Essay talk:The Inevitable Failure of Nazism

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

The stupidity of Nazism[edit]

One more thing to consider: there is also just the sheer stupidity of this ideology. It's based on this mythological "Aryan" term that was supposed to be used for Indo-Europeans and somehow got twisted to mean "white European" (how convenient that your own "race" just happens to be the best one!) rather than and the whole concept is based on the horse vomit idea that races can be neatly categorized and then assign an also weapon-grade rancid human cerebral spinal fluid of an idea of "superiority" on top of the already-flimsy foundation. Anything constructed on top of pseudoscience WILL be bound to fail. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Well that would be the main point of the article, but rather than attack Nazism from the usual perspectives I thought I might try appealing to its adherents' pragmatism by pointing out the obvious fact that if they built their little fairytale enthnostate it would inevitably come crashing down due to a number of factors, most due to their own ideology. My hope is that this will convince at least few of them to see reason, though I'm rather doubtful it will work. GrammarCommie (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I think rather than trying to convince them first, you should use it as an opportunity to enrich yourself, and those who dislike Nazis, with knowledge, but with an interesting take, a new reason to dislike Nazis. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Will this article be expanded?[edit]

This Essay appears incomplete, or the essay is elsewhere and this page has no links towards that. I would like to contribute to it. CommanderOzEvolved (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@CommanderOzEvolved Given that this was an early attempt by me to write an essay (which I'm rubbish at, yes I know) attempting to point out the failings of Nazism from a practical angle (eventually they'd run out of scapegoats to murder and they'd still have the same problems as they did when they started the whole sorry affair), and given that I've moved on to other areas of interest... no, it's unlikely that I will finish this particular project. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 10:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Fatherland novel[edit]

Have you ever read the novel Fatherland by Robert Harris? It sort of has the same premise as this essay. The book is an alternate history story set in 1964 in the middle of a cold war between the US and Nazi Germany. One of the major plot points is that Hitler's Germany had been rotting from the inside since the beginning due to domestic unrest, economic stupidity, and constant warfare in the east. I think it's a pretty good read, and you might get something out of it. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@DuceMoosolini I might check it out, however one the major points I was originally going for was to point out that even if the Nazis had won WW2, even if they had completed "the final solution", and even if they had established their little dream of an ethno-state, it wouldn't have changed Germany into a utopia, wouldn't have changed the existing problems, and would have actually exacerbated them due to having a good chunk of their population (and thus their workforce to some degree) murdered. The main point, like so many critiques of authoritarianism, is that ultimately the average Joe/Jane doesn't move up in the world, and in many cases quite the opposite. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


If you aren't going to actually write this essay, remove it. And Nazism was nothing more than German ultra-nationalism mixed with eugenics, racialism, neo-paganism and anti-Semitism which were normal for the era in the liberal West too. All ultra-nationalisms are known for their extreme ethno-narcissism, obsession with purity myths, expansionary desires and contempt for society's weak. Calling Nazism an "ideology" is nonsense. Protestantism is an ideology, Marxism is an ideology. Liberalism is an ideology. Ultra-nationalism is just a mentality. "Your nation should be the greatest thing that ever existed. Screw everything that moves and build an all-encompassing empire". Gewgtweg (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gewgtweg Given the number of incomplete essays in Essayspace, not mention the complete ones that should honestly be referred to as screeds, I will not delete it. Further, Nazism is indeed an ideology, given that it meets all the basic requirements to be defined as such. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Ideology is what separates for example liberalism from socialism. What separates German ultra-nationalism from Hungarian or Italian ultra-nationalism? They're structurally the same idea, the only difference is the country. Hunt the "traitors", weed out the weaklings and minorities, screw the foreigners and make up myths about how special and awesome you are. It's that simple. Modern nationalism is more defensive than offensive. It's aggressiveness in the face of real or perceived dangers to the nation. When you get angry that someone is stealing your life, there's no "ideology" there. It's just passion. Gewgtweg (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Contempt for the weak? Cult of tradition? Action for Action's sake? I dunno there's things that were iconic about fascism that aren't just nationalism x 100. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
In Nazism's case there was particularly a lot of racial mythologizing involved. (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
There are a number of factors that make fascism distinct from run-of-the-mill nationalism. Among these are fanatical anticommunism, greater emphasis on internal societal hierarchies, greater importance of political violence, a belief that all individuals and economic activity exists to serve the government, and a belief that fascism is the only way to prevent civilizational decline. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 22:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
So you are saying that fascism is just nationalism on steroids? Exactly. That's why we call it ultra-nationalism instead of plain nationalism. You can't really claim Nazism was anything other than German ultra-nationalism. After all, it never came up with a new idea. Nothing in Nazism couldn't already be found as early as the late 19th century in other German ultra-nationalists. Ultra-nationalism distinguishes and defines itself by means of symbols and imagery, not elaborate intellectual arguments. That's why it's wrong to talk as if those movements have a coherent intellectual tradition that would make them an 'ideology' in a strict sense. They are born of expansionary ambitions, or by fears and national humiliations. That's all there is to it. The continuing fascination of people with Nazism is not because of its ideas, none of which was a novelty, but its (violent) actions. Violence and death has always fascinated humankind and the fewer ideological bubbles violence uses to hide behind, the more fascinating it seems. Gewgtweg (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
How did you manage to paraphrase to literally the opposite of what we(and it was all 3 of us) said? No one said anything like that. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
It was a reply to @DuceMoosolini. He argues that fascism is different from run-of-the-mill nationalism using comparatives. So he is in effect saying that fascism is an extreme form of nationalism. And that's exactly what it is. Have you observed ultra-nationalists from a variety of places? Even those from insignificant countries come up with elaborate mythologies to claim how special their nation is. Compare for example the stuff Romanian ultra-nationalists claim about Romania by looking at the 'protochronism' article on RW. How is that so much different to Nazi claims of superiority? It's essentially the same thing. The point is to prove that you are the center of the universe. Gewgtweg (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Changing the direction[edit]

If Hitler had been a 'more moderate' non-parliamentary right wing political figure would 'fascism' have survived longer? Would Mussolini, Franco, Mosley, Father Coughlin, D'Annunzio, 'and all the others of that broad ilk' and their various philosophical-writer followers have been able to develop a philosophy that could survive and interact with democracy and Communism? Or would the various parties have been able to survive their leaders? (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)