Would literature be different had Hitler managed to emerge victorious?

Would literature be different had Hitler managed to emerge victorious?

Would the world look the same as it is now?

How would the creation of the internet of things cope with the iron rule of Fascism?

How would we perceive and understand artificial intelligence, in the context of fascist ideology? In the future, would robotics be studied and perhaps even allowed a certain degree of liberty after a particular artificial intelligence threshold is reached, or would it instead be strictly exploited for pragmatism?

Other urls found in this thread:

wikidifference.com/difference-between-fascism-and-nazism/
differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-fascism-and-nazism/
differencebetween.com/difference-between-fascism-and-vs-nazism/
heeve.com/modern-history/difference-between-fascism-and-nazism.html
politics.stackexchange.com/questions/256/what-is-the-difference-between-fascism-and-nazism
soapboxie.com/misc/Differences-and-similarities-between-Fascism-and-Nazism
quizlet.com/79463190/fascism-and-nazism-flash-cards/
answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_fascism_and_nazism
quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-nazism-and-fascism-1
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_Ring
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logocentrism
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

No one can tell, faggot.
Go ask this on the redpilled boards and you'll get the answers you're hoping to get

Ideology would quickly run itself thin after the war ends, people would become disillusioned about Adolf's ramblings, and the regime would have likely collapsed in the early 50's due to infighting, partisans, and lack of public support.

A referendum would probably be held, and Hitler's regime would be replaced by center-conservatives. After that, I dont know. Germany would probably assume the role of world police, similar to the US after WW2.

Hitler was a geniuine idiot, the only thing he was good at was public speaking. He was lucky to have been surrounded by a far more competent caste.

Im genuinely asking because Im interested, dude.
Why cant I discuss anything WW2 related without people thinking Im some sort of a /pol/tard trying to beg a question.

It's a stupid question. No one knows

Why do you people always use terms improperly?
Fascism =/= Nazism
Facism = Mussolini, Italy
Nazism = Hitler, Germany
Go back to first grade and try again once you have some education.

They're the same thing you retarded pedant. Nazism just had an additional emphasis on race.

They're absolutely not the same thing.

wikidifference.com/difference-between-fascism-and-nazism/
differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-fascism-and-nazism/
differencebetween.com/difference-between-fascism-and-vs-nazism/
heeve.com/modern-history/difference-between-fascism-and-nazism.html
politics.stackexchange.com/questions/256/what-is-the-difference-between-fascism-and-nazism
soapboxie.com/misc/Differences-and-similarities-between-Fascism-and-Nazism
quizlet.com/79463190/fascism-and-nazism-flash-cards/
answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_fascism_and_nazism
quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-nazism-and-fascism-1

Come back when you've finished reading.

Did you actually spend 20 minutes collecting links when all of them literally say the same exact thing I've said?

Splitting hairs in this situation is the mark of a pseud. I'm not going to read your shitty wiki links when I've read Evans and Churchill. The total mobilization and militarization of a state under autocratic nationalism is enough for me, and whether the state is defined by history, civics or race is really immaterial. Hitler was corporatist enough when he was talking to thyssenkrupp execs.

>quora
>I AM A PROFESSOR AND WHAT I SAY IS TRUE

Not that guy but consider that when most people say "fascism" nowadays they actually, and probably, wanted to say "autocracy" in general instead, not referring to any particular historical implementation of it.

You're screaming against me because I asked you to call things with their name? Childish.

>words never ever change meanings ever nuh uh

>screaming
wew lad

Yes, but this thread is about Hitler and op used the word Fascism / fascist. It's just inaccurate and superficial.

>make a thread on Veeky Forums vaguely related to hitler
>entire thread gets sidetracked to talk about semantical definitions and not a single post pertaining to the op

Every time. At least nobody brought up SJWs or immigrants yet. I'll save myself the time and go away now.

...

Making an AI is mindcucking yourself.

I doubt it.
Germans would be working on vecoming the only race in Europe and have this efgort fuel them for decades if not centuries.
At which point if everyone was german there would only be possible oppression by a cruel dictator who somehow turned on his own people or a struggle among the classes.
A homogeneous society wouldn't have the same problems as actual countries do.

