Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Lumpy on April 18, 2008, 08:54:56 AM
-
Does anyone actually believe fascism was defeated in WWII or that defeating fascism was actually a goal of the western allies?
-
Agh? :rolleyes:
You supported my argument that defeating fascism wasn't a goal for the western allies when you stated:
Tell me gScholtz, what design on world conquest did Franco or the other fascist states you mention have?
So in other words Germany's expansionism and aggression towards neighbouring nations were the chief motivating factors in the UK's war on Germany. Not that Germany was fascist.
-
What type of aircraft or vehicle is a "fascism"? :D
-
Lol, yeah, perhaps this thread should be moved to the O' Club. :)
-
Maybe Skuzzy would be so kind to do that.
Anyway, my shot at it is that at least the French and the UK went to war against nazism which is an extreme form of fascism. It was mingled with old grudges, worries, and agression.
Then, the UK carried the banner when the lines were clearer.
The USA had no intention on any war against fascism, and were on the sideline while the UK fought for its survival. Even after the BoB, there was not much of pro-Brit direct aid from the USA. (I can explain this with some lines hard to swallow...for those from the USA that do not know)
When WW2 became a total war, it was basically Fascism vs the others.
The fascist were completely defeated in the war....but the idea lives, and some countries dally with the policy.
And the intardnet is also full with fascist speculants....
-
BTW, I did recommend a read in another thread, which was Martin Gilberts WW2. So it applies here also. A lot there, day-by-day about what happened. As well as the aftermath. The reckoning...
The book sometimes makes me sick, or depressed actually. Conclusion is that WW2 goes down in history as a disaster. Ugly....
-
Has he responded to our opinions by saying we dont know what we are talking about yet?
If not then I'll wait. I'll bet Lumpy was President of his High School debating club. :rofl
-
Do not underestimate Lumpy. He has a sharp mind, and is a teaser by nature.
I have yet to see him make a slip on facts recently, while I have seen you do so.
Maybe he had just a few ales too many? Happens...
-
Do not underestimate Lumpy. He has a sharp mind, and is a teaser by nature.
I have yet to see him make a slip on facts recently, while I have seen you do so.
Maybe he had just a few ales too many? Happens...
And what facts were those?
Thats the problem isnt it? Telling people they are wrong, and generally suck, without taking a position your ownself or even saying what it was that was said wrong? Yeah right, theres a sharpie for you.
-
And what facts were those?
Thats the problem isnt it? Telling people they are wrong, and generally suck, without taking a position your ownself or even saying what it was that was said wrong? Yeah right, theres a sharpie for you.
Ask him is position on the waffen SS. ;)
-
In a feeble attempt to get the topic back on track . . .
Does anyone actually believe fascism was defeated in WWII or that defeating fascism was actually a goal of the western allies?
Fascism is an idea, not a "thing." Ideas rarely if ever truly die, as there is always someone somewhere clinging to it (even the stupid ideas).
I've never really thought the "defeat of fascism" was the goal -- if it had been, they would have done something against Franco, yes? IMHO, to the allies, it was more about self-defense / self-preservation. The big three in the Axis were clearly set on continental if not global domination, and therefore would have to be dealt with eventually.
Thankfully, Britain carried on the struggle in the darkest times and therefore kept the door open. Had they capitulated, IMO the isolationsts in the US would have prevailed, and the US would have learned to "do business with" a Nazi-dominated Europe rather than fight it.
-
I'll repeat what I said in the other thread. Franco was not a Fascist, and his dictatorship was not fascist either. There were so many differences between fascism, Nazism, and the regime Franco implanted in Spain it would take us days to completelly debate them.
But I insist: Spain was not fascist at the time. The nearest thing to a fascist ideology present in spain would be that one of the Falange (quite some falangists were placed in quite influencial spots at the time; but the Falangist movement and ideology were disliked by Franco. The Falangist influence in Spain diminished very fast after the Civil War ended) and the Falange was FAR from being fascist anyway.
-
Has he responded to our opinions by saying we dont know what we are talking about yet?
If not then I'll wait. I'll bet Lumpy was President of his High School debating club. :rofl
"Debate" implies that both sides are listening. Lumpy would have to have been the President of the Arguing Club.
And by the way, the very format of the question is ridiculous. Entire books have been written on the causes of WW2, and Lumpy is trolling for argument by pretending that there was only one cause.
Post after post, this guy is only stirring the pot. Next thing you know, he'll propose "Liberace was a closet family man", just to see what happens
-
I think fascism would have been left alone if the countries espousing it had not waged aggressive war on neighboring peaceful nations.
-
The US and Britain rather favored fascism (for RAM -- fascist-flavored catholic nationalism) over communism during the Spanish Civil War. And the highly conservative in both countries actually admired Herr Hitler before 1939, again related to both his hard line on communism and the perception that he had turned around the German economy. (In fact, many of the programs he took credit for began under the social democrats and much of the rest was militarism and rearmament). There were fascist and fascist-like movements in both countries that while hardly dominant, were not insignificant.
It was even highly plausible that there could have been a negotiated peace between Britain and Germany after the fall of France, as Hitler expected, but for that pesky Churchill, in no small part. In the end, fascist regimes were seen as the greater of two evils and we made nice with Uncle Joe to get the Hun on the run.
Charon
-
The domino effect of the network of alliances amongst European countries, is what turned Hitler's territorial ambition in E. Europe into a world war, the same way the "Great War" started. That, and America's commercial and possibly humanitarian interest in not letting the Far East be conquered by Japanese millitarists. The Roosevelt administration, btw, cannot be criticized too harshly, it did everything it COULD to help Britian's cause and bedevil Japan's ambitions, short of blatantly breaking neutrality. One must remember that Roosevelt had BARELY defeated Wilkie, a candidate whose only appeal was swearing to keep the U.S. out of war, by making the same promise. It took a Pearl Harbor to make America interventionist.
So essentially, the war happened because of German and Japanese aggression. Unfortunately for humanitarian idealists, the E. Europe we just saved from Hitler was swallowed up by Stalin with barely a peep from the West. (Returning Polish and Czech pilots who had fought in the BoB and beyond found themselves thrown in gulags, often enough.) China was allowed to become Maoist with little more effort, with attendant body counts that make Nanking look amateurish. Then the Most Powerful Nation on Earth belatedly decides to half-heartedly fight for the right of small nations to be free in two of the most awful backwaters of East Asia, winning neither conflict.
This stuff about Hitler and his mad scientists taking over the world with nuclear-armed jet-powered flying wings and other "Sky Captain" storylines is a revisionist&History Channel fib; Great dramatic and speculative fare, but not something most Americans at the time had in their minds as a reason for war.
I'm as patriotic a U.S. citizen as anybody (some would call me jingoistic), but in scoring WWII, I got to say, Fascism struck out, Western Democracy got beaned, and Communism scored, or was rather given, at least two homeruns.
-
(for RAM -- fascist-flavored catholic nationalism)
then half the world is fascist even today. I didn't know fascism was rising since half XIX century ,btw. Guess that guys as Garibaldi?.
Fascism is MUCH, MUCH more than "Flavored catholic nationalism".
-
Charon is correct.Had Britain and the western powers supported the Spanish Republic in 1936,WWII may not have happened.
-
In a feeble attempt to get the topic back on track . . . Fascism is an idea, not a "thing." Ideas rarely if ever truly die, as there is always someone somewhere clinging to it (even the stupid ideas).
I've never really thought the "defeat of fascism" was the goal -- if it had been, they would have done something against Franco, yes? IMHO, to the allies, it was more about self-defense / self-preservation. The big three in the Axis were clearly set on continental if not global domination, and therefore would have to be dealt with eventually.
Thankfully, Britain carried on the struggle in the darkest times and therefore kept the door open. Had they capitulated, IMO the isolationsts in the US would have prevailed, and the US would have learned to "do business with" a Nazi-dominated Europe rather than fight it.
To clarify: This thread was started as a result of an off-topic discussion in another thread where a poster forwarded the notion that the allies were justified in doing “everything they could to win” because they were fighting fascism (or specifically Nazism). To which I replied that fascism wasn’t defeated in WWII and that it wasn’t even a goal of the western allies. WWII was not an ideological war from the point of view of the western allies.
Angus also stated that “fighting fascism was probably the heaviest factor involved in the UK's decision to give little Hitler the long finger upwards…”. While this is probably fact it would be wrong to say that fascism was the “heaviest factor” for the UK to go to war on Germany. German expansionism and treaty obligations were probably far greater factors in my opinion.
I replied with: “If fighting fascism was the "heaviest factor" involved in the UK's decision to go to war then why did they not finish the job? Spain was a fascist dictatorship until General Fancisco Franco's death in 1975, and was a passive ally to Germany in WWII. Fascist Spain was allowed to enter the UN in 1955, and the United States even entered into a military and trade alliance with a FASCIST nation in 1953. President Eisenhower personally went to Madrid to sign the "Pact of Madrid". Then there is Argentine and Chile ... both fascist dictatorships; one of which would later go to war on Britain over the Falkland Islands.”
And by the way, the very format of the question is ridiculous. Entire books have been written on the causes of WW2, and Lumpy is trolling for argument by pretending that there was only one cause.
I realise that the first post is almost meaningless without the context of the other thread, and that I should have included more of the original debate. My bad.
The fascist were completely defeated in the war....
Only the fascists that were directly involved in the war. Spain, Argentine and Chile were not defeated in WWII, though Argentine was later defeated by the UK in the Falklands Conflict.
I'll repeat what I said in the other thread. Franco was not a Fascist, and his dictatorship was not fascist either. There were so many differences between fascism, Nazism, and the regime Franco implanted in Spain it would take us days to completelly debate them.
But I insist: Spain was not fascist at the time. The nearest thing to a fascist ideology present in spain would be that one of the Falange (quite some falangists were placed in quite influencial spots at the time; but the Falangist movement and ideology were disliked by Franco. The Falangist influence in Spain diminished very fast after the Civil War ended) and the Falange was FAR from being fascist anyway.
While you certainly are entitled to your opinion Francism is generally accepted as fascist. While support from America, the economic transformation of Spain in the 1960’s and the subsequent peaceful transition to democracy after Franco’s death may have created the impression that somehow his regime was not fascist, it clearly was if you look at the political organization and the actions they took. Just like there are many flavours of democracy (republic, parliamentary etc.) there are many flavours of fascism, and Franco’s “Movimiento Nacional” was one. Franco’s regime fully embraced the dictatorial “leader principle”, fanatical anti-communism to the point of genocide, fanatical nationalism and the elimination of any culture or symbol that was not truly “Spanish”. Thus the Basque and Catalan languages and culture were totally repressed. Between 1940 and 1942 approx. 200,000 people were purged in Franquist Spain. Mostly communists and people considered “anti-Spain”.
If you want to know more about Franquist Spain I recommend the excellent book: “Fascism in Spain, 1923–1977” by Stanley G. Payne. http://www.amazon.com/Fascism-Spain-1923-1977-Stanley-Payne/dp/0299165647
I think fascism would have been left alone if the countries espousing it had not waged aggressive war on neighboring peaceful nations.
Indeed.
Do not underestimate Lumpy. He has a sharp mind, and is a teaser by nature.
I have yet to see him make a slip on facts recently, while I have seen you do so.
Maybe he had just a few ales too many? Happens...
Thank you for those kind words! :)
… Vodka actually ;)
-
Don't you guys have better things to do then debate ideas on a stricly textual medium? Sheesh - what's the world coming to?
-
No.
-
Shame on you.
-
While you certainly are entitled to your opinion Francism is generally accepted as fascist. While support from America, the economic transformation of Spain in the 1960’s and the subsequent peaceful transition to democracy after Franco’s death may have created the impression that somehow his regime was not fascist, it clearly was if you look at the political organization and the actions they took. Just like there are many flavours of democracy (republic, parliamentary etc.) there are many flavours of fascism, and Franco’s “Movimiento Nacional” was one. Franco’s regime fully embraced the dictatorial “leader principle”, fanatical anti-communism to the point of genocide, fanatical nationalism and the elimination of any culture or symbol that was not truly “Spanish”. Thus the Basque and Catalan languages and culture were totally repressed. Between 1940 and 1942 approx. 200,000 people were purged in Franquist Spain. Mostly communists and people considered “anti-Spain”.
If you want to know more about Franquist Spain I recommend the excellent book: “Fascism in Spain, 1923–1977” by Stanley G. Payne. http://www.amazon.com/Fascism-Spain-1923-1977-Stanley-Payne/dp/0299165647
Lumpy.
