Were left wing militant actions justified in post-war Germany...

>Fascists have destroyed every country they've taken ahold of

>so lets install another shitty regime that also ruins every country it takes over!

this is a leftypol shill thread

not the first time the RAF murdered innocent aryans

Hans Martin Schleier was a leading SS official before becoming the president of the German employment association after the war.

Oh no the Horror.

The quality of Veeky Forums rapidly declined when you faggots started chasing the /pol/ bogeyman everywhere. You actually managed to become even more autistic in the process "hehe the German subhuman has to be killed" and the general nationalistic /int/ tier shitposting.

Now leftypol commies in to capitalize on that. I miss old Veeky Forums were /rel/ shitposting was the problem.

It's a subjective question.
In general I would say that's the job of the legal system, but if it doesn't do it...

Additional question:
Who believes in the suicide (official story: lawyers smuggled guns into the high security prison where the first generation of RAF terrorists were hold and they killed themselves) and who believes in an execution?

What exactly makes a corporate executive fash? Unless they are actually implicated with bribing the government to shoot striking workers or somesuch (basically didn't happen in postwar Germany) they did nothing wrong.

It seems to be something leftists fail to understand. Most capitalists make their profit by sitting at a desk making offers, an offer for someone to work for a wage, an offer to sell something, even in an environment where workers are all unionized and businesses are heavily taxed there will still be niches where a business can make a profit. They do all this without harming anyone.

They are bad people. Why?

>Fascists have destroyed every country they've taken ahold of
Blatantly untrue.
Fascist or at least fascist-like governments in Republic of Korea, Singapore, Francoist Spain, Chile, and more were very successful.
The problem is fascism is now a meme term that could be anything from "authoritarian right wingers I don't like and what to conflate with Nazis" to a highly specific brand of radical centrism.
But regardless, the authoritarian right has a MUCH better track record that the Marxist left.

>Were left wing militant actions justified in post-war Germany?
They weren't, as is usually the case with militants in democratic nations.
>Did de-nazification require assassinating fascist executives?
The important ones were already handled at Nurnberg. And while their penalties were not always satisfactory due to the western Allies not wanting to gut the German military and administrative capabilities, those people weren't the ones who were targeted. It was the small fry who got hit.

What reddit is that

>YOU NEED TO CHOOSE ONE TYPE OF SHITPOSTING!

hows about neither?

They were former NSDAP members retard

Francoist spain wasnt succesfull at all. Spain was economically far behind the rest of europe after franco died.

>was x justified in history

>fascist-like
Military dictatorships aren't inherently fascist, numb-nuts.

Regardless those countries all did far better after the restoration of democracy than they did during dictatorship.

>The problem is fascism is now a meme term that could be anything from "authoritarian right wingers I don't like and what to conflate with Nazis" to a highly specific brand of radical centrism.
You're actively contributing to this meme you know

>But regardless, the authoritarian right has a MUCH better track record that the Marxist left.
Not really

When you drag your country out of a civil war, especially with the Communist alternative, these things are to be expected.
Seeing as how they didn't collapse, I'd call that a success.

Also didn't they hold a very good HDI for a good portion of the postwar period?

>Regardless those countries all did far better after the restoration of democracy than they did during dictatorship.
>Singapore
>Democracy

>Democracy
>Viable in the turbulent times in which those states found themselves in

Also, my lamentations on the definition of fascism are the problems I speak to.
If anything, I mean to take the policies that the left itself considers "fascist", regardless of it's actuality, and show their demonstrable success.
All those states were authoritarian right, and all much more livable than their Communist rivals.

wow, like almost everyone of their generation

>What exactly makes a corporate executive fash?

Because it helps Leftists justify their acts of violence
>"We had to beat up people wearing MAGA hats to stop them from potentially committing violence at some undetermined point in the future"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_miracle

desu I'm not sure why you lumped Singapore in with those other countries, I wasn't really talking about Singapore. Despite displaying authoritarian tendencies and running a somewhat conservative society the PAP has held the popular mandate with each election, and other aspects of fascism like suppression of dissident parties and ultra-nationalism are largely absent.

>Viable in the turbulent times in which those states found themselves in
In all those countries the times were turbulent exactly because an authoritarian regime was fighting its own people to either create or maintain a dictatorship. They would have been viable as democracies because they existed in the Cold War era and had US support.

>all much more livable than their Communist rivals.
Again, not really. Why is it that people like you see through communist propaganda easily but then utterly guzzle CIA propaganda? Not every socialist state was Stalinist Russia or Maoist China.

Anything that kills as many Krauts as possible.

"De-nazification"? You mean the genocide of the German people and replacing them with whites?

