Okay, I've been reading the arguements that have been coming from the dozens and dozens of camps in this whole discussion on Fascism and such, so here I am. I know I'm a newbie in these here forums, yada yada, etc., but whatever. My forum status has nothing to do with my intelligence. So...
I have nothing against the patch itself. I think it was made well and displays modern history, which we should all understand. If we don't, history will repeat itself. The only problem I have with the patch is the idea that "Fascism" and "Nazism" being portrayed as the same thing.
The Nazi party used a form of Fascism as a sort of piggy-back towards totalitarianism. Saying Nazi Germany IS fascism would be like saying Soviet Russia IS communism. I'm going to argue that Stalin was no more a communist than Hitler was a fascist, which I believe I am the only one that has brought this up unless I missed something through all of that reading. Now that I read more, Wolfshanze hit it right on the money saying both were totalitarians (BTW, thanks for making the patch).
Now, Socialism is state ownership and control of property, while Capitalism is private ownership and control of property. Those are givens. Democracies and Republics are more inclined towards Capitalism, while Communism would be Socialistic. Now, where does Fascism fall? Right in the middle of this. Fascism allows private property, but the state controls it. Nazism had both at one time, so in a sense, it was fascist. Keyword is "was". Later on, it restricted private ownership, so in a way, it was turning Socialist. That didn't stop Hitler from trying to exterminate the socialists and communists, though.
I wouldn't say Mussolini had racist or genocidal intent, but that's just turns into a "what if" question. Italy, or Rome, whatever you want to consider it, always had strong nationalism. Back in the ancient times, killing off Carthaginians meant destroying the civilization to ensure Roman dominance. Where was "race"? I argue that they never though much of race, seeing as how ancient Rome was always eager to accept other countries to expand their empire. I believe if Mussolini wanted to recreate the glory of Rome, genocide wouldn't be the real answer. Hitler thought otherwise.
Franco... Well, would he really be racist or genocidal? Spain has expanded so much in the course of history that "pulling a Hitler" would seem odd, as a significant portion of the world traces back to Spain anyway. All he did was crush opposition, which is what most fascist or communist rulers do anyway.
Now to Hitler. He didn't have blonde hair or blue eyes, so I don't know where THAT idea came from. He didn't create the Nazi party, but joined and became their leader. He wasn't even German. He was a guy from Austria that wanted to be an artist. Simply put, the guy is, was, and always will be crazy. A pretty idealogical guy for someone who didn't even have the credentials for his own views. It would be like, for example, an armless man wanting to mass exterminate all of the armless people of the world. Hitler was just insane, and most of you will agree.
There is a distinct difference between "nationalism" and "racism". I find it strange to pair the two, but it often is. This is mainly due to the impact of Nazism in the world. If I believed in "what ifs", I'd say that nationalism and racism would never be considered the same by many if Nazism never surfaced. And probably Fascism would never be considered the same as Nazism.
For me, the Fascist patch seemed more like a Nazism patch. Accordingly, I added the patch to my game (the form of government only) and renamed it "Nazism". The reason for this is because I believe that Nazism was nothing more than a totalitarian system. But that would mean I'll have to find a way to make Fascism fit into the equation. In my "Governments Patch" (WARNING: Don't download and install it. It sucks. Needs a lot of work.), Fascism was basically the same as the fascism in the Fascist patch, with the exception of resistance modifiers and assimilation. Since the Fascist patch's Fascism is basically the same as my version's Fascism, I'll need to work on differentiating them. It probably won't work, but a little research helps a bit...
I'm not a supporter of Fascism, Nazism, or Communism. I'm both a history buff and basically a Republican in my ideas. That doesn't mean I want the things I hate missing from a game like Civilization III that does a "rewrite history" theme. I want historically accurate references and such in my games. That doesn't mean I want things like America only beginning in the late 1700s or anything. It just means I want some kind of historical backing in my games. History makes my games more enjoyable. Making it out like the Nazism never existed in history seems out of place to me. Even if I do hate it, I want to know that it's there to at least crush. It gets tedious when I have to crush Democrats and Communists over and over again...
Oh, and my ancestory is split in two. One side comes from Austria while the other comes from the Philippines. Therefore, my view on "race" is simple. I don't believe in "race" diversity, and I believe that as time goes by, "race" won't be as "clear cut" as the politically correct people will want it to be. People are people, so why should it be that you and I should get along so awfully? Sorry, Depeche Mode stuck in me brain.
Summary:
* Nazism WAS a fascist movement, but soon became totalitarian. (arguement)
* Hitler is a psycho. (fact)
* Nationalism and racism are not the same. (arguement)
* Fascism and Nazism are different, though almost resemble each other, much like Marxism, Socialism, and Communism differ, although almost alike. (arguement)
* Lesser animals are tasty and money rules! (unimportant opinion, so ignore)
* Neo-Nazi's are just like Hitler: a lot aren't blonde, a lot aren't German, and a lot are psycho. (arguement, opinion)
* Hate groups suck! (opinion)
* Political correctness sucks! (opinion)
* Always relish in the history of the world: it's a model for the future. (statement)
And that's the end of my rant.