Military Review

About the "terrible Russian fascists"

53
В результате определённых historical событий 20-го века имя «Гитлер» и название «нацизм» стали нарицательными. Так случилось, так произошло. Поменять что-то тут очень сложно. То, что на самом деле Гитлер был не совсем тем человеком, которым его рисует пропаганда, и то, что на самом деле фашизм и нацизм явления несколько разные (очень разные) — уже другой вопрос. Сложилось то, что сложилось, и произошло именно то, что произошло. И Гитлер, и нацизм/фашизм (на Западе чаще употребляется именно слово «наци» с его производными) стали своего рода брендами (антибрендами).


It impressed so tightly into the mass consciousness after the Second World War. Both here and in the West. Hitler is bad, and the Nazis are bad. And it has become such a stable stereotype, so stiff and numb that it is virtually impossible to “break” it. But the story is on, the political situation is changing, and after the 1991 year, certain funny conflicts began to arise. In principle, they began to arise even earlier, when the FRG became a part of NATO and the EU - that is, in fact, “their own” country, but the USSR — just the enemy.

But it has become most clearly and openly manifested in recent years (life goes on, and politics does not stand still). Hitler was an absolute evil, and he with his hordes can not be justified, but what to do, how to act in the current situation? He was just the de facto all-European (western) leader, and he fought with Soviet Russia ... and lost to Soviet Russia too.

It was here that everything started to turn out ... There are quite a few aspects of this problem, one of the most interesting is the accusation of modern Russia in fascism. A kind of "knight's move." As already mentioned, it is not by chance or unexpectedly once. There is “bad fascism”, and someone must be extreme. It is clear that leaders, for example, do not want to be categorically extreme in Germany, and none of the European leaders want it.

Meanwhile, fascism (Nazism) did not arise suddenly and immediately, but is a kind of organic part of European history / culture. It is European, but not Russian. The history of the emergence and development of the fascist (Nazi) ideology is certainly a very interesting and even fascinating topic, but that is why it has been studied fairly well (it’s too late to describe them). Hitler, Mussolini, Franco fit perfectly into European culture and history.

They are “theirs” completely, finally and irrevocably. In 20 / 30 of the 20 century, fascism / Nazism in Europe was a kind of "mainstream". To deny it is absolutely meaningless - it was so, you cannot throw out the words from the song ... If it were not for the crushing defeat of the Axis powers, it is not known how the further European (and world) history would have been formed. The future of humanity for many generations to come might be quite a National Socialist one.

Fascist regimes in Hungary, Croatia, Romania, too, looked quite to themselves organically. And they had quite a prospect for a different outcome of a big war. But not in Russia. The regime that emerged in the USSR was, so to speak, communist, which categorically and fundamentally distanced itself from both “bourgeois democracy” and various Nazi / fascist regimes. Ideological differences, for example, between Hitler and Stalin were fundamentally insurmountable. Not even that: there was a gigantic gulf between them, which was impossible to overcome.

If anything: the regimes of Mussolini, Hitler and even Franco no They did not know the problems with legitimization - they were recognized almost immediately. But the USSR, with international recognition, had just huge problems ... Giant problems. Finally, they were resolved closer to the end of WWII. Or even in Potsdam. Already after the war. But Herr Hitler from such concerns was completely spared, as was Signor Mussolini ...

Let us recall: the USSR from the moment of its formation until the moment of its collapse was in the most severe ideological blockade and political isolation, but from the German Nazis no one was devil in 30-s. And even more - they actively cooperated with them.

Attempts today to unite Nazism / Fascism and Communism under the name of some "totalitarian" ideologies raise too many questions - the attitude to them in the West was too different. It does not fit somehow. Today, someone there in the West "does not see any difference," but before WWII, the "difference" was simply glaring. And the "brand" of communism is so "lit up," that merging it with "Nazism" into a single whole is still not a child’s task.

I’m not talking about that — a good idea is “communism” or not, but about the fact that she lived for herself an independent life and had quite characteristic signs. She had very little in common with Nazism. Even then, in the 20-e / 30-e years, Stalin was against Nazism. That is, he opposed the Nazis, when "it was not yet a trend"!