>The "economic miracle" was initiated by the reforms promoted by the so-called technocrats who, with Franco's approval, put in place policies developed in Spain. The technocrats, many of whom were members of Opus Dei, were a new breed of politicians who replaced the old falangist guard.[1]
That's the important part. Franco and his dumb policy ruined Spain even more than the war. Even Germany recovered faster than Spain.

>moving the goalpost

Singapore is basically built as a one-party dictatorship. They're a fun little anomaly, because their multiethnic nature has led to a specific brand of right wing authoritarianism that also includes Multiracialism and Civic Nationalism, yet also in effect a dictatorship.

The majority of those conflicts, such as Spain, Chile, Korea, etc. were authoritarian nationalists acting as reactionist elements to Marxists uprisings. You can't call them Reactionaries and then claim they aren't reacting.

You can't give me a "not really" while the successful states I listed are objectively authoritarian right, or at least arrived were that through such means. I can't see a Marxist country that has prospered unless you claim the most disingenuous """"Socialist"""" countries like Nordic model ones, but maybe you can prove me wrong.

>is it OK for vigilantes to do vigilante shit without a trial
no

Allende was much more of a nationalist than Pinochet (who was basically a laissez-faire Chicago School lapdog). Chile is a poor example compared to South Korea or Singapore.

Chile is indeed easily the easiest one to qualify as non-fascist for his blatant capitalist-friendly policies, but the underlying point here is that he was a right-wing dictator who ascended thanks to the socialist takeover by the likes of Allende (IIRC he suspended the constitution).

>he suspended the constitution
Who, Allende?

>Even Germany recovered faster than Spain.
It's not "even Germany". There's probably no country that recovered faster than West-Germany. Hell, the Wirtschaftswunder was already in full swing in the 50s.

totally my mistake, the military junta suspended the constitution, i was thinking of Allende's dubious election

>i was thinking of Allende's dubious election
i meant to say his Supreme Court's denouncing of his government for failing to uphold the constitution

why can't i get my shit together

DO IT AGAIN

>Were left wing militant actions justified
No

/rel/?

I can't wait for the day where we are allowed to execute former and current Communist Party members!

Chile wasn't fascist lol
It was just a dictatorship that implemented free market reforms
You are right it was very successful though.

No, but his government was deemed unconstitutional by the congress a few days before the coup.

>Singapore
>fascist-like
Social democracy from a barrel of a gun is not fascism

>Singapore is basically built as a one-party dictatorship. They're a fun little anomaly, because their multiethnic nature has led to a specific brand of right wing authoritarianism that also includes Multiracialism and Civic Nationalism, yet also in effect a dictatorship.

Confirmed for not knowing shit about Singapore. Most of PAP's policies come from either left wing parties that were in charge before or socdem policies that it had before the split with the socialists. People always forget that PAP was (and really is) a socdem party and that Singapore is a stealth welfare state. Read Liberalism Disavowed before opening your fucking mouth.

>justified
You want another board, called

i'm sorry I should have phrased like this

>*blocks your path*
am I approved now?

The humanities, as in this board, don't deal with oughts. There is a board specifically for ought questions. Go there cunt face.

De-nazification was a bit of a shitshow by the allies, so yeah

sure senpai

Killing g*rmans is always morally justifiable

>nazis
>christian
weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeew

Stop spreading this fucking stupid fake news, every single thing on there are lies

>45% of population below poverty line
8% below poverty line, second lowest in Latin America after Argentina

>two resounding deep recessions
first recession was caused by the previous government, second recession happened all over Latin America and not just Chile (Chile recovered the fastest even)

>steep decline in average earning
average earnings increased
in fact, average earnings doubled in less than 2 years

>long lasting socio-economic damage
It's the latin american country with the highest social mobility and lowest poverty

>hated by most the population
Yet 45% voted for him to stay in power for 6 more years

>killed around 10'000 political dissidents
If by 10'000 you mean 3'000, and if by political dissidents you mean left wing terrorists (literally), then you are right

>tortured thousands
again, mostly members from left wing terrorist organizations, such as MIR and FPMR, who had more than ten thousand members at their peak the MIR alone.

>sent 200'000 to exile
[citation needed]

>made rape a method of torture against women
true, that's pretty sad

>embezzled over 27 million dollars
true, but he still improved the country

>and now has a cult of politically illiterate keyboard warriors who worship
the only politically illiterate person here is the one who made that image

>he was not a hero, he did not save Chile, he was and forever will be a criminal
Yes, he was a criminal, but he was also the savior of Chile and I'm grateful for that

t. Chilean

Again, fascism is a meme term and so I'm mostly just aiming for what the left would call fascist, which is basically the authoritarian right, and that's Singapore. It's effectively a single-party dictatorship with right-wing policies.

