 |
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000 time: 06:18
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Then you can't hold Hitler has the example of Fascism! It is hypocritical to say you are comparing Communism in general versus Hitler. How about Communism in general v. Fascism in general. |
Can you read thread titles? I'm talking about National Socialism in the Hitler sense, not Fascism in the Mussolini sense
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000 time: 06:18
|
|
After axi stated that hitler killed more Soviets than Stalin did and that he would have erased the wholke Soviet population had he won the war, someone (I think it was FG) said that he just didn't win the war and therefor it wouldn't matter.
But it isn't simple as that. Stalin did not eradicate all of East and Central Europe's population, BTW, and not the Germans either. As it seems, even Stalin was closer to humanitarian ideals than Hitler.
A word about fascism / national socialism. It's most sensible to use the former term for the Mussolini regime, since "his system" was not only closer to the original spirit of 'fascism', his system actually coined the term. Related to the Roman tradition of using fagots as a symbol of power, so did they, and said packs of brush-wood are called 'fascia' in Italy. Fascism covers a class-based society, a burgeois reactionary grand-capital government backing / backed by a monarchy, a state religion etc etc. Hitler had sort of a classless system, no monarchy in the traditional sense, no emphasis on religious traditions, and was therefore just not reactionary and copnservative enough to be calles a fascist. So National Socialism is the term we've always used for that, as Fascism is the word for Mussolini. That logic might have flaws to it, but it's a lot easier to link those terms with certain definitions (or historical examples like in this case) than to argue about word meanings. This thread had a different idea, it's not about defining communism or clarifying whether it works or not.
And even if communism doesn't work properly - people are fed, get 50 years old, and each family has a living standard that is enough for not being totally depressed all the time.
National socialism means eternal suffering for all the population, and if it's not in time of war when the enemies' armies attack the civil population, then it's in times of peace when officials decide to get you locked up in a camp for being different. Stalinism is pretty close to national socialism, just without the reactionary component. Real communism ir socialism, and also those forms of it we've seen in Latin America before the CIA destroyed democratically elected governments, were not close to that at all, and the people there didn't suffer.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970 time: 00:18
|
|
Serb: Many Americans, including myself, would be just as horrified (or more horrified) with the government killing its citizens because of ideology rather than ethnicity. That's probably what you're seeing here. And yes, it's a little radical.
Your grandfather's "traiterous" actions only show one of many different circumstances that lead to a life such as working on the Siberian railways. Some were based on ideology. Some were based on ethnicity. Some based on "loyalty" broadly construed. Some were at the wrong place at the wrong time.
On the other hand, many of the Nazi's victims were killed due to their ideology rather than ethnicity. Over a million Roman Catholics were killed in the camps for being insufficiently loyal to the state, for instance.
The one big difference between the two is that the Germans were organized, while the Soviets weren't. But both were planned.
Last edited by DanS on 01-03-2002 at 20:54
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000 time: 06:18
|
|
How would you decide, DanS?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Stefu
|
 |
CLOWNS WIT DA DOWNS 4 LIFE YO!
Jan 1970 time: 07:18
|
|
quote: Spain, lithuania, Roumania, and Bulgaria (maybe even Finnland but perhaps not) |
No "perhaps" about that, Albert. :q
quote: Furthermore, the Red Terror was targetted, whereas the White Terror was indiscriminate. Stefu can tell you about the White Terror's effects in Finland, even if he's glad the Red's lost there. One quarter of the Finnish working class was slaughtered that awful summer of 1918 by the Whites and their German allies. |
Well, the terror of Civil War, by both sides, is indeed the dark spot of Finnish history.
First of all, in case of Finland, both Red and White terror were pretty much indiscriminate. In both cases, the authorities (People's Committee in case of Reds, Mannerheim in case of Whites) tries to control the terror - but nevertheless it happened. Motives were traditional - revenge was one of the big ones (Red tenant farmers wanting to straighten out accounts with their former landlords, Whites who had heard (true and faked) accounts of Red terror.)
There were about 9000 victims of White terror, and 12500 losing their lives in prison camps thanks to hunger and sickness. There were also Russian victims. I don't know about where Chegitz is getting his number of quarter of Finnish working class dying. One reason for there being more victims of White Terror is, naturally, that the Whites won. Considering that Red Terror was as indiscriminate as White Terror, I have no doubt that should Reds have won, there would have been equal number of hastily-strung together fake trials and executions of "known oppressors of people".
Another thing about White Terror. White Terror was pretty much just that one, bloody outburst - and then President Ståhlberg pardoned the prisoners in camps. Sure, they lost many of their civil rights (like vote), but no killing after that, and while there's no doubt many wounds were left festering, Finnish people were sufficiently unified to put up a common front against the invader during the Winter War. OTOH, if we look at Soviet Russia and other examples of Red victory, we can see continual terror, occasionally simmering, low-grade terror, occasionally more acute terror. There were many enough people in Red rebellion favoring military dictatorship, and with the Bear exerting pressure next door, I believe it would have been inevitable they would have got what they wanted. And that's why I'm glad the Whites, not the Reds, won. The White victory, as bloody as the results were, made it possible for Finland to become a benevolent social democracy that it is today.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
quote: Originally posted by faded glory
I grew up with such stories too. My grandfather being a German soldier. And when I was older, he said he had no idea of them. |
I guess he was lucky enough to never cross paths with my great uncle. He burried quite a few of these scum before being caught and tortured to death.