You can find hundreds of photos of Western politicians who visited Hitler and the houses that were friends with him ... But everyone knew everything about the Gestapo and about the concentration camps, but almost no one was outraged ... Nobody really wanted to get up "to fight the Nazi regime" in Europe 30 ... In the US, too, no one got on the watch ... And now we have to prove that just Russia is the main culprit and almost the main stronghold of the totalitarian Nazi idea ... But you will not find a picture of Stalin with Hitler - you have to make collages.

Because there is such a political order - that is why. The trouble is this: there was a very tough confrontation and an absolutely uncompromising war, including in the ideological sphere. Hitler’s Nazism and Stalin’s communism are not compatible at all. That and the other doctrine are absolutely clearly and unequivocally stated in open works and implemented in practice. Information is available to everyone.

So, if the basis of the Soviet ideology is internationalism and friendship between nations, then the ideology of "racial superiority" was clearly spelled out in the ideology of Germany. Excuse me, what is there in general? The problem of overpopulation of the planet and the shortage of resources in the USSR and Germany were solved in their own way - the solutions were absolutely “perpendicular”.

By the way, the German-Nazi version of the “bright future” (in case of victory in the east / non-aggression on the USSR) had quite good prospects. But what have the USSR, Stalin and the communist ideology? Today, intensive efforts are being made to prove that the USSR and Nazi Germany or Stalin and Hitler are one and the same. Strange such attempts ... between the two systems there was an overt antagonism.

For them, there was an absolute and obvious incompatibility: after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Hitler had enormous ideological problems both within Germany and with the European-fascist allies, and even with “militaristic Japan” - nobody understood him. Exactly ideological Problems. Any agreements with England or France did not cause any disputes, but here there was a “plug”. This pact was not accepted and understood neither in Italy, nor in Spain, nor in Japan. Hitler raped from this pact, on the one hand, great practical benefits (we are talking about this!), But, on the other hand, he pushed away the wide Nazi-fascist public.

That is, even for the absolute dictator Adolf Hitler, the pact with Stalin had a very high price in the field of ideology (unlike the pact with almost any other country). And today we are told that Stalin and Hitler (and their regimes) are twin brothers! So what if they did not merge then in totalitarian ecstasy? Something prevented them ...

One of the reasons for Hitler’s attack on the USSR is a categorical and complete ideological incompatibility with it. Hitler's regime and Stalin's regime could not long exist under the same sky. Here with Franco and Mussolini, “living together” was possible, as well as with the regime of Horthy in Hungary, as well as with Antonescu in Romania, but not with Stalin and the Communists.

In principle, quite recently it was rather strange to talk about it, but time passes ... political attitudes change. And today, they are persistently trying to prove that the regimes of Hitler and Stalin were as close as possible to each other. If this is true, then what prevented their “tender friendship”? War is not for life, and death is not a joke for the sake of.

During WWII, Hitler repeatedly and aggressively sought a truce with the Western allies. "Sit War" - this is just a continuous attempt to "agree on good terms." Hitler, in principle, did not want to take Paris, but I had to. But in relation to the USSR, everything was much simpler and more brutal. Nobody in Berlin tried to stop the fighting on the Eastern Front, no one was looking for a truce, even when the front rolled back. And ideologically this was unacceptable.

But not with the Western allies ... That is, there was an ideological gulf between the Third Reich and the USSR, and there was no ideological gap between the Reich and the allies ... why? Even during the “joint war with the Nazi regime”, the level of trust achieved by Hitler in the West in the 30 was very difficult for Stalin to achieve.

Why all this long and banal introduction - to retell the "doctrine of democracy", the "doctrine of Nazism" and the "doctrine of communism" - is a long, tedious and unnecessary today with the Internet. The author simply wanted to show that the communist doctrine was absolutely separate and “equidistant” from both Nazism and “bourgeois democracy”, which were just in tune with each other.

Alas, it was so. Alas, today it must be proved! The conversation is not about whether this very “communist ideology” is good or bad, talking about the fact that it is not compatible with the Nazi ideology of the Third Reich. And Hitler knew about it. That is why he attacked in the early foggy morning of June 22. The Third Reich and the USSR could not exist side by side - alas, it is. It's a shame that the then German ideologists and politicians understood this perfectly well, and many contemporary Russian / foreign historians did not.

And many foreign (including “short-sighted”) journalists and publicists with bloggers refuse to understand this flatly. Just the "anti-brand" of Hitler / Nazis / fascists is very well promoted and I want to take advantage of this.

And there are “bold” accusations that real Nazism is there, in Russia, and Putin is a kind of “Hitler today” and someone even remembers something about the Sudetenland ...

