|
That’s kinda what fascism was, though. Socialism for the in-group and nothing (at best) for the out group. Probably why it was so popular - all the comfy promises of socialism to fire your bosses, cut your rent, reduce the power of bankers, etc; plus none of that would be going to the dirty [x], where x could be foreigners, Jews, Imperialists, immigrants, what have you. It was deliberately constructed to give it the talking points of the left and the right simultaneously. As long as you don’t think about it too carefully, it’s the perfect political appeal to everybody in a democracy. Hate the rich exploiters and the dirty foreigners all at once, just vote for Uncle Adolf. Trouble is, while it promises the best of both worlds, it really gives you the worst of both. All the secret police and confiscation of property you can shake a KGB stooge at, along with the furious exploitation of workers who have no rights to complain, object, or opt out. And then you get to add in the fun bits like the Nazis’ screaming incompetence, the Holocaust, the shocking corruption inherent in such a state and personality-centered system, etc.
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 22:37 |
|
|
I don’t know how important it was internally to socialist movements, but the fascist movements opposed to socialism cited it pretty extensively as a reason to fear socialists. Not sure if that helps your question at all, though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2019 18:07
|
|
|
Was the technology as widely distributed in Germany as it appears to have been in the States? Without knowing myself, could it be that urban centers/university towns had all manner of nifty stuff, but most Germans were working with older or non-mechanized tech?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2020 00:57
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:i feel like we're talking about two seperate things, (1) does your country, in general, have various technological things and (2) how many internal combustion engines have you personally handled. That’s kinda what I was getting at, yeah. The sarcastic “World Lit Only By Fire” take on the Axis powers was clearly silly, and those same powers did have good to great technologic capabilities, but the penetration wasn’t as deep in the Axis as it was in America. Whether that was greater material wealth, more even distribution of wealth, or a greater substitution of capital for labor I have no idea.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2020 03:07
|
|
|
Once naval air power had clearly become the decisive weapon in naval conflicts, outgunning and outranging the best naval rifles, it became apparent that BBS were large, expensive targets rather than the war winning assets that had (putatively) been up to that point. Therefore, naval architects rapidly converted these big, durable boats into effectively air cover for the primary striking arm, while retaining some ability to assault stationary targets.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2020 02:48
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I feel like often people are really more stumbling over themselves to justify a revolution being a revolution with its context in the evolution of ideology and philosophy and even throwing some personal moral judgments in there, which can lead to the idea that there are no "bad" revolutions, because if a big movement to change things has bad intentions, then it doesn't qualify. It's a weird circular logic kind of thing that sometimes seem like it's getting in the way of understanding why people do what they do by invalidating their beliefs. Granted that this did happen, and was bad, wouldn’t this still be more of a counterrevolution than a revolution per se, an attempt to return to the status quo ante?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2020 23:45
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:this is actually an interesting question and in my research if you pay close attention to the times people say things happened, soldiers stayed up late a lot Do we know that when they said: "Three in the morning" they actually meant what we would think of as 3am, or if it was a reference to some other way of marking time (something like a monastic prayer schedule, or part of their unit's drill routine, say)?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2020 00:58
|
|
|
Nessus posted:"but national socialism died with Hitler!" Uh huh, sure. Leaving aside modern Neo-Nazis, who I suspect just call themselves Nazis to give themselves some kind of “respectability”, I think it’s actually a reasonable thought. Hitler’s actual government was so much an act of doing whatever Adolf wanted, without regard to much of an underlying ideology, that you could make a reasonable argument than National Socialism in practice was really “Hitlerism” rather than either a coherent ideology or the program they actually ran for office with. Now, I don’t know how much of the ad-hocracy was actually known by either the civilian population or the military, but I can certainly see a tired officer believing that without Hitler there was nothing holding his regime/government together.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2020 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 22:37 |
|
|
I think the USS Tricky Dick might be fun as an Aegis cruiser, or some other electronic warfare ship. Does the USN run anything like WWI Q-Ships? As for the USS Trump, I’m thinking a littoral combat ship. Whole lotta noise and pomp, not a whole lot of substance. Bonus if it can’t actually fire its gun because the ammunition is too expensive.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2020 16:44
|
|