I don't need a book written by a foreigner about my own country's history. I repeat that I have little symphaty for Franco and Franquism, but that no matter what an american writer thinks, it was NOT fascist, even in it's first years. It was a dictatorship, yes, but from there to fascism there's a world. There were some similarities. There were MANY differences. But it was a right winged dictatorship. Not fascist.
Now believe what you want. If you want to keep thinkin that you know more about spanish history than me (who I'm a spaniard) then all the worse for you.
-
Ah ... you're a Spaniard. I will take your posts with the appropriate grain of nationalistic salt then, just like if you were a German arguing that Nazism wasn't fascism. Just for your information Stanley G. Payne is considered the authority on both fascism and modern Spanish history in any language and has written among other books: "The Franco Regime: 1936-1975", "Fascism: Comparison and Definition", "Franco and Hitler: Spain, Germany, and World War II", "Spain's First Democracy: The Second Republic 1931-1936", and "A History of Fascism 1914-1945".
You will have to forgive me, but I'll take his word over yours.
-
Does anyone actually believe fascism was defeated in WWII or that defeating fascism was actually a goal of the western allies?
Fascism was defeated in Germany and Japan only.
The greatest irony today is that one of the strongest enemies of Fascism in WWII: Russia, has now become a fascist state itself under Putin.
Most ironic indeed that the nation that is now the most like Nazi Germany, was once its greatest enemy.
.
-
"Most ironic indeed that the nation that is now the most like Nazi Germany, was once its greatest enemy."
Wiki: "Among the key elements of Nazism were anti-parliamentarism, ethnic nationalism, racism, collectivism, eugenics, antisemitism, opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism, a racially-defined and conspiratorial view of finance capitalism, anti-communism, and totalitarianism."
More ironic IMO is that nazism and faschism are so defined with certain countries and times that people do not realize that such movements are formed by certain desires people have and thus it changes shape all the time and gains ground where it can. Of course such movement would not be possible today as it was in Germany in 1933 but in other form it could, and again only time would reveal, when looking back, that they were indeed of the same origin i.e. desires and forms of behavior people may develop while living in our form of civilization. Nazism was nothing new in human history but in the form it emerged it was easily defined and it left a distinct mark in our history books in its form. Hell, next similar think could be "bonkism" or "wankism" or what ever and it would not necessarily have the distinct "watermark" of nazism but rather be traced easily to certain human behavior models and social hiccups of our civilization. What I'm saying is that it is stupid to put you finger on the word "nazism" or "faschism" and think that you have it all under you finger... :P
-C+
-
Lumpy.
I don't need a book written by a foreigner about my own country's history. I repeat that I have little symphaty for Franco and Franquism, but that no matter what an american writer thinks, it was NOT fascist, even in it's first years. It was a dictatorship, yes, but from there to fascism there's a world. There were some similarities. There were MANY differences. But it was a right winged dictatorship. Not fascist.
Now believe what you want. If you want to keep thinkin that you know more about spanish history than me (who I'm a spaniard) then all the worse for you.
I'll have to side with RRAM. Although some historians suggest that Franco was a fascist, I've always seen him as more of an opportunist. Iron-fisted dictator yes, but one who went "with the flow" in order to gain and stay in power. Frankly (no pun intended), I think the man's only ideology was whatever brought him more power.
IMO, the biggest problem with "Fascism" is that most of us are incapable of explaining what it is. :)
-
Excessive disregard for the weak; weak re: some purpose arbitrarily chosen by some berserk leader.
To stay on topic: fascism is either an idea or a political movement. The idea is abstract so it obviously is oblivious to material warfare. The political movement is as good as any social movement.. It'd be an academic matter to study history and show how it suffered (mostly in number of adherants I guess) from WWII's fascists' enemies.. Sort of like hippidom was defeated (or not) by hygene and purposeful lifestyle. Or something :)
-
People here mixed up something.ww2 Germany - Nazism
ww2 Italy - Fascism
-
Hippydom defeated by hygiene? :rofl :rofl
-
I'll have to side with RRAM. Although some historians suggest that Franco was a fascist, I've always seen him as more of an opportunist. Iron-fisted dictator yes, but one who went "with the flow" in order to gain and stay in power. Frankly (no pun intended), I think the man's only ideology was whatever brought him more power.
IMO, the biggest problem with "Fascism" is that most of us are incapable of explaining what it is. :)
This is not an issue of whether Franco was personally a fascist or not, but if Spain under Franco was a fascist state.
Stanley Payne's "Fascism: Comparison and Definition" uses a lengthy list of characteristics to identify fascism, including the creation of an authoritarian state, a regulated state-integrated economic sector, fascist symbolism, anti-liberalism and anti-communism. He argues that common aim of all fascist movements was elimination of the autonomy or, in some cases, the existence of large-scale capitalism.
The "sub-type" of fascism practised in Spain is perhaps more closely related to clerical fascism (like the Ustaše in Croatia) than Nazism or Italian fascism. Franquist Spain had Nacionalcatolicismo as part of its ideology. Francism has been described as clerical fascist after the decline in influence of the more secular Falange fascists in the mid-1940s.
-
Must confess that I never dove into the close definition of fascism. However, I'd still regard Franco as more of a soft dictator (sort of a monarc by conquest) than a fascist really.
And Spain was on a different level than Germany, Italy and Japan.
Franco wasn't all that bad IMHO, and he had the brass to completely deny Hitler of his request to help out with getting Gibraltar out of British hands.....which is related to my thread somewhere below.
Hitler actually said that he'd rather have some molars pulled out than meeting with Franco again.
Well, my cents....
RRAM, you a spaniard?
-
"Most ironic indeed that the nation that is now the most like Nazi Germany, was once its greatest enemy."
Wiki: "Among the key elements of Nazism were anti-parliamentarism, ethnic nationalism, racism, collectivism, eugenics, antisemitism, opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism, a racially-defined and conspiratorial view of finance capitalism, anti-communism, and totalitarianism."
More ironic IMO is that nazism and faschism are so defined with certain countries and times that people do not realize that such movements are formed by certain desires people have and thus it changes shape all the time and gains ground where it can. Of course such movement would not be possible today as it was in Germany in 1933 but in other form it could, and again only time would reveal, when looking back, that they were indeed of the same origin i.e. desires and forms of behavior people may develop while living in our form of civilization. Nazism was nothing new in human history but in the form it emerged it was easily defined and it left a distinct mark in our history books in its form. Hell, next similar think could be "bonkism" or "wankism" or what ever and it would not necessarily have the distinct "watermark" of nazism but rather be traced easily to certain human behavior models and social hiccups of our civilization. What I'm saying is that it is stupid to put you finger on the word "nazism" or "faschism" and think that you have it all under you finger... :P
-C+
Except I never, ever used the word Nazism in my post. You are falsely putting words in my mouth here, which I greatly resent you doing.