Here it is strange, gentlemen, comrades, it is very strange - imagine that you drink only jelly, tea and juice, and you are publicly accused of alcoholism and offered to encode; Imagine that you are eating like not in yourself and do not interfere with any photo already, and you are immediately reproached for anorexia and offering a boutique with sausage; Imagine that you do not miss a single skirt and that you see the meaning of life, and you are suspected of hidden homosexuality ...

"Abydna, you know." It’s strange for the old brewer to hear accusations of not wanting to watch football in the pub with friends or even crush a glass and a kebab ... Seriously, Russia's accusations of fascism are not normal, not because we are holier than the Pope of Rome, but for more banal reasons. There was not and could not have been fascism in Russia because communism was here (as ideology, not a form of social order), but communist and Nazi / fascist (as well as bourgeois-democratic!) Ideologies are completely incompatible.

Alas, sadly ... Generally speaking, the analysis of these three ideologies and their interaction is a topic for very serious research. After all, this was one of the reasons for the Second World War ... and indeed it is one of the ideological stages of human development.

But to interfere with Nazism with communism is somehow quite strange. Illiterate completely. Putin can be very well and logically accused, for example, of “neo-Stalinism”, “neo-czarism” or something similar. There is logic here, and there is at least some space for discussion. But Nazism? But Hitler and his ideas in Russia? Somehow it is very strange and wild, as they say: the article is different and the term is different ...

Talking on whether a communist ideology is good or bad is a never ending topic and separateand here we will not deal with it. But its uniqueness and unusualness, especially in the Russian interpretation, is a fact not subject to any doubts. By the way, the very fact of the accusations of “fascism” is an excellent evidence that the “historical trial of communism” did not take place. Therefore, we have to beat those that are - comparisons of Putin with Hitler. And by the way, why not with Stalin? If we are looking for analogies?

Or at the worst with Beria (who came to success)? A good accusation and a powerful one, they say, Putin succeeded in what Beria failed in 1953 ... But nobody is in a hurry to drop such accusations. In the end, Putin was originally a “KGB agent” and a “commie”, which in principle no one denies. And the criticism must go with the foundation precisely on this obvious base. In principle, in the 90s this would have been possible even in Russia, but now it is no longer 90s.

It is necessary to criticize and it is necessary to “print”, so to speak, the Putin regime against the “wall of shame”, and what could be better for this than a comparison with the Third Reich? Yes, almost nothing. The whole trouble is in a completely different genesis of modern Russian power. Again, the question is not whether it is good or bad, but that it has nothing to do with the European fascist history. Other, everything else. Therefore, the transitions are made quite strange - they say, and what's the difference? Yes, no difference!

Sorry, this is not proof. Hitler today is as if not Putin, but just Mrs. Merkel. A united Europe under German leadership ... just what the Führer dreamed of! (With a clear hierarchy of nations and nationalities.) What we have today - in many respects the repetition of 30-s of the last century in Europe, everything is so, and that is why ideological debates about “terrible fascists” become so popular.

The whole misfortune of European propagandists (and they were singing along from the territory of the former USSR) in that, both territorially, ideologically, and stately, in Europe 30s, everything was very clearly spelled out: it united around Nazi Germany and worshiped the swastika. And it was very hostile to communist Russia (from Portugal to Finland!). Attempting backdating everything “pereobut” - a very strange occupation, owl on the globe refuses to fit categorically, even with a terrible creak.

An attempt to prove that fascism is just Russia, and Europe is a tse democracy ... well, this is the brightest version of the “parallel story”. Fascism and its extreme stage German Nazism triumphed throughout the European "semi-continent" from Norway to Romania and from Finland to Spain, at Stalingrad "German Germans" made up less than half of the prisoners of war - it was a pan-European crusade against Russia under the banner of fascism ... and then some Russian-speaking (but, of course, not Russian) clowns tell us about Russian fascism, which is even worse than German. So Karl Martel can be recorded as a “jihad warrior”.

Particularly “distinguished” in this regard is modern Ukraine with chanting “UPA heroes” and the “Galichina division” and simultaneous use of a swastika / mustache and such a wonderful slogan in Putin's caricatures: “We won Hitler, we will defeat Putler!”. Guys, do you like to put on your underpants, or remove the cross? ... UPA heroes who defeated Hitler ...

