So if the Axis won WWII, the Federation would have never existed?

[Timo]

How so? It organized itself in the form of a party that got voted to power; it stayed in power through a democratic mandate. It just happened that said mandate was upheld through a campaign of intimidation and brutal elimination - just as with communism in the USSR.

On the practical level, Nazism was opportunism incarnate. Had Hitler been prompted to emigrate from Vienna to the United States rather than to Germany, he would no doubt have attempted to enlist the support of the black population once his initial fantasy of a more bourgeois revolution failed, much like he rode on agendas appealing to the economically downtrodden in Germany.

Plus, everybody already knew enough to fear communism, even if much of the knowledge was outdated by half a century and fell short of predicting what was actually happening inside the Soviet Union. Nazism didn't have this sort of historical ballast, despite choosing "socialism" as one of its buzzwords; OTOH, anything with "national" in its name would feel at the same time a bit threatening (because most nations are not your own) but also a bit soothing and familiar (because nationalism is easy to associate with).

Timo Saloniemi

[sonak]

Timo wrote:

---

How so? It organized itself in the form of a party that got voted to power; it stayed in power through a democratic mandate. It just happened that said mandate was upheld through a campaign of intimidation and brutal elimination - just as with communism in the USSR.

On the practical level, Nazism was opportunism incarnate. Had Hitler been prompted to emigrate from Vienna to the United States rather than to Germany, he would no doubt have attempted to enlist the support of the black population once his initial fantasy of a more bourgeois revolution failed, much like he rode on agendas appealing to the economically downtrodden in Germany.

Plus, everybody already knew enough to fear communism, even if much of the knowledge was outdated by half a century and fell short of predicting what was actually happening inside the Soviet Union. Nazism didn't have this sort of historical ballast, despite choosing "socialism" as one of its buzzwords; OTOH, anything with "national" in its name would feel at the same time a bit threatening (because most nations are not your own) but also a bit soothing and familiar (because nationalism is easy to associate with).

Timo Saloniemi

I don't mean the methods that the Nazis used to get to power, I mean the theory of Nazism-it's based on the "Fuhrer" being the symbol of the state and the "Volk." Hitler thought democracy to be flabby and decadent. I also think you're making Hitler out to be too much the realpolitik guy and not enough the fanatic. He may have been flexible in METHODS, but his racial ideology was a core of who he was. He may have made temporary alliances(like with Stalin), but his ideology was racial to the foundations. You change THAT and you change who Hitler was.

[Timo]

If the guy himself didn't give a damn about who he was, in terms of practical actions, why should anybody else?

And odd ideas about leadership are part and parcel of many ideologies, including communism. There's nothing about the theories of Marx that would directly support much less require the use of representative democracy in ruling, and indeed most communist systems have managed quite well with dictators in the lead. Also, again, many would be far more comfortable with a dictatorial system than with one that shuns conventional methods of leadership altogether; the Nazis would have been the conventional alternative, and thus potentially the more appealing to most democracies.

Timo Saloniemi

[sonak]

Timo wrote:

---

If the guy himself didn't give a damn about who he was, in terms of practical actions, why should anybody else?

And odd ideas about leadership are part and parcel of many ideologies, including communism. There's nothing about the theories of Marx that would directly support much less require the use of representative democracy in ruling, and indeed most communist systems have managed quite well with dictators in the lead. Also, again, many would be far more comfortable with a dictatorial system than with one that shuns conventional methods of leadership altogether; the Nazis would have been the conventional alternative, and thus potentially the more appealing to most democracies.

Timo Saloniemi

I have no idea what your first sentence means. As to the paragraph, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The fact that the late 20th century showed Communism to have mass appeal whereas Nazism pretty much disappeared demonstrates which one has the natural advantage to me.

[Magellan]

sonak wrote:

---

right, but the point is that Nazism was an inherently supremacist/hierarchical ideology. Under it, for example, Slavic peoples were to serve as nothing more than slave labor for the Third Reich. And what about Blacks in Africa or in the U.S.? Which way do you think they're going to go?

So again, yes the Nazis had many potential allies, but Communism was an egalitarian universalist ideology(in theory if rarely in practice), while Nazism in theory and in practice was radically inegalitarian and supremacist. The Communists just have greater mass appeal if they can get their act together.

Remember also, that Communism can be democratic,(again in theory) which gives it more propaganda appeal. Nazism by its very nature is antidemocratic.

Black africa or gypsy's or any other minority frankly would not have mattered much in 1940's. Remember blacks were not exactly loved in Eastern Europe or the West either. Also Africa had a negligible industial base and virtually no money. even the whole population of a place like Africa in that time frame was less than Russia. Maybe 150 million people. Europe and East Asia were the centers of population in this time frame.

Also even though the Nazis espoused racial superiority of "Aryans" some Russians or Ukrainians or Turks are more "aryan" than others and collaboration could easily benefit them. The Nazi's managed to find collaborates in every country they conquered and forged an alliance with decidedly non-Aryan Japan. Pragmatism is ALWAYS a factor.

[sonak]

Magellan wrote:

---

Black africa or gypsy's or any other minority frankly would not have mattered much in 1940's. Remember blacks were not exactly loved in Eastern Europe or the West either. Also Africa had a negligible industial base and virtually no money. even the whole population of a place like Africa in that time frame was less than Russia. Maybe 150 million people. Europe and East Asia were the centers of population in this time frame.

Also even though the Nazis espoused racial superiority of "Aryans" some Russians or Ukrainians or Turks are more "aryan" than others and collaboration could easily benefit them. The Nazi's managed to find collaborates in every country they conquered and forged an alliance with decidedly non-Aryan Japan. Pragmatism is ALWAYS a factor.

again, I wasn't referring strictly to the situation in the 1940s, but as a potential Cold War went on for a while.

[Magellan]

I guess I should say that Nazism's appeal maybe less universal than communism's but appealing to the upper class rather than the lower class could be just as successful in the short run. Especiallly considering the "whiter" "aryan" upper class generally already held political power in the 40's 50's and 60's.

[sonak]

fair point