I only used the word Fascism, which definitely relates a great deal to what Putin is turning Russia into today:
fas·cism
Pronunciation:
\ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date:
1921
Definitions:
1) often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2) a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
.
-
I'll have to side with RRAM. Although some historians suggest that Franco was a fascist, I've always seen him as more of an opportunist. Iron-fisted dictator yes, but one who went "with the flow" in order to gain and stay in power. Frankly (no pun intended), I think the man's only ideology was whatever brought him more power.
IMO, the biggest problem with "Fascism" is that most of us are incapable of explaining what it is. :)
If something walks like a Duck, swims like a Duck, and quacks like a Duck, it is very often a Duck.
(http://www.huelvayork.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/fransisco_franco_y_adolf_hitler.jpg)
"Our regime is based on bayonets and blood, not on hypocritical elections."
-- Francisco Franco
See my earlier post for a generally accepted definition of Fascism.
.
-
People here mixed up something.ww2 Germany - Nazism
ww2 Italy - Fascism
No, it is you and others who are not accepting Fascism as a more general term, which it is commonly accepted as being.
Just look the word up in one of the major dictionaries, as I have done.
.
-
Franco wasn't all that bad IMHO...
Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of people killed by the Brigada Politico Social during the reign of the Generalissimo.
-
Well, not that good either....but no match for Hitler :D
BTW, a book hint is
"Shadow of the wind" by Carlos Ruiz Zafón...happens in fascist Spain. For entertainment.
-
"Except I never, ever used the word Nazism in my post. You are falsely putting words in my mouth here, which I greatly resent you doing."
Glok, I didn't aim my post to you, just used you previous post to make a general point. Sorry if I made that impression.
-C+
-
Well, not that good either....but no match for Hitler :D
Well, next to Hitler, Pol Pot wasn't so bad, either. :rolleyes:
-
Pol Potty in WW2?
Stay on track. We're in WW2 okay?
-
No we're not. We're discussing the survival of fascism after WWII.
Also I disagree that Hitler was "worse" than Franco ... or Pol Pot for that matter. It is not important how many you kill, but why you kill them. If there were 6 million "undesirable" people in Spain I have no doubt that Franco would have purged them all ... and in that respect he was just as bad as Hitler. The Franquists may not have been so efficient about it though ... after all the Spaniards make for lousy Germans. ;)
Pol Pot I think is in a league of his own when it comes to evil. I keep trying, but I can't seem to think of someone worse.
-
While you certainly are entitled to your opinion Francism is generally accepted as fascist. While support from America, the economic transformation of Spain in the 1960’s and the subsequent peaceful transition to democracy after Franco’s death may have created the impression that somehow his regime was not fascist, it clearly was if you look at the political organization and the actions they took. Just like there are many flavours of democracy (republic, parliamentary etc.) there are many flavours of fascism, and Franco’s “Movimiento Nacional” was one. Franco’s regime fully embraced the dictatorial “leader principle”, fanatical anti-communism to the point of genocide, fanatical nationalism and the elimination of any culture or symbol that was not truly “Spanish”. Thus the Basque and Catalan languages and culture were totally repressed. Between 1940 and 1942 approx. 200,000 people were purged in Franquist Spain. Mostly communists and people considered “anti-Spain”.
If you want to know more about Franquist Spain I recommend the excellent book: “Fascism in Spain, 1923–1977” by Stanley G. Payne. http://www.amazon.com/Fascism-Spain-1923-1977-Stanley-Payne/dp/0299165647
Interesting as idealogies are they or us like to seperate them with terms such as Fascism, Nazism, Democracy, Communism etc.
But they all do have some similarities depending on who the"leader" is at the time.Their aims, goals & purposes are done under whatever banner they think will work at that certain instance in time.
A certain US President , who was a civil war general , tried to eliminate a culture with genocide. The term he used to describe this was" the final solution".
So a Democracy with fascist/nazism/communism overtones. What would you call that?
Doesn't matter what politically banner name is used when it comes to war.
So does that mean that ancient British & Germanic tribes ( & others involved) saved us from Republicsm when the Roman Empire fell or we were saved from Democracy when ancient Greece lost their power?
-
Well, WW2 or not, Franco still stood up against Hitler, when being approached about Gibraltar.
Hitler wanted to open up to the med, he needed a co-op with Spain to capture Gibraltar, and Franco said NO.
So, he was not a co-up fascist. He could have said yes, but he chose to say no.
Just this little thing could have altered the very course of WW2.
Anyway, about fascism after WW2....IMHO it was subdued but not killed. Simple really.
-
Anyway, about fascism after WW2....IMHO it was subdued...
Heh, tell that to the people of Stanley.
Simple really.
I have tried hard to find a reply that does not sound insulting. I'm left with only this: No, it is not "simple". Not by a long shot.
-
So a Democracy with fascist/nazism/communism overtones. What would you call that?
A genocidal democracy does not have fascist "overtones". Fascism is irreconcilable with democracy, and genocide is not part of the fascist ideology. Any government can commit acts of genocide and other crimes as history has proved over and over again.
-
Does anyone actually believe fascism was defeated in WWII or that defeating fascism was actually a goal of the western allies?
It is my opinion that an ideology can not be defeated in and of itself, that should be evident by just perusing the boards. The goal of the western allies was to defend against aggression. What rhetoric came after this is purely for the sake of propaganda or to further political agendas of those involved. Many countries used the axis aggression to pursue expansionist ideas of their own, but that is the nature of our beast. The aggressive countries were defeated, and that was the goal
History repeats itself, and will continue to do so. From Gilgamesh to Tom Clancy, the history of man is expressed. We are what we are, and to be anything else is a chore. Some are up for it, others not. The problems created by the First World War (more likely extending back to Napolean or even earlier) are still being dealt with today, though many of the allies and axis countries have changed allegiances. Since the past is connected to the future, we are all just chasing our tails in the end.
This is my take on the question/s posed, I make no claims to be an expert on anything, except maybe eating chocolate.