Following the Nazi ideology while simultaneously (formally) denying this very ideology ... what could be funnier and at the same time more disgusting ... So yes - the Nazis, they are just there, “in Ukraine”, it is there that armed groups of Nazi militants officially exist, there are regular flare processions ...

And as we all know, torchlight processions are just one of the most vivid symbols of Nazism / fascism. I recall the criticism of Hitler against the torchlight processions in Italy: no order! They will burn Rome! It is logical that it was the Germans with their discipline who held the torchlight processions just perfect, and of course, the modern Ukrainian Nazis, of course, need to learn from the "older comrades" and in no case burn Kiev. The Fuhrer would not have approved, as indeed, the gauleiter Koch. Ordnung muss sein.

In principle, fascism / Nazism is a birthmark of European civilization, its integral part. Her dead end and her emergency exit. Nazism and Europe - the topic is endless, but what does Russia have to do with it? Russia is not entirely Europe and Russia in the 20 century chose a fundamentally different ideology ... Which one can love or dislike, but confused with the "fascist-common" or the "Nazi-German" rather strange. With the same success, Iranian ayatollah can be publicly thrown into accusations of Zionism ... or Wahhabism ...

Any difference, speak? Well, if for you there is no difference between philatelists and homosexuals (bibliophiles and pedophiles), then yes, of course. The same thing, the same thing. How did the classic say? Galileo was from Galilee, there is such an area in the Kuban ...

Gentlemen, before you talk about big politics, learn basic terminology, but it turns out quite funny. And yes, you were going to “expose communism”? So expose ... Flag in your hands. But it is precisely communism as such, and not some kind of “Russian fascism” by replacing the concepts that, they say, Stalin is the same Hitler, and Putin is Hitler today. Do not distort. And then after all these kunshtyuki many have a bad suspicion that “after all, in fact, the communist idea is a holy and eternal one”.

Once again: there was a certain serious difference between fascism and national socialism, but there was a considerable difference between fascism (phalangism) Franco and Mussolini's fascism ... These were not national ideologies completely identical to a certain "standard" of fascism. And if someone put such an equal sign between them, then Franco and Mussolini were very offended. National features were everywhere. By the way, fascism in Europe 30-x is a very fertile topic for serious research (not propaganda, as in the USSR-e).

But in general, today, taking into account the real events of 30-x / 40-x, "fascism" and "Nazism" can be written alongside. There will not be a big mistake here, although the veterans of the “Iron Guard” from Romania are certainly offensive.

But with communism, this number will not pass. Communist ideology is like a separate one. I understand that I really want to put an equal sign and even identities, but alas. That is, the task of criticism of the communist ideology (and practice!) Cannot be reduced to the task of the (already solved) criticism of Nazi ideology and practice. The trouble is that by the 70-m / 80-th years in the USSR, all this had degenerated into purely religious statements that communism is very good (realization of the forces of light), and Nazism is very bad (realization of the forces of darkness).

Such a purely religious simplification greatly hinders the understanding of the deep theoretical and practical differences between the Third Reich and the USSR. Today, we in Russia live outside the framework of a powerful ideological field, so it’s hard for us to understand that the “Ost-front” is just the result, above all, the clashes of completely incompatible ideologies. The USSR 30-x was a super-ideologized society, but also Germany 30-x was also no less ideological ...

Today, we (and the author in particular) actively compare the “plus and minus” of friendship / enmity between Stalin and Hitler and sometimes do not take into account this very thing, not a comic ideological confrontation. Some kind of “union” between them was impossible categorically precisely because of the “discrepancy of ideologies.” Outside and apart from all other causes.

The union of the “two totalitarian rulers” against the “Free World” was not even theoretically possible. Here they turned off ideology in 1991, and it all became incomprehensible. The trouble is still in what: in 90-ies the communist ideology was actively denied in Russia itself (allegedly interferes with the coming economic peremog). In many ways, therefore, today we are seeing "all this nonsense."

So a competent approach to Russian history is that nothing can be thrown out of it - neither Nicholas the Second nor the Communist International. Both that, and another (and the third!) Is a part of our history. The attempt to “abandon the communist past” leads to strange, unpredictable consequences - they are beginning to be accused of fascism. In fascism, Karl! And the heirs of the UPA-UNSO.

