous pleas, received 12 votes each; in addition, Bishop Tit of Hotin collected 8 votes, Bishop Nifon of Hus¸i 1 vote and 19 votes were declared null.

>I am inclined not to believe most of your statements, then, sorry.

I am sorry you feel that way. I believe all of your statements, unless where I specifically addressed them.
The way Veeky Forums is and the way I am won't let me muster a proper defense, it is why I don't post on more "official" history forums. I am a hobbyist only.

On the book and its review, I don't know, I haven't read it. I've marked it for future reading, and I saw there review there, so I posted it.

>The way Veeky Forums is and the way I am won't let me muster a proper defense, it is why I don't post on more "official" history forums. I am a hobbyist only.
Makes sense, then.

>On the book and its review, I don't know, I haven't read it. I've marked it for future reading, and I saw there review there, so I posted it.
It's alright, just wanted to state that he tooks those statements out of context to make it seem like they didn't make sense, when they clearly do the further you read up on them.

>National Socialism is not totalitarianism

>Asserist
What does that mean?

>fascism is totalitarian
>nazism is totalitarian
>thus nazism is fascism

I think he meant Strasserists

Correct in terms of ideology, but not practice. Hitler created a fascistic state, and actively cooperated with fascists. The big difference was that fascism was an end state for Mussolini, whereas Hitler considered the fascist state a temporary state enabling him to ethnically cleanse Europe of Slavs, Gypsies, and Jews before ultimately the state became irrelevant in a world of intense racial warfare.

if not for the miracle on the vistula, it very well coudl've been a possibility

>Ass-erist

Most likely Rohm

No such thing as National Socialist ideology, it's actually called Hitlerism and it's not bound by race/folk but by a strong charismatic leader(Hitler).

By that logic war-torn WW2 America was totalitarian.
>Mobilize every facet of society
Check
>Utopian goal
Check (spreading democracy)

Your criteria for totalitarianism sucks.

Well NatSoc considered itself a third position compared to communism and unregulated capitalism. However like you said it is far different from actual third positionism.

That's a very cute grill but I don't think she's germanic