-
Heh, tell that to the people of Stanley.
I have tried hard to find a reply that does not sound insulting. I'm left with only this: No, it is not "simple". Not by a long shot.
Well, give me a few western fascist states today? Or western Nazi states? Nazi or fascist states in the 1st world?
-
Heh, now THAT is a loaded question. Why limit the search to "western" or "1st world". Is fascism dead if it only survives in the 3rd world? Obviously not.
Here are some lists of fascist movements in the world categorized by country:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fascist_movements_by_country_A-F
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fascist_movements_by_country_G-M
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fascist_movements_by_country_N-T
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fascist_movements_by_country_U-Z
And if you need me to name a fascist government today I would say that China probably is the most powerful fascist state around. China is no longer communist since they have embraced capitalism and personal property, but that capitalism is highly regulated. The Chinese government is also despotic and oppressive, especially towards non-Chinese people like the Tibetans and religious people like Christians. By all commonly accepted definitions China is now a fascist state.
-
Yes, but no fascist controlled country in the 1st world of old.
China was an interesting point though. I was more thinking of Zimbabwe.
But they are not of the old 1st world. Think, you had 3 of the more powerful European states under fascist governments in WW2, as well as the most powerful state of the far east. And even if China is an interesting point, it is no match for the definition that Japan had...
-
Yes, but no fascist controlled country in the 1st world of old.
China was an interesting point though. I was more thinking of Zimbabwe. But they are not of the old 1st world. Think, you had 3 of the more powerful European states under fascist governments in WW2, as well as the most powerful state of the far east. And even if China is an interesting point, it is no match for the definition that Japan had...
The defeat of the Axis was of historical importance in the fact that each of the combatants ultimately had to go through a rather dramatic split between the nationalistic element of fascism and its other major components - as in the case of Great Britain where it can be said that the "jingoistic" patriotic zeal of the populace and the governing bodies of the country finally distanced itself from the continental fascitic doctrines of Italy and Germany. Before the outbreak of WW2, fascism in its broader term, as Lumpy had mentioned, was a major political force in almost ever nation who would in the future form the Allies, with Soviet Russia as an exception. Naturally, the defeat of European fascism dealt a major blow to the fascist political parties within the Allied nations, and the opening of the Cold War had set a new bipolar political environment where liberalism and communism would take opposite stances.
However, fascism didn't die out, even in the "1st world". With the implosion communist blocs starting from 1992, the bipolar political struggle between liberalism and communism, which dominated everything else over all these years, also disintegrated into thin air. And with that disintegration resurfaced the old fascistic tendencies which was nurtured and reared by the "New World Order" - particularly in the case of Europe and Russia.
The rise of fascism usually coincides with times of major economical setbacks, as the populace loses faith in the old conservative-liberalist government. At the same time the absence of a respectable left-wing alternative drives the masses into the political ideals of a powerful nation-state, which would take strong-armed, agressive initiatives against domestic problems and "unite" the people for common welfare. Unfortunately this emphasis in unity often comes with a catch, in that in manifests in a form of "unity against a common enemy". For example, in the case of the USA, the fascistic element in a formal political party is certainly weak, however the basic stance its populace and government takes against the rest of the world, in the light of recent terrorist attacks can certainly be viewed as a sort of "fascism", in the sense that it opts for a near-totalitarian cooperation of the masses towards an ideal of "national security" and "order" at the expense of individual freedoms and democratic ideals.
In Europe, the destruction of communism has given rebirth to an old breed of fascist political parties - such as the "Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands" or "Deutsche Volksunion" of Germany, whom advocates aggressive anti-immigration laws, denial of the existence of the Holocaust, with suspected political activism consisting of domestic terror and violence against minor ethnic groups within Germany. The notorious "Front Nationale" and its spin-off, the "Mouvement pour la France", with infamous politicians such as Jean-Marie LePen, also advocates simular ideals as its German counterparts. The Italian "Movimento Sociale Italiano", and "Azione Sociale", are more or less direct descendants of Mussolini's party, and are very active as a major political force, boasting 10~15% followers across the country, with 41 senators and 71 government officials.
Perhaps the most dismaying of them all, would be the resurfacing of the old "Islamicization of Europe" crap by British ultra-nationalists as of late. This "Islamicization" crap, which its ancient roots may be traced back as far as the 11th century, had once become a major political issue during the 19th century when nationalism was at its peak. It disapperead around WW1 and WW2 when the Ottoman Turk empire was ultimately subdued, and hasn't been heard of since until recently - in the light of 9.11, the high numbers of Mediterranean/North African immigrations to Europe, and the public loss of faith in the old British Conservative party. Despite the overall numbers of Muslims in Europe still remain around 4%, British ultra-nationalists have dug up the "Islamicization" propaganda and has been using it against the multicultural, multiethnic ideals of which both traditional conservatives and leftwing political parties of Europe have been long advocating for. They maintain a racial purity of a sort must be maintained to protect the "British way of life" and the "British culture", against a "mongrelization" and "Islamicization" of cultures which a conspiracy-driven leftwing government (the British Labor Party) has been rooting for.
Russia, is probably the worst case scenario in which a natural and domesticated form of fascism has grown up to replace a communist system. The speedy transtion to capitalism has left a deep mark of social injustice and inequality where the new elites consisting of "robber-barons" and the mob, have virtually taken over the country. A deep feeling of frustration resides within many Russians where a once powerful country, has now been thrown into virtual chaos of the capitalist market, where the government system has failed to maintain order and injustice rules the streets. The once communist country is now entrapped in an opposite extreme, in which a blind patriotic zeal calls for an iron-fisted government that would subdue the chaos and bring order to Russia - a prime opportunity for weasles like Putin to become a "legal dictator" by bending the rules and toying with the election system, as well as moving the army and the police to violently crush the opposition parties of Russia.
More than sixty decades have passed since the defeat of Nazi Germany, and yet in many different forms, the very dangers which haunted humanity all those years ago still persist - especially in the "1st World" countries. It serves as a reminder that fascism is not a special, or an isolated event which has transpired, but rather it is a delicate and yet at the same time a brutal perversion of the democratic ideals, which is innate in the democratical system. When people are blindly driven by a totalitarian ideal, and when a dictatoral being grabs the opportunity of it all, people willingly, "democratically" go turncoat against the very essence of democracy by perverting their entire system into a machine of unity against common hatred for a fellow human being.
