Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Say what you will about Slate, but they are running an interesting series about the History of Fascism.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fascism.html

They are mostly excerpts from actual historians writing actual books and stuff. Either way, really interesting reading. The one about the Romanian Iron Guard was a topic you do not typically see or hear much about. Very interesting.

Anyway, maybe Lord of Hats at least will find it interesting.......

 Easy E wrote:
Say what you will about Slate, but they are running an interesting series about the History of Fascism.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fascism.html

They are mostly excerpts from actual historians writing actual books and stuff. Either way, really interesting reading. The one about the Romanian Iron Guard was a topic you do not typically see or hear much about. Very interesting.

Anyway, maybe Lord of Hats at least will find it interesting.......

Actual historians writing actual books and stuff?? Wow! Also, what up with the snide comment at the end?

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Say what you will about Slate, but they are running an interesting series about the History of Fascism.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fascism.html

They are mostly excerpts from actual historians writing actual books and stuff. Either way, really interesting reading. The one about the Romanian Iron Guard was a topic you do not typically see or hear much about. Very interesting.

Anyway, maybe Lord of Hats at least will find it interesting.......

Actual historians writing actual books and stuff?? Wow! Also, what up with the snide comment at the end?

Not intended to be snide. He is a historian so I thought he would find it interesting. If anything, it was more a jab at myself for posting topics that typically bomb.

I should know by now that all written words (posts, e-mails, texts) are read defensively. I blame myself.

 Easy E wrote:
Say what you will about Slate

I had really better not.

The self-identified agenda of this series: "Could [fascism] be coming back? And if so, how can we defeat it?" At least the series editor admits these are loaded questions, although she does nothing more than admit it ... and then blithely move on. Considering the pieces are excerpts, be sure to carefully note the gloss. For example, the byline: "It’s very difficult to tell whether you’re living in a fascist state. But consult this chart for starters." The corresponding except (from the intro of the fascism entry to Oxford's "Very Short" series) is about the difficulty of defining fascism abstractly. The implication seems to be, if there is no clear definition then it is hard to know if you are experiencing it. And not a hop/skip/jump from that unwarranted conclusion lays another: I could very well be living in a fascist society, just as I (erudite Slate reader that I am) suspected! Hence Slate's advice to "consult this chart" ... which is actually used to demonstrate the problems of identifying fascism rather than as a tool to define it.

Are you accusing them of Click bait and infotainment! Well, I never!

Either way, the excerpts are good. I skip over the rest.

Yes, imagine a gallery exhibiting a series of paintings by skillful, talented artsists - but there are political bumper stickers all over the frames.

Would you like me to cut them out and quote some of them here instead? That was my first thought, but then I got lazy.

Ha I can see how you might think so from my metaphor. But all I really meant was, Slate is trying to be "intellectual by association." Slate's readers already >know< that Trump is a fascist (a bad man) - the articles are presented to disseminate the self-perception of authority. "As someone who has read about the history of fascism" - i.e., excerpts served up via a partisan organ - "I can tell you that history is in fact repeating itself."

 Manchu wrote:
Ha I can see how you might think so from my metaphor. But all I really meant was, Slate is trying to be "intellectual by association." Slate's readers already >know< that Trump is a fascist (a bad man) - the articles are presented to disseminate the self-perception of authority. "As someone who has read about the history of fascism" - i.e., excerpts served up via a partisan organ - "I can tell you that history is in fact repeating itself."

Politics aside, is it really click bait if said "bad man" is actually a bad man? I mean, fascist might be a stretch, but power hungry racist narcissistic douche isn't.

While I do think Slate readers will consume these excerpts very superficially, I don't think posting them is really "clickbait" in the sense of Slate luring us into non-content for the sake of driving site traffic. Again, I think the plan is to give people who already dislike Trump/think he is a fascist the sense that they are intellectually justified in doing so.

 Manchu wrote:
While I do think Slate readers will consume these excerpts very superficially, I don't think posting them is really "clickbait" in the sense of Slate luring us into non-content for the sake of driving site traffic. Again, I think the plan is to give people who already dislike Trump/think he is a fascist the sense that they are intellectually justified in doing so.

Fair, but again, you're stating it like Trump is just misunderstood. I don't think he's a fascist, but he's a pretty evil guy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Say what you will about Slate, but they are running an interesting series about the History of Fascism.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fascism.html

They are mostly excerpts from actual historians writing actual books and stuff. Either way, really interesting reading. The one about the Romanian Iron Guard was a topic you do not typically see or hear much about. Very interesting.

