Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Military Failures of Fascism

acoup.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 30 posts

Re: The Military Failures of Fascism

#21

Post by red-iron-pine »

lava_pidgeon wrote: post #10
JuniperMesos wrote: post #9

I think this essay suffers from an attempt to define fascism so narrowly it only actually includes two countries - Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy, who were both defeated by the same set of powers in the same war - while simultaneously stating that there's a specific quality of fascism - namely, an unwise focus on the signifiers of military strength rather than actual military strength - that is applicable to a bu…

One thing in your essay I'd like to point out, that in no common definition Friedrich - Wilhelm II or Otto von Bismarck can be defined as fascist.

they were monarchs, and leaning to the standard absolute monarchy style of leadership whenever possible.

classical Mussolini fascism is corporatism combined with nationalism and elements of communism, mostly in whatever combination The Leader thought were appropriate.

there is no way the Junker class of Prussia would let a bunch of upstart capitalists tell them how to run their empire.

Re: The Military Failures of Fascism

#22

Post by kerblang »

fbn79 wrote: post #4

According to the dictionary definition of fascism ( https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fascism ), Stalin's Russia was also "fascist", and won many wars, invading and occupying free democracies (Poland) for years.

The soviet empire collapsed, even in the same lifetimes of many who saw its rise.

Lasted longer than the Nazi empire, I'll admit, but both were weak

Re: The Military Failures of Fascism

#24

Post by Isamu »

laserdancepony wrote: post #23

According to the author it is toxic masculinity that was the root cause of fascism. Just if someone likes to be spared the read.

Foul! No such thing was claimed.

>But war, war is something fascists value intensely because the beating heart of fascist ideology is a desire to prove heroic masculinity in the crucible of violent conflict (arising out of deep insecurity, generally). Or as Eco puts it, “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life, but, rather, life is lived for struggle…life is permanent warfare” and as a result, “everyone is educated to become a hero.”2 Being good at war is fundamentally central to fascism in nearly all of its forms – indeed, I’d argue nothing is so central. Consequently, there is real value in showing that fascism is, in fact, bad at war, which it is.

Re: The Military Failures of Fascism

#25

Post by Zigurd »

fbn79 wrote: post #4

According to the dictionary definition of fascism ( https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fascism ), Stalin's Russia was also "fascist", and won many wars, invading and occupying free democracies (Poland) for years.

Some of the features of Marxism Leninism may look like fascism when you step back and squint, but it's f-cked up in its own way. It's not even a far right versus far left thing. That's one of those neat symmetries that doesn't really apply.

Re: The Military Failures of Fascism

#27

Post by graemep »

arethuza wrote: post #13
graemep wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> whereas someone in 14C England, say, would not have known any other form of governance than the unchecked power of the State (strictly, the King) The king's powers were not unchecked. People had human rights by custom and law (Magna Carter, for example), parliament controlled taxation, aristocrats had a great deal of power, the Church had a lot of power. Nowhere near democracy, but a very different system from an u…

Robert the Bruce, King of Scots, held his position on the condition that "...if he should give up what he has begun, seeking to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own right and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King"

That is a pretty narrow requirement and what he wanted to do anyway.

Maybe it was required because as an Anglo-Norman himself, and his former position in England and his families former position, he needed to guarantee where his loyalties lay?

Re: The Military Failures of Fascism

#28

Post by arethuza »

graemep wrote: post #27
arethuza wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Robert the Bruce, King of Scots, held his position on the condition that "...if he should give up what he has begun, seeking to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own right and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King"

That is a pretty narrow requirement and what he wanted to do anyway. Maybe it was required because as an Anglo-Norman himself, and his former position in England and his families former position, he needed to guarantee where his loyalties lay?

Indeed, but it's interesting that it is included in the Declaration of Arbroath asking the Pope to recognise Scotland's independence - I think it might have been to emphasise that it wasn't just about his wants but all of the Scottish aristocracy?

Re: The Military Failures of Fascism

#29

Post by graemep »

arethuza wrote: post #28
graemep wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a pretty narrow requirement and what he wanted to do anyway. Maybe it was required because as an Anglo-Norman himself, and his former position in England and his families former position, he needed to guarantee where his loyalties lay?

Indeed, but it's interesting that it is included in the Declaration of Arbroath asking the Pope to recognise Scotland's independence - I think it might have been to emphasise that it wasn't just about his wants but all of the Scottish aristocracy?

I have no idea, but it seems to be an interesting question. I am going to ask a historian about this.

I did a quick search and i had no idea that Robert the Bruce was excommunicated twice and had both excommunications lifted!

Re: The Military Failures of Fascism

#30

Post by arethuza »

graemep wrote: post #29
arethuza wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, but it's interesting that it is included in the Declaration of Arbroath asking the Pope to recognise Scotland's independence - I think it might have been to emphasise that it wasn't just about his wants but all of the Scottish aristocracy?

I have no idea, but it seems to be an interesting question. I am going to ask a historian about this. I did a quick search and i had no idea that Robert the Bruce was excommunicated twice and had both excommunications lifted!

One of my favourite Robert the Bruce stories is about all the adventures his heart had once he died and it was removed from his body:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Teba

Post reply on HN