Oh yeah, fascism is very much alive everywhere. It just hasn't reached its full potential as it had 60 decades ago. Perhaps it never will reach such extremes, after the experience of WW2, but then again it is entirely possible that it might one day become powerful enough to at least send a significant numbers of law makers and government officials in a "1st World" country. Such signs of danger are showing up in many cases, which should remind the public of its united duty as a citizen to stop such political cancer cells from spreading.
-
Pretty good. And this one:
"Naturally, the defeat of European fascism dealt a major blow to the fascist political parties within the Allied nations"
Was IMHO good.
BTW, you'd say sixty years, not decades....
-
BTW, you'd say sixty years, not decades....
Yeowwtch, you're right. "Six" decades, not "sixty"... :confused:
English really ain't me first language.. really shows in these kinda mistakes.. *blechh*
-
Thought it was, and this is not fawning!
-
On a side note, it's kinda interesting.
The most common mistake I make is mixing up "hear" and "here"... since when I write something down in English, I seem to think it inside my head phonetically. I pronounce "I go here" in my head, and then write down "I go hear", not realizing I've used the wrong word.
Phooey for faulty brain activity..
-
Similar things happen to me all the time, like mixing up "t" and "d". And then the typos....
-
Excellent post Kweassa. :)
Angus, again, this thread is about the defeat of (or rather failure to defeat) fascism. It is not limited to the "western", "1st" or "old" world. That you keep trying to infuse such false limitations on the discussion is at best disingenuous.
And there were hardly three powerful fascist nations in Europe. Spain was anything but powerful, still recovering from a devastating civil war. And Italy, while powerful on paper, proved to have quite hollow legions and more of a burden to Germany than an ally. In reality there was only one powerful fascist nation in Europe at the time.
Also China is now far more powerful than Japan ever was. China has the largest army and air force in the world, and is building the largest navy in the world. China is a nuclear power with missiles that can reach any country in the world. China also has an economic strangle hold on America and to a lesser degree Europe. If (when) China decides to expand they will be unstoppable on the Asian landmass. The Chinese think long-term, always has.
-
Lumpy:
"Angus, again, this thread is about the defeat of (or rather failure to defeat) fascism. It is not limited to the "western", "1st" or "old" world. That you keep trying to infuse such false limitations on the discussion is at best disingenuous."
Not sure where I stepped on your tail here, but I'll try to make my point clearer.
Firstly, the thread topic is "The defeat of fascism in WW2". So, I try to stick with the fascist states of WW2.
Secondly, those were mainly 4, Germany, Italy, Spain and Japan. 3 on the same continent, while the fourth was the most powerful country in the far east.
Thirdly, they proved to be quite an adversary for the western nations as well as the USSR with Spain staying away. The whole deal....WW2.
Fourthly, they were routed, that was the outcome of WW2, and after that we have not witnessed a highly advanced (militarily especially) fascist state in the area of especially Europe.
But the threat prevails, if I may be so false to claim so.
Dohhh :huh
-
I'm slightly annoyed that you continually try to limit the discussion to the Axis powers, while the discussion is not about the Axis powers, but about fascism. Even in your latest post you use limiting terms like "mainly" and "especially Europe". You also seem ignorant of the fact that there were far ... FAR more than four fascist nations during WWII, and that the defeated Axis powers spawned new fascist nations immediately after the war.
List of fascist nations under and shortly after WWII:
Germany
Italy
Japan
Spain
Portugal
Austria
Greece - Joannis Metaxas' dictature
Brazil
Chile
Slovakia
Vichy France
Romania
Croatia
Hungary
Norway (under Quisling ’43-’45)
Argentina - Juan Perón admired Mussolini and established his own pseudo-fascist regime. After he died, his third wife and vice-president Isabel Perón was deposed by a military junta.
Paraguay - Alfredo Stroessner's Colorado Party made Paraguay a safe haven for Nazi war criminals such as Mengele.
Taiwan (1949-1988) - Chiang Kai-shek and his fascist Kuomintang troops occupied Taiwan after being evicted from the mainland by the Communist armies of Mao Zedong. He ruled Taiwan with an iron fist, denying the native Taiwanese population civil rights, maintaining a strong secret police force and punishing dissent ruthlessly while at the same time setting Taiwan on the road to prosperity. His son Chiang Ching-kuo began the move to democracy shortly before his death.
-
List of fascist nations under and shortly after WWII:
Germany I know, that mustache guy
Italy I know, that cocky short guy
Japan Yadda, and hard core
Spain The other guy with mustache
Portugal Missed that one
Austria Yes, because of the little Austrian
Greece - Joannis Metaxas' dictature...when was that?
Brazil Missed that one, but they dumped the system
Chile now THERE you're talking.
Slovakia- Under Axis control in WW2?
Vichy France Same
Romania Basically same
Croatia pro Axis
Hungary Same
Norway (under Quisling ’43-’45) Installed by the Germans right
And how many remain fascist today? There are traces of course, like in Austria for instance, but to me it looks like the people got a little fed up with the system, or at least with the outcome of it.
-
List of fascist nations under and shortly after WWII:
Germany I know, that mustache guy
Italy I know, that cocky short guy
Japan Yadda, and hard core
Spain The other guy with mustache
Portugal Missed that one - Most do. Even I :) - Although less restrictive than the first three, the Estado Novo Party of António de Oliveira Salazar was quasi-fascist. 1932-1968.
Austria Yes, because of the little Austrian - No. Austria became fascist in 1932, before Hitler came to power in Germany. The Heimwehr of Engelbert Dollfuss led Austria to be allied with Mussolini's Italy and then fall into the hands of Germany (Anschluss).
Greece - Joannis Metaxas' dictature...when was that? - 1936 to 1941.
Brazil Missed that one, but they dumped the system - Irrelevant. They were fascist at the time and were not defeated by the allies.
Chile now THERE you're talking.
Slovakia- Under Axis control in WW2? - The Slovak Populist Party was a quasi-fascist nationalist movement associated with the Roman Catholic Church. Founded by Father Andrej Hlinka, his successor Monsignor Jozef Tiso became the Nazis' quisling in a nominally independent Slovakia.
Vichy France Same
Romania Basically same - No. The violent Iron Guard took power when Ion Antonescu forced King Carol II to abdicate. The fascist regime ended after the Soviet invasion.
Croatia pro Axis
Hungary Same
Norway (under Quisling ’43-’45) Installed by the Germans right - No, more in spite of German wishes. Though the German invasion allowed him to take power after the legal government fled to England.
