- 29 Jul 2016 19:11
#14706504
What are your assessments of the various historical fascist and reactionary regimes?
I think of the following:
* National Socialist Germany: Unbelievably rigorous and successful, for a time, but went too far.
* Fascist Italy: Pretty balanced overall, sided with wrong (as in, losing) side.
* Vichy France: Too weak, semi-sovereign to really do anything.
* Francoist Spain: Purely "conservative," therefore tending towards clericalism/liberalism.
* Salazaran Portugal: More interesting conservative regime? Doomed because too small?
* Legionary State/Antonescu's Romania: Former allegedly unstable/fanatical, Antonescu credited by even mainstreamers as being unusually competent and probitious ruler.
* Pilsudski's Poland: Pretty good for the Poles (signed a pact, funnily enough, with N.S. Germany).
Interestingly, only National Socialist Germany really made a religion of racism. Why?
Besides comfort, why don't Anglos produce these kinds of regime? (Henry VIII? Cromwell?)
Seems, in times of crisis, states like to consolidate around "sound" conservative authoritarians, best able to maintain a kind of order, but no good at changing the course of history. Trump?
By 1938, there were almost no liberal-democratic regimes in Continental Europe, by 1946, no Right-wing ones outside of Iberia. History is endless surprises!
I think of the following:
* National Socialist Germany: Unbelievably rigorous and successful, for a time, but went too far.
* Fascist Italy: Pretty balanced overall, sided with wrong (as in, losing) side.
* Vichy France: Too weak, semi-sovereign to really do anything.
* Francoist Spain: Purely "conservative," therefore tending towards clericalism/liberalism.
* Salazaran Portugal: More interesting conservative regime? Doomed because too small?
* Legionary State/Antonescu's Romania: Former allegedly unstable/fanatical, Antonescu credited by even mainstreamers as being unusually competent and probitious ruler.
* Pilsudski's Poland: Pretty good for the Poles (signed a pact, funnily enough, with N.S. Germany).
Interestingly, only National Socialist Germany really made a religion of racism. Why?
Besides comfort, why don't Anglos produce these kinds of regime? (Henry VIII? Cromwell?)
Seems, in times of crisis, states like to consolidate around "sound" conservative authoritarians, best able to maintain a kind of order, but no good at changing the course of history. Trump?
By 1938, there were almost no liberal-democratic regimes in Continental Europe, by 1946, no Right-wing ones outside of Iberia. History is endless surprises!
A stubborn porcupine: heredity & nationhood. Meditate, brother!
« Artists are the antennae of the race. »
« Artists are the antennae of the race. »