Could facism have worked in a different country like it did in Germany?

[Saruman]

It could've happened another place in that time-frame, but not in the same scale. Germany was/is a rich populated (80m) nation in the middle of Europe, and ideal for quick expansion both ways.
Hitler was Austrian, right? so could have done it in Austria too, but Austria couldn't have overrun The western powers alone.

And with the fact that Germany owned a lot of money to the USA, and the NY crack made the people vote what sounded best.

Just my opinion

 

[Cecasander]

Ofcourse there are more/other facistic countries. Do the names Iraq, Taliban-Afghanistan and dictatorships in Latin America (Chili, Argentinia) ring any bell?

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

In the 30s the communist definition of fascist state included all democracies too. Even social democrats were derided and named social fascists. Since then there has been a lot of intellectual effort put into legitimizing democratic rule by the right of centre which seeks to compare communism with fascism. This is just to point out how the debate has shifted over the years.

It is interesting that historically fascism has gnawed its way out through a democratic rule in a state of crisis - but this is of course of no concern to us today.

I don't know if fascism could have worked in another country because fascism does not exactly work - it destroys. I know that in my country Denmark the Conservative party evolved into a full fledged fascist party with roman salute and marches in the streets by uniformed members of the youth division. When Denmark was occupied in 1939 the Liberal party whose electorate was largely made up of peasants and the petit bourgousie got along fine with the Nazis. Probably because of the huge profits made by selling agaricultural produce to the Nazis. The police bravely - well at least voluntarily - handed over all suspected communists to the Nazis to their tender care. So yes fascism did 'work' in other countries than Spain, Italy and Germany.

The two aformentioned parties are ruling the country today.

 

[redtom]

What is fascism?
According to my lecturer fascism can be united in its ideology by the following factors;
-Reactionary
-Undemocratic
-Nationalist
-Anti-communist
-Anti-bolshevik
-Bourgeois
-Anti-technology
-Anti-modernity
-Elitist
-Autarky (drive to self-sufficiency)
-Militaristic
-Expansionist
-Dislike towards people who are
-Poor
-Disabled
-"different"
-Homophobic
-Chauvinistic
-"Traditional"
-Anti-union

However, not all of the "fascist" movements throughout history have shared all of the above ideologies. But most are undemocratic, nationalist and anti-communist. They often have no "set text" ideology, they have no Fascist Manifesto; Franco and Mussolini thought this was to their benefit and allowed a certain amount of pragmatism. If they are voted in, they tend to get middle and upper class support.

Some are anti-capitalist, so I can understand where the confusing between Communism and Fascism has come from.
On the other hand, Communism does have differences:
it has the proleteriat support and the union support what fascism lacks. However, Marx did believe in the "dictatorship of the proleteriat" and hated "bourgeois democracy", so is undemocratic. But some Marxist choose ignore such quotes, and can be extremely libertarian in their outlook.

I do not believe that Hitler was fascist, he had is own ideology separate from Italian fascism, because of his background, proletarian; written ideology, "Mein Kampf"; and lacked a certain control ("polycratic autocracy"). He was quite obviously much too viscious even to compare to the worst of fascists.

I do believe there is a difference between between Soviet Communism and Marxist Communism, I do accept that Soviet Communist actions do mirror fascism in many ways but I do not accept it is fascism, due to opposition to fascism. Marxist Communism is a completely different political animal and is closer to social democracy then fascism.

 

[Cecasander]

I wouldn't call Nazi-Germany Ant-Technology, actualy quite the opposite. In WW2 Germany was -on militairy-technological terms- the superiour faction

 

[redtom]

Originally posted by Cecasander
I wouldn't call Nazi-Germany Ant-Technology, actualy quite the opposite. In WW2 Germany was -on militairy-technological terms- the superiour faction

If you read my comment at the bottom I exclude Nazism from Fascism.

 

[willemvanoranje]

fascism is also making the past look heroic

 

[Kamilian]

I wouldn't think that Fascism was anti-modernity.
In culture, probably, it would indeed strive to retain the traditions and values that are historically and culturally "linked" to the country that Fascists rule.
In most other aspects of life and development, the Fascists would be quite progressive.