The rejection of the heritage of the Republic of Ingushetia and the House of the Romanovs had extremely negative consequences for the Union during the war against Poland / Finland, but the simplest answer to the question “why?” - before WWI, these territories were part of the Republic of Ingushetia. It's simple, gentlemen. The same applies to the "occupation" of the Baltic states - the answer is simple and elementary.

The same applies to the “renunciation” of the communist heritage - instead of merging with the rest of the “democratic world”, they are beginning to actively hang the label of “fascism”. Not communism, namely fascism. What, you know, somewhat strange.

It is difficult today to say how good a communist was Vladimir Putin (Gennady Zyuganov, as it turned out later, very bad), but the fact that he has nothing to do with the ideology of European fascism is quite obvious. That is, all the accusations in it can be astonished to shrug and nod in the direction of Brussels / Berlin / Munich (!). In principle, the Nazi processions are being held in Riga, Tallinn, Kiev today, and no one is surprised or outraged outside Russia.

In Russia, the Nazi ideology is prohibited, as are the Nazi organizations. Everything is simple, understandable, logical. But the general trend today is “European integration”, that is, rapprochement with Europe (under the leadership of Germany), and fascism / Nazism is very bad. Many Eastern Europeans see a way out of this amusing conflict in that it is “bold” to accuse Moscow of fascism. I remember the bombing in Tbilisi of a monument to those who fought with Hitler (quite by the way it is logical in the framework of "European integration").

And this applies to Ukrainians and Belarusians, and many others. So it is necessary to answer clearly, in the sense that the fascists, they certainly have a place to be and this is just your old / new European friends. That is, Eastern Europeans want to be fascists - no one can forbid it to them. But things should be called by their proper names.

And we are not, we are Russian, Orthodox (in the sense of Ortodox if not ours), "commi", anyone, but not followers of the Austrian painter ... our skull shape is incorrect (not elongated). And you cannot be a genuine Hitlerite and have a round skull shape ... any Central European will confirm it to you.

About the "terrible Russian fascists"
Author:
Photos used:
waralbum.ru
Articles from this series:
The Nazis and the state
53 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Same lech
    Same lech 2 November 2017 05: 50 New
    +7
    while the basis of Soviet ideology is internationalism and friendship between peoples, the idea of ​​“racial superiority” was clearly spelled out in German ideology.


    In this paragraph, we will replace a few words and get about the same for today ...
    if the basis of the Kremlin ideology is international law, then the ideology of the USA clearly spelled out the idea of ​​"exceptional superiority over the rest of the world" ... first of all, over modern RUSSIA.

    Hence the conclusion follows ... we need to prepare for a future clash with the United States, despite the Kremlin ideology of pacifying the United States.
    1. 210ox
      210ox 2 November 2017 10: 21 New
      0
      Here it’s clear who the Nazis are on the planet now .. An exceptional nation ..
      Quote: The same Lech
      while the basis of Soviet ideology is internationalism and friendship between peoples, the idea of ​​“racial superiority” was clearly spelled out in German ideology.


      In this paragraph, we will replace a few words and get about the same for today ...
      if the basis of the Kremlin ideology is international law, then the ideology of the USA clearly spelled out the idea of ​​"exceptional superiority over the rest of the world" ... first of all, over modern RUSSIA.

      Hence the conclusion follows ... we need to prepare for a future clash with the United States, despite the Kremlin ideology of pacifying the United States.
    2. A.V.S.
      A.V.S. 2 November 2017 11: 42 New
      0
      Quote: The same Lech
      the basis of Soviet ideology - internationalism and friendship between peoples

      What friendship of peoples if the USSR exterminated the nationalists of all countries ?! "Bourgeois nationalism" is worse for the Cheka-NKVD only counter-revolutionary and anti-Soviet activity. The basis of Soviet ideology is CLASS solidarity. Forget "Workers of all countries, unite!" ?! Just the European Union is "friendship (cooperation) between nations."
      1. NIKNN
        NIKNN 2 November 2017 12: 50 New
        +1
        Quote: A.W.S.
        Just the European Union is "friendship (cooperation) between nations."