And how many remain fascist today? There are traces of course, like in Austria for instance, but to me it looks like the people got a little fed up with the system, or at least with the outcome of it. - Irrelevant. The question is how many were not defeated in WWII. Fascism wasn't defeated; it has slowly died on its own ... or rather is still slowly dying.
D- ;)
-
Quisling=put to the job by the one that had the guns. Well, he jumped and announced himself boss, and Terboven later did put him to the job in 1942 right? So, in short, Norway as a fascist state was made so by a big foreign fascist power.
Been reading up on it a little, interesting and sad story, Norway & Germany.
Anyway, my point was that that the fascism didn't just grow as a "wave", it was also forced upon nations as well as influenced by the powers surrounding.
-
Yeah, Quisling basically whined until Hitler finally gave in and gave him the job.
-
We even have the word....."Kvislingur" in our tongue, the normal word before being "Helvítis".
BTW, one of my great uncles friend did time with Odd Nansen in Sachsenhausen. Many of the greater characters of Norway were there he said. So no wonder they shot Quisling...
-
Brazil Missed that one, but they dumped the system - Irrelevant. They were fascist at the time and were not defeated by the allies.
Actually, Brazil was not only "not defeated" by the allies, but was one of them . . . The Brazilian Expeditionary Force fought in Italy. Kev367th made a Brazilian skin for the P-47D-40.
-
A little more.
Romania, caught between two evils since the USSR occupied Bessarabia. The king basically got stabbed by appointing Antonescu, in order to please the Germans, - Antonescu becoming ruler.
Bulgaria: Similar, and forced by the Germans to enter the war against the allies later on.
Hungary, - very similar as well (and well, they share the same cushion between the titans), as well as eager to regain territory lost after WWI. Always the same root....Versailles....but don't forget the roots in the anti-comitern pact.
Fascist states sort of getting there because of the circumstances rather than fascism itself?
-
Actually, Brazil was not only "not defeated" by the allies, but was one of them . . . The Brazilian Expeditionary Force fought in Italy. Kev367th made a Brazilian skin for the P-47D-40.
Yup. One of the allies was actually a fascist regime.
-
A little more.
Romania, caught between two evils since the USSR occupied Bessarabia. The king basically got stabbed by appointing Antonescu, in order to please the Germans, - Antonescu becoming ruler.
Bulgaria: Similar, and forced by the Germans to enter the war against the allies later on.
Hungary, - very similar as well (and well, they share the same cushion between the titans), as well as eager to regain territory lost after WWI. Always the same root....Versailles....but don't forget the roots in the anti-comitern pact.
Fascist states sort of getting there because of the circumstances rather than fascism itself?
Political ideas and political necessity are often (in fact most of the time) the result of outside influences. Fascism, communism, democracy all spread in essentially the same ways. America and her allies are even now as we speak trying to spread democracy by the sword. I think that is fundamentally wrong, but that is a discussion for a different thread.
-
Influence is influence, and a gunpoint is a gunpoint....
-
So what is your point really? You are being uncharacteristically "wiggly". Did fascism survive WWII or not? Yes or no.
-
It survived like a colony of bacteria after a penicillin treatment.
wiggle wiggle :D
So, instead of many of the most advanced nations having their crowds saluting marching fascist, the fascists frequently have to be protected from the crowd, - in many cases.
-
So, instead of many of the most advanced nations having their crowds saluting marching fascist, the fascists frequently have to be protected from the crowd, - in many cases.
Unfortunately, quite a scary fact is that it takes but a small cascade of circumstances to turn and manipulate the crowd from being a "patriotic anti-fascist normal person" into a "ultra-nationalist fascism supporter - without knowing it".
For instance, an economic recession turns the crowd into xenophobes. People start blaming the underpaid, exploited, and often illegal immigrants as if they were the main reason why people are starting to lose their jobs - when in reality through the process of "restructuring", corporate businessmen in high circles fire 20 thousand employees and then give themselves a pat on the back and a 50% raise. Although the notion of "class" became pretty much unpopular since after the destruction of the Communist Bloc and a setback in major Marxist ideals and their thinkers, quite surprisingly the lower 'caste' of the populace as a class, in above described situations, have a dangerously high tendency to be absorbed by ultra-national/ultra-rightwing ideals and start lashing out against either aliens or ethinic minorities in a vent of rage and frustration.
For example is my very own South Korea. One would think our little country, being so far away in the East, and has experienced colonial rule under the Imperial Japanese during 1919~1945, would think that it'd hardly have anything to do with fascitic tendencies.
However, after South Korea has become a major econmic force in Asia after the '80s, immigrations from more impoverished countries such as Indonesia, Phillippines, Nepal, Sri Lanka.. and etc etc.. have been surging, with each passing year bringing in record numbers of both legal and illegal aliens. This social phenomenon is very much new to us - unlike the Western countries which have been experiencing such immigrations for almost a century.
At first, such immigrations were viewed kindly upon, as it was a source of national pride. More aliens coming in meant that South Korea was economically powerful. And then, after the near-fatal economical crisis of 1998, the public view started to change. Although this crisis was mostly an international financial disaster, and hardly had anything to do with domestic employment rates, the impact was severe, and people started blaming immigrants for taking over jobs at lower wages - despite the fact that it wasn't anything like that.
The public sentiment began to lash out against human rights organizations and any such "left-wing-ish" NGOs who were trying to protect immigrant rights in South Korea. As economic failures loomed over the society, suddenly every crime committed by illegal aliens were making the headlines in the papers. Human rights activists were attacked and accused of "hugging the foreigners and ignoring national interest by protecting criminal scum". Everyone who had a dark skin color - as those of Southeastern Asians - were viewed as potential criminals and rapists and such.
Incredibly, a domestic surge of pro-fascist political parties consisting of young people under age of 30, has been witnessed during the recent decade. Nazism, racism, ethnic purists and such were never before seen in South Korea, and we don't have laws against such poltical cancer cells since it was never a problem. People simply assumed South Korea had nothing to do with fascism - boy were we wrong. In other words, our young generations are starting to turn ultra-nationalist right-wing.. in an environment where names like "Hitler" or "Mussolini" or "Nazis" were deemed to be something from far away lands.