Anyway, maybe Lord of Hats at least will find it interesting.......

Actual historians writing actual books and stuff?? Wow! Also, what up with the snide comment at the end?

Not intended to be snide. He is a historian so I thought he would find it interesting. If anything, it was more a jab at myself for posting topics that typically bomb.

I should know by now that all written words (posts, e-mails, texts) are read defensively. I blame myself.

No, I blame myself lack of sleep plus stress makes reading comprehension hard. Apologies!

 jreilly89 wrote:
you're stating it like Trump is just misunderstood

I do think he is largely misunderstood, although not unfairly (it's not like he makes much effort to be understood). I don't want to get into "US Politics" thread territory so suffice it to say that the widespread explanation of Trump as a fascist pretty well indicates that he is misunderstood. And/or that fascism is misunderstood. However, I don't think Slate aims to disabuse its readership of the optical/political connection between Trump and fascism.

 Manchu wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
you're stating it like Trump is just misunderstood

I do think he is largely misunderstood, although not unfairly (it's not like he makes much effort to be understood). I don't want to get into "US Politics" thread territory so suffice it to say that the widespread explanation of Trump as a fascist pretty well indicates that he is misunderstood. And/or that fascism is misunderstood. However, I don't think Slate aims to disabuse its readership of the optical/political connection between Trump and fascism.

I disagree almost wholeheartedly, but again I think you're right, this is straying off topic. OT, I think even if it's biased, as long as the information is accurate, this is a good series. History should be studied, lest we be doomed to repeat it.

Writing about fascism - is it possible not to be biased? Well, to be neutral and retain moral credibility? I don't think there is a problem with the bias of the excerpts, or rather - considering I have not read all of them - I don't think that is the immediate problem. What I am concerned about is, this series is pretty obviously designed to superficially intellectualize anti-Trump sentiments.I mean, to wit:

 jreilly89 wrote:
History should be studied, lest we be doomed to repeat it.

 Manchu wrote:
"As someone who has read about the history of fascism" - i.e., excerpts served up via a partisan organ - "I can tell you that history is in fact repeating itself."

 jreilly89 wrote:
Politics aside, is it really click bait if said "bad man" is actually a bad man? I mean, fascist might be a stretch, but power hungry racist narcissistic douche isn't.

What do you think about President Trump being a recipient of the Ellis Island Medal of Honor?

 jreilly89 wrote:
History should be studied, lest we be doomed to repeat it.

My favourite Bismarck quote is, "What we learn from History, is that no-one learns from History."


What amuses me the most about these articles on Fascism is how much GW has 'borrowed' for the background of the Imperium.

Yeah, you are absolutely right about their purpose on Slate.

On the other hand, I learned something about Franco who I knew little about and Fascism in Romania from actual historians instead of workign today! I approve.

Now, speaking of fascism the concept of Martyrdom/self-sacrifice seemed to be strong in their rhetoric, but in practice how often did we see it play out that way? For example, in militarized Bushido in Japan (Which I am not an expert on) we saw it play out to its logical conclusion with Kamikaze and other suicidal type tactics. Did we see something similar with European fascist organizations taht I am not aware of?

Certainly, extraordinary sacrifice was demanded of and made by millions of Germans - and not without zeal (whatever might have been claimed later).

 Gogsnik wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Politics aside, is it really click bait if said "bad man" is actually a bad man? I mean, fascist might be a stretch, but power hungry racist narcissistic douche isn't.

What do you think about President Trump being a recipient of the Ellis Island Medal of Honor?

 jreilly89 wrote:
History should be studied, lest we be doomed to repeat it.

My favourite Bismarck quote is, "What we learn from History, is that no-one learns from History."


What amuses me the most about these articles on Fascism is how much GW has 'borrowed' for the background of the Imperium.

My favorite Bismark quote is: "holy crap is that the Prince of Wales?"

Indeed, my friend's grandfather was among the Canadian infantry that liberated Holland. He got extremely emotional telling us about having to fight German teenagers, and how absolutely fanatical they were.

 feeder wrote:
He got extremely emotional telling us about having to fight German teenagers, and how absolutely fanatical they were.

12th SS Panzer Div "Hitlerjugend" - fought about every Canadian formation in Normandy through September '44 and took 80% casualties doing it. The legend is, these kids wept openly when they were forced to fall back.