        The European Union is an exclusively economic zone and one of the 101st legal ways to rob its European allies ... No one there was thinking about friendship ... but "Workers of all countries, unite!" Did not call for economic dependence and was interpreted as friendship ... that, in fact, was not understood by the West ..., to be friends, without profit? why such a friendship? Alas, that’s a different ideology ...
      2. Ivan Yarasov
        Ivan Yarasov 2 November 2017 14: 31 New
        0
        A.V.S, you are enchanting! Internationalism and nationalism are two different things. Nationalism is a bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideology and politics, as well as psychology in the national question. Nationalism interprets a nation as the highest extra-historical and superclass form of social unity, as a harmony, a whole with the identical basic interests of all its social layers. At the same time, the aspirations of a class or social group, acting in these specific historical conditions as the bearer and conductor of the nationalist ideology and policy of the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie, are given out for national interests. Nationalism is characterized by ideas of national superiority and national exceptionalism ... A INTERNATIONAL
        (from Lat. inter - between and natio - people), this is the international solidarity of workers, working people of various nations and races, manifested in psychology, ideology and politics. Expressing the common position and interests of the working class of various countries, the Islamic Republic guarantees the correct solution of its national and international problems, ensures the unity of the class content and the national form of social development, and is the main prerequisite for the realization of national interests. Class solidarity is precisely the basis of the ideology of fascist Germany and other countries! But in the USSR, an unwise person, the ideology of the class struggle, the struggle of the working class (proletariat) against the class of exploiters (bourgeoisie or entrepreneurs in modern terms). In the USSR there was a dictatorship of ONE class - the proletariat.
        1. A.V.S.
          A.V.S. 2 November 2017 15: 27 New
          0
          Quote: Ivan Yarasov
          Nationalism is a bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideology and politics

          Hello Alice! They say you are from the future, but I see flew in from 1937! How is it, Comrade Stalin, is everyone engaged in the class struggle?
          1. badens1111
            badens1111 2 November 2017 17: 08 New
            +1
            Quote: A.W.S.
            Hello

            Have a nice one you too.
            Nationalism (French nationalisme) - ideology and politics, the basic principle of which is the thesis of the highest value of the nation, its primacy in the state-building process. It is characterized by a variety of currents, some of which are in conflict with each other. Due to the nationalist coloring of many modern radical movements, a number of currents of nationalism are associated with ethnic, cultural and religious intolerance.
            And it would be time to know.
            Civil nationalism asserts that the legitimacy of a state is determined by the active participation of its citizens in the process of political decision-making, that is, the degree to which the state represents the “will of the nation”. Moreover, the belonging of a person to the nation is identified with citizenship.
            A form of civic nationalism is liberal nationalism, which emphasizes liberal values, especially human rights. Extreme forms of nationalism are often associated with extremism and lead to acute internal or interstate conflicts. The desire to allocate for the nation living inside the country, their state leads to separatism. Radical state nationalism is a key component of fascism. Many ethnic nationalists share the ideas of national superiority and national exclusivity (see chauvinism and racism), and cultural nationalists share cultural and religious intolerance (see xenophobia).

            The blurry ideology characteristic of nationalism and the eclectic structure of political movements often open up opportunities for a “double standard”
            Have you learned?
            And finally
            At the beginning of the XNUMXth century, the idea that a state should be formed around an ethnically homogeneous nation received wide support and became one of the reasons for the collapse of a number of multinational empires: Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, Germany. At the same time, World War I undermined faith in humanism, which is the foundation of liberalism. In combination with other factors, this led to the emergence of fascism, which called for the construction of a society in which people are deprived of the desire for individual self-expression and completely subordinate their interests to the tasks of the nation. Nazism was also characterized by racism, and nationalism degenerated into a desire to expand the country to include all areas of ethnic Germans.
            And what is National Socialism? Not in the know? Learn.
            “Unclear programmatics,” Walter Hofer notes with good reason, “allowed the National Socialists to act simultaneously in both anti-capitalist and anti-proletarian vestments, portray themselves as both restorative and revolutionary forces, proclaim themselves nationalists and at the same time socialists. As a result, the party managed to gain supporters in all social strata of the German people. ”
            German Rauschning, who himself had been a member of the Nazi party for some time and was well acquainted with the peculiarities of its ideology, also pointed to this side of the matter. For National Socialists, he wrote, “the more contradictory and irrational the doctrine, the better, the more effective it is”
            http://scepsis.net/library/id_2742.html
            Are you a fan of the Nazis? Hello out of 45.
        2. gladcu2
          gladcu2 2 November 2017 23: 03 New
          0
          Good answer but too complicated.

          The author did not indicate the difference between fascism and communism. International or nationalism is too primitively simplistic.

          Briefly ..