Could you elaborate more without bring a massive cunt about it?
Working alongside some socialists when you happen to have similar aims early on in your post-colonial formation does not make the PAP leftist, and the PAP very much displays right-wing policies.

Bring a capitalism-supporting dictatorship would get you labeled fascist by many.

To be fair, fascist scholars do agree that fascists can be democratic, such as Argentina's Peron who is widely considered to be a fascist.

by retards

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Schneider
leftwingterrorist.jpg

Yeah, less than 1% of the executed persons were not left wing terrorists, good for you.

>by retards
And I wouldn't even say you're wrong, but again, fascism is such a meme label nowadays that it's near impossible to say what.
So when I'm arguing with a leftist (the beginning of this chain of comments) I'm going to use examples of those that a leftist would call fascist, right or wrong.

>1%
Source?

Also, he supported Allende's socialist regime and rumor says he was a marxist himself. He was also the main drawback when it came to actually implementing the coup (which was absolutely necessary).

Actually don't. That's being utterly retarded. Use your definitions right or don't bother. If they think someone such as Pinochet was a fascist then tell them they are retards.

The fact that you only posted a single person (who was a key element of the coup) out of the 3'000 proves me right. You wouldn't be able to find more than 30 cases, so that's where the 1% comes from.

I'm not that guy. I don't know that much about Chile and Chilean history that's why I'm curious where your 1% came from.

It's not a literal 1%, it's basically meant to be that a negligible amount were not left wing terrorists. Now, having said that, the general killed did have important left wing connections due to his support for Allende who allowed left wing terrorist organizations such as MIR and VOP to act without being imprisoned.

>Fascism has been worked!
>What is Fascism?
>X is Fascism!
>Well X/"Fascism" has a great track record, look at these examples
It's just all too easy a way to prove them wrong, and she someone more knowledgeable comes along and says that fascism is a lot more complex and specific, I'll concede.

*has never worked!

Yeah, but that's when THEY (wrongly) name those as examples as fascism, not the other way around. Also, it would still be better if you said, in the case of Pinochet, for example, that it was successful because of it's free market reforms, and not because it was fascist because there is nothing fascist about it.

Fair enough, but you know they'll call the free market fascist because it's "dictator securing the property rights of the Capitalists" or something.

wait im always on /lit and sometimes on /his does that makes me a fucking lefty? DISGUSTING!

And they would still be wrong. It's your responsibility to point it out for them. Calling him a fascist is like calling Obama a socialist.

It doesn't. Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums are right-wing leaning.

Honestly /mu/ is the most leftist board in my opinion. Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums simply challenge ideas and don't shelter brainlets. /int/ is the most genuine AuthRight amidst their shitposting, /k/ LibRight, and /pol/ is the new /b/ but this time with more Reddit.

>all these tankies and /pol/shits on my board
Raus.

>Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums are right-leaning
I'll give you Veeky Forums but Veeky Forums is radical centrist

Veeky Forums just has open discussion, with a LOT of competing ideas. I think it's generally to the right, but because it's so far from an echo chamber it seems like it's not compared to all the other boards.
We're not any particular ideology, we're the public forum where folks go to get in the ideological gladiator pit.

He's right, actual Veeky Forums is mostly centrist, with a leftist minority. /pol/tards that come here are so obvious and don't know shit about history, they are just on their shilling crusade.
Basically Dunning-Kruger effect prevents them from understanding there are people here who actually read books and deduce stuff on their own, and can't get "redpilled" by holohoax_67.png.

There's a line to be drawn between MAGAPEDE SHADILAY /pol/acks and earnest advocates for AuthRight beliefs

I doubt you read books, you probably just sit on the net all day and read some shitty history blogs and wikipedia pages of some jews and niggers who stroke your ideological ego

Not even that guy, but talk about a nonargument

>Veeky Forums is radical centrist
Eh, fair enough

Exactly. Veeky Forums is right leaning, but it's definitely not an echo-chamber, almost every opinion gets expressed here with proper support.

he didn't have an argument in the first place, just typical emotion-filled women drivel like half of this shitty board usually spews

You cannot remove nazi/fascist because basically everyone was nazi/fascist in Europe after WWII. All the rebuilding and creation of new institutions was done by people that were either nazis during the war or sympathize with them with murican money and support. Fug, even NATO was founded by a nazi.

The Baader-Meinhof was right but they were hopeless.

OP here. I just posted because I watched the Baader Meinhoff Complex and was hoping someone could spoonfed more about the time period. Sorry if this turned into /pol/ b8 due to my edgy wording.