And if your father doesn't remember anything he is as good as dead.
Where did he serve? Shoving sh!t in Indiana?
Else he's lucky he wasn't burried somewhere in Europe and Russia.
And you have inherited his dead memory 
quote: Firstly, that wasnt "Insensitive". You dont suffer at all from the occupation. You werent around. And you also fail to menton how traumitized you are, from greece's little civil war.... which killed many civilians. Seems your only "Traumitized" when it suits your political agenda. |
You can just **** off for all I care.
quote: Irrelevant to the topic at hand. The question is wether who was worse. Communist or National Socialists. And its very..very, historically clear, the Communists were worse. just because American soldiers didnt liberate the Gulags, doesnt mean it doesnt happen.
We also have a number. The number of Communist citizens killed by there own Government. That number stands at 100 million, and were still counting. |
We have lived under the Nazis and we know their monstrosity,
people have lived in Yugoslavia and know the communists and they know how it is.
You know sh!t but your propaganda so you can shut up.
You're just a Nazi's offspring. I pity you if your contrymen "know" as much as you do.
Last edited by Bereta_Eder on 01-03-2002 at 23:16
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
steelehc
|
 |
Alaska
Dec 2001 time: 20:18
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote: Imram, Nazism and National Socialism are the same. Fascism is different from both. That may be what you were thinking. |
Actually you are incorrect, and actually most people are incorrect.
Fascism is a term given to the movement by Mussolini, for the Italian word Fasci (his party).
Before then, people like Barres (who came up with Fascism in the early 20s in France) named the movement National Socialism. Mussolini's name for it stuck, since he was the first to impliment it. |
That may be, and if so, we are both equally and partially wrong. National Socialism is an accepted term for Nazism. The actual name of the Nazi party is the Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeiterpartei; National Socialist German Workers Party, NSDAP.
That is the context in which I was using national Socialism, and in that case, I was correct, you were wrong. In the context you mentioned, using Barres party, you are correct, and I am not.
However, National Socialism is used primarily to refer to Nazism, and using it to refer to Barres will lead to much confusion.
Steele
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Imran Siddiqui

|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970 time: 00:18
|
|
quote: Originally posted by steelehc
That may be, and if so, we are both equally and partially wrong. National Socialism is an accepted term for Nazism. The actual name of the Nazi party is the Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeiterpartei; National Socialist German Workers Party, NSDAP.
That is the context in which I was using national Socialism, and in that case, I was correct, you were wrong. In the context you mentioned, using Barres party, you are correct, and I am not.
However, National Socialism is used primarily to refer to Nazism, and using it to refer to Barres will lead to much confusion.
Steele |
Yes, perhaps... however, for this discussion, I was using it to mean to Fascism. Because that is the only fair way to compare it to Communism (in the ideal sense). If you wanted to you the Nazis, then compare it to Stalinism.
You know what I mean?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
steelehc
|
 |
Alaska
Dec 2001 time: 20:18
|
|
Imran: Yes, I believe I understand.
I think a way to simplify this discussion is as follows:
Nazism:Stalinism::Fascism:Communism
Both Fascism and Communism are not evil ideas, they are both very admirable, if they can be made to work. However, they cannot be, and the efforts of trying have resulted in things like Nazism and Stalinism. Nazism and Stalinism are very extreme, screwed up, and inherently evil versions of their brethern, Fascism and Communism, respectively.
The original question was asked about Nazism and Communism, however I think he meant to compare Nazism ans Stalinism. That is much harder, and could take literally months or years to discuss in depth.
Steele
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000 time: 06:18
|
|
No, because if Nazism = national socialism = hitler ideoglogy then communism = Luxemburg and Liebkncecht ideology, and those people were not evil, power-obessed murderers...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999 time: 05:18
|
|
IMO, Communism is all about excuses.
What I mean by that is simply this:
There are, even today, those who hold up Communistic ideals, but when asked to point to even one single instance where those ideals have been:
1) Adhered to in even a liberal sense of the word,
and
2) Not corrupted by some powermongering dictator
and
3) Capable of competing head to head with a more capitalist-oriented country
....then, out come the excuses....
Everything from....
"Well, you can't judge communism by Stalin or Mao"
to
"Oh...but Communism was meant to be applied on a global scale."
Ah ha.
So...we're supposed to take a system of government that's proven time and time again that it's susceptable to being commandeered by powermongering dictators, and can't compete evenly with capitalistic societies in any case, and apply it globally?
This....makes no sense to my brain.
Of COURSE communism can be equated to the Mao's and Stalin's of the world, just as Facism can be equated to the Hitler's of the world, because those systems of government are easy prey for the powermongers of the world.
I ask the question again, how many failed attempts do you NEED in order to finally become convinced that it just doesn't work?!
Capitalism is all about results.
I can point to any number of nations in existence RIGHT NOW who are off the chart where standard of living is concerned. Guess what? NONE of the top economic powers in the world are communist.
Oh...I can hear the China argument right now...and how did China jumpstart their economy? Was it...via a better five year plan, or was it by PRIVATIZING industries???
People are soooo quick to point out the inequities in the system, and YES...they certainly are there.
Question for you though?
How many millionaires are there, per capita in China?
How many in the USA?
How many people made MILLIONS by applying themselves diligently in the US this year alone?
Gaahhh! I just don't get it. Yeah....let's make a global switch to a system of government that's proven itself faulty time and time again....sounds lovely! 
-=Vel=-
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18. Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|