Although these domestic fascists in South Korea are still very small, they are beginning to grab the attention of younger folk through mediums such as the internet or private publicatons. Again, since we never thought fascism would ever become a problem in Korean soil, we don't have any laws to protect and contain such menacing ideas from spreading around.
Besides, the recent growth of China, and their aggressive and nationalistic postures against its neighboring countries, in fields such as ancient history, has lured many young people into believing a bogus-nationalist view of ancient history which puts ancient Koreans as a "master race" of people, who've virtually started human civilization itself. They claim the ancient Koreans ruled the entire Eurasian continent, as well as the middle east states such as Assyria or Sumer.
I can hear some of you laughing... since it no doubt reminds you of thosee 19th century ~ WW2 bogus historic theories conjured up by dinky German academics, which was aimed to prove the "racial purity" of the "Aryan master race" who were the "rightful rulers of the European continent". Those late-romanticism piece of craps and their fetish towards horned helmets... "the purest of the breed, the Aryans" giving a new birth to European civilization after the fall of the Roman Empire... and blahblahblah ad nauseaum.
However, it is no laughing matter. A cult of "amatuer historians" have forged a number of bogus ancient history texts, and this gained so many supporters that major broadcasting channels started making history dramas and movies based on such forgery. Incredibly, more than 30~40% of the population now believes that there are some truths to such outrageous and ahistorical claims, despite warnings from professional historians that such views are far from the truth.
In short, recent turn of events in the socio-political situation of South Korea, has brought up a domestic line of near-fascistic and ultra nationalistic cults which is starting to gain momentum. Unlike the European states or the USA, which have fought against such diseased political ideologies during WW2, and has gained at least some measure of "antibodies" against it, South Korea is totally unprotected and unprepared. We are being caught by the balls in a swift, surprise blow coming from domestic fascists, and the politicians don't even know the society is under such attack.
The only thing that keeps these domestic fascists from becoming a major political force in South Korea, is that their movements are very exclusive and generally do not tend to form alliances... as well as the "old traditional" conservatives and political elites of South Korea, coming from the Liberalist Party or the military dictatorship heritage of old, are usually really very "old" in their thinking, and do not consider such domestic forces comprised of young people as viable political partners in sharing power.
...
What is happening in my Far-Eastern country, should provide some insight to this discussion, in that "fascism" is not an exclusive phenomenon.
Fascism is an ugly, perverted version of democracy in its worst form, where people give up individuality and willingly turn totalitarian and through a pseudo-"democratical" process, and start making scapegoats to blame their domestic problems upon. During times of crisis, such as economic crises, the public is lured into believing a government-driven action plan of "purging" the society of "ill elements" for the cause of national interest.
In other words, no country is totally immune, and it can happen anywhere - even in a country as ours. They are like mushrooms after a rain. One day, the crowd itself becomes the turncoats.
So in all due seriousness, I don't think its a laughing matter.
-
Very good post Kweassa :aok
We'll stay awake so to say.
BTW, did you read "The Wave" ?
-
Very interesting, Kweassa. Thanks for sharing.
-
Could be worse, Kweassa.
You COULD live in a country where immigrants set the cities (and a few people) on fire, then when some former sex-pot actress gets cranky about the situation, this country decides SHE is the one who needs to be put on trial, for nothing other than speaking her mind.
Really, the tragedy of all these people analyzing "isms" is that they focus on the "ism", instead of what is really happening...government/leaders throughout history siezing any opportunity/excuse to grow beyond all bounds and become tyrannical. The justification for the state's existence and authority is as a mechanism to protect the citizen from being robbed/killed/raped/trampled on by bad individuals, yet time and time again we see how the citizens fail to control the machine they have built, and it practices killing/robbing/trampling on a scale no individual or gang can touch. Doesn't matter whether the ideal in question is Cathlocism, Protstantnism, Divine Right of Kings, Fascism or Communism...
That is why WWII, despite the bravery of the citizens of the United States, Britain, France, Poland, etc, was ultimately a failure. When Eastern Europe ended up swallowed by Stalin instead of Hitler, when you have a situation where returning Polish veterans of the Battle of Britain were thrown in the gulag, when large swaths of Eurasia, China, and SouthEast Asia were saddled with regimes just as evil and more deadly than Hitler's, no rational person can claim victory, either for the right of small nations to be independent or that of persons to be free.
BTW, as I pointed out in my allusion to Brigitte Bardot's trial, one of the leading isms in the Western World today being used as a justificaiton for slowly strangling rights of the citizens, especially the right of free speech, is so-called "tolerance", egalitarianism, "human" rights, whatever they are calling it at this time.
-
Good point.
LOL, in a sense this is happening in the democratic countries, where the legislations are getting forced down you more and more, all thet surveillance and such.
But as for the failiure, Western Europe was taken away from the Germans, so that was a good thing, and out of the two evils, I'd have gone commie rather than living under Hitler :D
-
Good point.
LOL, in a sense this is happening in the democratic countries, where the legislations are getting forced down you more and more, all thet surveillance and such.
But as for the failiure, Western Europe was taken away from the Germans, so that was a good thing, and out of the two evils, I'd have gone commie rather than living under Hitler :D
Depending on your ethnicity and station, that may or may not have been the smart choice. Fascism is economically superior to Communism, its idealogy being less economically centered than Communism and thus more flexible in that regard. A Jew would be worse off under Hitler, a moderately succesful farmer, under Stalin. As for other considerations, the ideological basis may be different, but world Communism was just as brutal and ultimately resulted in more bodies. In fact, Nazism in Germany was partly a reaction to Communist terrorist activity in Eastern Europe, the same way certain evils in today's America are a reaction to Islamic terrorism...but I digress.
Yes, once France, and especially our English cousins were under attack by Hitler, we were committed to WWII. A non political-suicide way to enter the war would have been found, even without Pearl Harbor. However, the reason the French and English entered the war was to suppress Hitler's aggression in the East. Which itself is something of a carryover from the 19th century, when many nations of Eastern Europe were carved out of the Old Austro-Hungarian empire an an attempt to give the ethnic groups there their own states. Which is what was called "Nationalism", ironically enough, considering what happened later.
IMHO, the nations of the world suffered alot of young men dying in the most horrible ways imaginable, lots of women and children incinerated, etc, just to let Stalin grab up Eastern Europe and have HIS Evil empire oppress at home and rattle sabers abroad for 50 years until it collapsed under its own weight.
-
Well, I was just referring to ...me. I'm not a jew, so rule that one out :D