You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
1
devotech2 on scored.co
11 days ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)
What's wrong:
Hitler wasn't fascist, he inspired by fascism. Mussolini was a fascist. Hitler did not follow a majority of what mussolini did.
The only reason that hitler gets the moniker of "fascist" is because of the soviets. They did not want to say "national socialist" because they didn't want their enemy to be considered socialist. But, the soviets did not have the word "nazi", which is an Americanism. So they called him a fascist, which was a word that was alien to the soviet people. The reason why is because he was somewhat similar to mussolini in some aspects. Ironically, the soviet union was a good friend of the real deal fascists from the time of lenin to barbarossa. Lenin sent gifts to D'Annunzio in Fiume, and Italy was the first country in the world to recognize the soviets, and they had a huge trading partnership.
I would consider hitler to be on the spectrum of fascism. Indeed, the national socialisms of hitler and Röhm respectively (particularly Röhm-ism) are probably closer to fascism than anything else. But is it fascism? No.
If you want a fascist monopoly, make it about Mussolini or D'Annunzio or Codreanu or Gentile, because a fascist hitler was not. Modern China is closer to classical fascism than hitler ever was.
I'd argue the main difference is this: fascism is when the political far left embraces some reactionary ideas. National socialism is when the inverse equation takes place. Though there are exceptions. The iron legion in Romania was without a doubt more fascist than natsoc, but it was born out of political reaction from the start.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
Hitler wasn't fascist, he inspired by fascism. Mussolini was a fascist. Hitler did not follow a majority of what mussolini did.
The only reason that hitler gets the moniker of "fascist" is because of the soviets. They did not want to say "national socialist" because they didn't want their enemy to be considered socialist. But, the soviets did not have the word "nazi", which is an Americanism. So they called him a fascist, which was a word that was alien to the soviet people. The reason why is because he was somewhat similar to mussolini in some aspects. Ironically, the soviet union was a good friend of the real deal fascists from the time of lenin to barbarossa. Lenin sent gifts to D'Annunzio in Fiume, and Italy was the first country in the world to recognize the soviets, and they had a huge trading partnership.
I would consider hitler to be on the spectrum of fascism. Indeed, the national socialisms of hitler and Röhm respectively (particularly Röhm-ism) are probably closer to fascism than anything else. But is it fascism? No.
If you want a fascist monopoly, make it about Mussolini or D'Annunzio or Codreanu or Gentile, because a fascist hitler was not. Modern China is closer to classical fascism than hitler ever was.
I'd argue the main difference is this: fascism is when the political far left embraces some reactionary ideas. National socialism is when the inverse equation takes place. Though there are exceptions. The iron legion in Romania was without a doubt more fascist than natsoc, but it was born out of political reaction from the start.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed