Completely not true, but ok
Thats the advantage of being a centrist, you can take the best bits of both walks and reject the nonsense
Oh please. I did my masters at history in looking at various British interpretations of fascism and their reaction to it. And i think it fair to say the conclusions may shock you. Yes it is indeed true that the most vociferous opponents of fascism were those on the centre right. Typified no less by Churchill. The left flirted with it at least to a degree because it was NationalSOCIALIST. I am not suggesting they were supportive. But they were not exactly implacably opposed either. That may be uncomfortable for you but its the truthThere was no "socialism" beyond the name, but I guess cheap ahistorical digs are easier than counterarguments.
Example #2 in why your opinion on what forms of non-violent protests should be completed ignored when discussing the right to non-violent protest in a democratic society. As with the first example - you only agree with it conditionally. Truly, a democratic soul. Good when you think it's good, and bad otherwise
. If you dont believe me read the 30s editions of the New Statesman and Spectator. So "cheap historical digs" should actually read "well researched historical evidence". Which is more than i can say for your post The rights sympathy with fascism amounts to the Daily Mail and their campaign for the blackshirts. But most of the centre right was fundamentally opposed to Fascism. The far left flirted with it. Hitler in the 30s was seen as something of a social revolutionary. It was only later he became the demon he is.
Oh please. I did my masters at history in looking at various British interpretations of fascism and their reaction to it. And i think it fair to say the conclusions may shock you. Yes it is indeed true that the most vociferous opponents of fascism were those on the centre right. Typified no less by Churchill. The left flirted with it at least to a degree because it was NationalSOCIALIST. I am not suggesting they were supportive. But they were not exactly implacably opposed either. That may be uncomfortable for you but its the truth
Politicians always say "things" about leaders when it suits them. What matters is policy. He declared war on him. That speaks for itself IMO. Not some silly soundbite from the 30s.
I reccomend a refund on the money spent, then, because this is literally ahistorical.
Well, there we have a nomenclature issue. There's a thing between old centrists and fascists who want to pretend they are not so they call themselves centrists. It's like Trump's recent town hall with ‘Republican and undeclared’
The left liked National Socialism? Do you mean the doctrine that held that leftwing thought was a sort of terminal and contagious mental disease and a product of Judaism so its proponents should be shot where they were found?Ironic really that the most vociferous opponents of fascism came not from the political left in this country, but from the political right. I suppose the left liked at least a part of National Socialism (i.e. the socialism). Thats the advantage of being a centrist, you can take the best bits of both walks and reject the nonsense
Let us never forget the shame of the defenders of democracy imposing an arms embargo on the Spanish Republic to even the field against the Nationalists who were allowed to get the support of Germany and Italy.
You need to stay off the mushrooms.
The problem is this point
Hitler decided the Jews were responsible for all that was wrong in the world and should be wiped out as a race. That is more evil than anything else.
Stalin decided that the whole of the middle classes should be wiped out as a class of people. Whether one murders on the basis of race or class makes little difference in my view. Both are equally abhorrent. And communism the world over has killed far more people than Fascism has.
Saying a class should not exist is a whole different thing to killing a whole ethnicity. Saying there should not be billionaires is not the same as saying kill all billionaires.
Around 100 million people were murdered because of this. And you are saying thats not "that bad"? Really?
I am saying that in my opinion deciding that an ethnicity is responsible for all that is wrong in the world and should be eliminated, building a political movement around that idea, taking over a country and then a continent and then implementing that elimination is qualitatively more evil than killing people who are in your way.
If you are putting all those in one box who else goes in Hitlers? What point are you trying to make?
My position is far simpler. Killing anyone for political purposes is evil. And ultimately you have to consider the results of these regimes and what they are responsible for. And i think it is beyond doubt that communism has killed more. But it should not be a competition in who is worse. Which is why my position is simpler - they are both as bad as each other.