 

[SanPellegrino]

Originally posted by The Godfather



This is an interesting question. Could the process that took place in Germany in the 30's have happened in another country? Could the majority of a different people than the german have been brainwashed and convinced to the same extent as the germans were? Would it be possible to create such overwhelming hatred towards one group, and justify such execution in a diffferent country than Germany?

if you are italian, how could you only ask? the fascist movement comes from italy, even the name derives from the "fasci" roman officials wore (of course you know this). And it wasn't the majority of german people that stood behind the fascists, they won the "democratic" elections in 1933 because of cheating - with help from Italy btw.

 

[Siegmund]

It wouldn't be easy for it to happen right now... but it could and probably will happen again sometime.

Others have commented on why fascist govenments have a hard time having long lifespans. I generally agree. But it's quite easy to "accidentally" let such a movement get a toehold and not be able to stop it until it's too late.

Next time someone tells you your freedoms are in no danger, take a good hard look at the last year and a half in the United States. "It's for your security" is such a convenient excuse, isn't it, to justify all manner of reductions in privacy and freedoms - everything from making it easier to get wiretaps to paranoid policemen seizing film from american citizens who were taking photographs of railway yards for their personal use while standing on public property.

No, the US isn't fascist and is a long way from it. But long ways are measured in years, not in centuries.

 

[Kennelly]

Originally posted by SanPellegrino


if you are italian, how could you only ask? the fascist movement comes from italy, even the name derives from the "fasci" roman officials wore (of course you know this). And it wasn't the majority of german people that stood behind the fascists, they won the "democratic" elections in 1933 because of cheating - with help from Italy btw.

Cheating?When Hitler was appointed on January 30th he was the first Chancellor with a parliamentary majority in 3 years,as only 3 ministers were Nazis and he had a coalition with DNVP after November 1932 elections.In March 1933 there again were elections,with the Nazis gaining 43%,so this is true,he had not the majority of the people behind him.But still DNVP and other groups supported him in Parliament,so he had a clear democratic majority by coalition.In his rise to power Hitler strictly hold onto the laws and (almost) all the terrible things he did like KZs,race laws etc. were perfectly legal as Hitler could sign every law he wanted after March 23rd 1933.
There were street fights during election campaigns and things like that,but this had happened before and was not only caused by the NSDAP.

 

[SanPellegrino]

kennely, the Nazis put extreme pressure on other right wing groups to support them and there is evidence that they faked some votes. But, of course you are right, many people were blinded by the promises Hitler made, Germany's economy was collapsed and like today, a lot of people believed in easy solutions.

 

[Kennelly]

Pellegrino,honestly I have never heard of the Nazis actually faking votes.Yes,there were SA and SS groups in the streets,but so there were Communist and Union groups.
These other extreme rights,like the DNVP and "Stahlhelm" to my knowledge only too happily and voluntarily joined Hitler in coalition,as they saw in him the opportunity to overthrow the hated Weimar democracy.Hitler was greatly under-estimated by men like Hugenberg or von Papen.Later on,especially the 'Zentrum' (Catholics) was "convinced" to vote with Hitler,but even there no Zentrum MP was beaten up or threatened (another case is the SPD,but they're a totally different matter).

 

[Phantom Lord]

Originally posted by Kennelly
Later on,especially the 'Zentrum' (Catholics) was "convinced" to vote with Hitler,but even there no Zentrum MP was beaten up or threatened (another case is the SPD,but they're a totally different matter).

Correct.

The Zentrum agreed to sign the "Ermächtigungsgesetz" (this could be translated as "empowerment law") in exchange for a treaty between Germany and the Vatikan.

To put it simple: The "Ermächtigungsgesetz" empowered the Reichskanzler (Hitler) to make decisions without accordance of the parliament. This was the point of no return for democracy in Nazi Germany - Hitler couldn't be stopped anymore.