 Gogsnik wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Politics aside, is it really click bait if said "bad man" is actually a bad man? I mean, fascist might be a stretch, but power hungry racist narcissistic douche isn't.

What do you think about President Trump being a recipient of the Ellis Island Medal of Honor?

What do you think of his numerous lawsuits for discriminating on who he rented to?

Getting some award, that he could have paid to win, doesn't absolve him of his racism. Nor does looking at the reason for the award being given out today show why it was awarded when it was first introduced.

It's no stretch to call him a fascist,
a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views. Check.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Gogsnik wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Politics aside, is it really click bait if said "bad man" is actually a bad man? I mean, fascist might be a stretch, but power hungry racist narcissistic douche isn't.

What do you think about President Trump being a recipient of the Ellis Island Medal of Honor?

What do you think of his numerous lawsuits for discriminating on who he rented to?

Getting some award, that he could have paid to win, doesn't absolve him of his racism. Nor does looking at the reason for the award being given out today show why it was awarded when it was first introduced.

It's no stretch to call him a fascist,
a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views. Check.

To be clear you're arguing he's a racist not a fascist. A Fascist is pseudo economic theory which originally had nothing to do with racism until corrupted by the Nazis.

Thats the problem, people yell "fascist" at people without actually knowing what they are saying.

 Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Gogsnik wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Politics aside, is it really click bait if said "bad man" is actually a bad man? I mean, fascist might be a stretch, but power hungry racist narcissistic douche isn't.

What do you think about President Trump being a recipient of the Ellis Island Medal of Honor?

What do you think of his numerous lawsuits for discriminating on who he rented to?

Getting some award, that he could have paid to win, doesn't absolve him of his racism. Nor does looking at the reason for the award being given out today show why it was awarded when it was first introduced.

It's no stretch to call him a fascist,
a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views. Check.

To be clear you're arguing he's a racist not a fascist. A Fascist is pseudo economic theory which originally had nothing to do with racism until corrupted by the Nazis.

Thats the problem, people yell "fascist" at people without actually knowing what they are saying.

he's both, that's the dictionary definition of a facist,

here's facism:
A system of government that flourished in Europe from the 1920s to the end of World War II. Germany under Adolf Hitler, Italy under Mussolini, and Spain under Franco were all fascist states. As a rule, fascist governments are dominated by a dictator, who usually possesses a magnetic personality, wears a showy uniform, and rallies his followers by mass parades; appeals to strident nationalism; and promotes suspicion or hatred of both foreigners and “impure” people within his own nation, such as the Jews in Germany. Although both communism and fascism are forms of totalitarianism, fascism does not demand state ownership of the means of production, nor is fascism committed to the achievement of economic equality.

so again, he clearly falls into the fascist column.

Okay, take Trump to the U.S. Politics thread.

This is a thread about Fascism in general.

So, thanks for the examples about the Hitlerjugend in Normandy. How about the other Axis powers? Specifically Italy?

Since we're largely dealing with legends, it's tough. Fascist Italy was never lionized by the victorious Allies in the same manner as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

Manchu wrote:Certainly, extraordinary sacrifice was demanded of and made by millions of Germans - and not without zeal (whatever might have been claimed later).

Is your conclusion because Germans fought hard, they were doing so out of a zeal for fascism?

As an American I'm sure you can understand the concepts of Nationalism and Patriotism.

Easy E wrote:So, thanks for the examples about the Hitlerjugend in Normandy. How about the other Axis powers? Specifically Italy?

Not limited to axis powers, you had citizens from all across Europe joining the SS to fight what was seen as the dual threat of communism and zionism.

 Manchu wrote:
Fascist Italy was never lionized

It wasn't lionised because as far as allies go, it was feeble at best. Italy lurched from disaster to disaster until their early exit in '43.

 MarsNZ wrote:
Is your conclusion because Germans fought hard, they were doing so out of a zeal for fascism?

I think that argument is at least partially sound. There has been a lot of effort to try to surgically remove nationalism out of National Socialism but it hasn't been very successful (especially in post-war Germany). National Socialism, broadly speaking, was the vehicle of German nationalism in the relevant time period. As David Lloyd George once observed, Hitler's popularity (and by extension the popularity of his regime) was based on keeping his election promises.

 MarsNZ wrote:

It wasn't lionised because as far as allies go, it was feeble at best. Italy lurched from disaster to disaster until their early exit in '43.

While generally true, the Italians pioneered the development of the frogman commando and used them throughout the war to good effect.