Fascism denotes the Italian movement led by Mussolini, fascism the generic political phenomenon.

-Richard Evans, Regius Professor of History at the University of Cambridge

Despite the fascist terror, the revolutionary upturn in Germany will inexorably grow. The masses’ defence against fascism will inexorably grow. The establishment of an openly fascist dictatorship, which has shattered every democratic illusion in the masses and is liberating the masses from the influence of the Social Democrats, is accelerating the tempo of Germany’s development towards a proletarian revolution.

-Central Committee of the German Communist Party, 1933

pic related is an argument directly against the stark wall that your ilk like to build.

I imagine Germany filled with all the beautiful acceptable art which wouldn't be few because Hitler was an artist and he would want to see a grand variety. But modern/ post modern art wouldn't exist as it does today at all.
Accepted Art and literature from the past and especially german would propably be more relevant now still than it is today but nothing really great would have come after 1936 but propaganda fueled or gestappo allowed stuff.

what a stupid thread

Hitler couldn't win. National-Socialism was fundamentally negative, and thus it could not produce meaning, only deny meaning to other things ; hence the mediocrity of 1936-1945 Germany's cultural production. National-Socialism was anorganic, ahistorical, nothing more than chance. It had no deeper meaning than its brief existence ; and its work was negative : a negation of life and historical struggle. Their goal was to stop history, to make a "thousand-year Reich", --- to stay forever stuck in the ahistorical time of the fantasy, of the myth. Hitler was a Ludwig II with power. Look at his counselors, his cabinet ; degenerates, weaklings, ex-communists (Goebbels) ; look at the SA : literally, the rabble wearing the same shirt ; the whole of National-Socialism meant nothing, stood for nothing. They were the exact opposite of everything Nietzsche describe as a superior form of human existence ; plebeians in culture, plebeians in politics and plebeians in design. You should read Spengler. The Nazis couldn't stand the fact that Germany's attempts to make itself culturally relevant through military actions had failed, from 1870 to 1918 ; and they thought that its problems, which had to do with the exhaustion, not only of Germany, but of the West in general, had to be someone else's fault, and could be fixed by getting rid of that someone and uniting the Germans under a single rule. Of course, it failed. Burckhardt had already shown how the State could not produce anything, culturally ; and Nietzsche quickly understood this ; and so did Spengler, while considering the State as the ultimate cultural production which ended cultural production. The Nazis were typical leftists, in thinking they could solve deeper, fundamental human problems, through the State.

I dont believe that.

While we may not have enjoyed the post-modern art movement and general cultural progressiveness and all the good things it has brought us, the Germans had something else in mind entirely not necessarily of less worth. Ranging from outrageous, grandiose architecture imitating Imperial Rome, to a unity-through-purity ideology that would propel German culture to new heights as more and more art and literature would be made to glorify state-centric things.

In theory, of course, had Germany succeeded in their conquests and annexations, the nation would experience an economic boom and a new era of prosperity, built of course, on the backs of forced laborers, probably of Slavic origin, amongst many others.

I do think, however, that the German population would soon come to terms with what they are doing to other human beings, no matter how Hitler tried to drill in his eugenics into the populace. Like the other user said, disillusionment would have been inevitable, especially in a nation that is guided by knowledge, science and understanding. And it would have led to violent revolts, widespread public unrest and traction of human rights proponents.

Hitler used the bitterness of the German public as a tool to shoehorn his ideals and create scapegoats for the country's widespread troubles. Once those troubles are gone, the usefulness of his ideals would without a doubt loss all merit. Shortly after, the regime itself would outlive its usefulness, following the collapse of the ideals upon which it rested.

The only correct and worthwhile post. Kill yourselves.

>omg why are you guys discussing hypotheticals

Fuck off.

Hang yourself kiddo, you 11 yo piece of shit

>hence the mediocrity of 1936-1945 Germany's cultural production

Could it be you're confusing the Nazis ideology with the fact that the nation was waging wars throughout all these years, thus the stagnation in culture? We never saw Nazi Germany in peace time to be able to assert anything of their cultural production. They were, from the very beginning, either preparing for war or waging war.

where the fuck would you get this much concrete from

all the hitler-era conceptual architectures is rest edon the notion that germany would somehow acquire tens of thousands of metric tons of concrete

this is absurd

t. a civil engineer

>Could it be you're confusing the Nazis ideology with the fact that the nation was waging wars throughout all these years, thus the stagnation in culture?
Or it could be that there was no possible greater cultural production from Nazi Germany other than warfare.

not to mention the shitty walkability of that city...10 lane avenues and not in a grid pattern? there's highways in the sky but no walkways? where the fuck are all these cars going to park? what are you going to do about all the smog?

now i'm glad hitler lost

Italy, from 1300 to 1540, was in a state of uninterrupted total warfare. War doesn't tend to reduce the value of cultural productions, in fact it usually produces quite the opposite.

Yeah but the war of that time has nothing to do with the wars of the 20h century (and nowadays)

>ywn be that wrong and uneducated
why even live

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THIS THREAD CALM DOWN YOU SALTY BITCHES YOU FUCKING FAGGOTS FULL OF SHIT WHO THE FUCK YOU THINK YOU ARE EH? TOU'RE LITERALLY NOTHING THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE AND SUCK MY BALLS AND MY DICK YOU LAME TURDS

There are walkways, it's just smudged.

And 10-lane avenues are for military parades. Russia has the same thing.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_Ring

Also I dont think parking lots are a problem when you used the "give concrete 999" cheat on your nation.

...

I dont understand.

...

Because they had to. Nationalsozialism needs enemies, ideological and ecologically. We dont know if it would have been able to adapt to peaceful times but I would guess that it would have collapsed.

bump

extraordinarily well-thought out post, nicely done user

You're the one calling others salty bitches and telling them to calm down? When you submit a post like that?

There would be no School of Resentment, for one thing.

Of course we know, and of course it would be different. For fuck's sake, you idiot, that's the whole premise.

>If the world was different in the manner of X, would the world be different?
I'll take tautologies for 1000, Alex.

you're a idiot.

Top tier post

Posts like this are the reason why I keep coming back to Veeky Forums

>Would literature be different had Hitler managed to emerge victorious?
Yes.


Just as the USSR placed a lot of emphasis on folklore as literature of the common people, an ongoing fascist regime would likely place great emphasis on folklore as well as a traditionalist literary canon as representative of the "national spirit".


Focus on the writers as an individual is a relatively recent phenomenon in literature and would likely have been rolled back by a successful Nazi regime. Instead of creating completely new texts, adaptations or retelling of old ones might have proven more popular. Some of Thomas Mann's late work kind of points in that direction. The Josef tetrology, The Holy Sinner, Doktor Faustus, and Lotte in Weimar are all drawn from canonical texts. It goes without saying though that the prevalent writers of an ongoing Nazi regime wouldn't have the same views as Thomas Mann.

How is this not a cultural statement?

What meme is this?

The world would probably be just as shitty as it is now, if you think about it

Imagine someone like Gorbachev eventually taking over and slowly lowering the standards to a more "moderate" 21st century Germany

>Germany's attempts to make itself culturally relevant through military actions had failed, from 1870 to 1918
I mean they were trying to create colonies after only forming a cohesive union literally centuries after France, Spain, GB, and Russia

How the fuck was Germany colonizing Africa or the New World ever going to last compared to the other powers?

Total war is a 20th century thing that came into existence when industrialized nations started fighting each other. Please do not use terms you do not understand. As for Italian Wars, before the foreign powers intervened and fucked all the locals over, they were basically LARP fests comparable to the shit going on in Berkley these days. The cities would hire mercenary armies that would fight each other in mock battles while trying to minimize losses and maximize profits.

> National-Socialism was fundamentally negative

Yet out of the rubble that was 1918 continental Europe came universal healthcare?

An economy tied to output per capita, not fractional investment banking by the usual suspects? (at least as far as I am aware? I don't know many primary sources on this)

These economic and social ideas weren't tied to the boogeymen of Jews and Bankers and Communists that were used in speeches

Despite the racism used to define the bubble of "their people", Germans seemed pretty positive about who they were and what they could achieve

Didn't turn out so great, of course

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logocentrism

logos wouldnt have been deconstructed with the same effort, heidegger and nietzsche remain cute and adorable curiosities.

*an idiot
you moron

bump