          Fascism is an economic system in which there is a merger of the state, oligarchic capital and people, under the ideology of national superiority.

          Communism-socialism is a merger of the state and the people, under the ideology of universal equality.

          Fascism leaves the concept of profit as the possibility of dividing into social classes.

          Communism-socialism puts the profit outside the law.

          Economics and ideology are inextricable.
          1. gladcu2
            gladcu2 2 November 2017 23: 16 New
            +1
            The rise of fascism or communism occurs at the time of the crisis of capitalism.

            If the oligarchy manages to maintain control of the state and give the people an idea, not necessarily national superiority, then such an economy turns into a fascist one. Profit and division into classes is retained.

            If "workers" take power, profit as a means of dividing into classes is taken under tight control and reduced to zero. It turns out universal equality.

            Capitalism can be left and the period between crises can be extended. Using the economic profit control mechanism.

            Since in modern Russia. This is a high bank interest. The higher the percentage, the lower the profit. Money goes to the consumer through state social programs. This is evolutionary socialism.
            1. gladcu2
              gladcu2 2 November 2017 23: 22 New
              0
              Under Capitalism, one can speak of equality in the presence of a property difference, only in the presence of a high-quality education.

              Remember, "studying, studying, studying." It doesn’t work badly.
          2. Olezhek
            4 November 2017 20: 01 New
            0
            The author does not indicate the difference between fascism and communism. Internationale or nationalism is too primitive simplistic


            Generally - this is done absolutely consciously - theoretical discrepancies - between the three basic ideologies - the topic is not even articles or books, but a good such doctoral work ...
            С practical - somewhat easier and clearer ..
  2. inkass_98
    inkass_98 2 November 2017 06: 59 New
    +1
    Our verbose Egorov ...
    It was only necessary to give a few examples of completely legal Nazi organizations in England, the United States and (like exotic, but quite Aryan) in India, for example. Japan can also be mentioned. There is nothing to say about Finland.
    A photo in the article is worthy, especially this:

    Then Benny suddenly looks like Trump, it turns out very interesting wink .
  3. Cat Marquis
    Cat Marquis 2 November 2017 07: 07 New
    +2
    This is the problem - "call a spade a spade" is the same global blow to the whole modern ideology - "tolerance", which is based on the fact that "you can not call a spade a spade." And in Russia .... and what in Russia? What do you want from a country in which external forces have been able to constitutionally consolidate the "lack of state ideology."
  4. midshipman
    midshipman 2 November 2017 07: 57 New
    +2
    Dear Oleg, where is the financing of US Jews by Hitler’s rise to power? Where is the support of some US industrialists and financiers during the war with the USSR? I have the honor.
    1. Olezhek
      2 November 2017 08: 06 New
      0
      That's where it all happened ... There are a lot of aspects of this problem.One of the most interesting is the charge of modern Russia in fascism.
  5. parusnik
    parusnik 2 November 2017 08: 18 New
    0
    but not followers of the Austrian painter ...
    ..Therefore, a bone in the throat for Europe and the USA ..
  6. Dzmicer
    Dzmicer 2 November 2017 08: 50 New
    +4
    "Horses mixed in a bunch, people ..."
    Does it make sense to discuss a note by an author for whom Italian fascism, German Nazism, Spanish phalanx and Portuguese corporatism are indistinguishable?
    1. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins 2 November 2017 09: 20 New
      0
      I agree with you. The author did not provide clear boundaries, discussing which it will be possible to draw conclusions whether fascism \ Nazism in a certain case or not. Where is the criterion, looking at which you can firmly state - the Rubicon has been crossed, this is fascism.
      The author "remembered the old" to all WWII participants. Forgetting anti-fascist movements in these countries. Article - get out!
    2. CONTROL
      CONTROL 2 November 2017 10: 03 New
      +2
      Quote: Dzmicer
      "Horses mixed in a bunch, people ..."
      Does it make sense to discuss a note by an author for whom Italian fascism, German Nazism, Spanish phalanx and Portuguese corporatism are indistinguishable?

      Well, why?
      The approach to the question is of course one-sided - but for a comprehensive review of fascism and the idea of ​​racial superiority as part of European culture, and - for definiteness: civilizing ideologies of European civilization (by the way, from here and legs grow at the ancient contradictions between Orthodoxy and Catholicism) .
      But - for such extensive research on the issue, there is also special literature.
      And the author set a goal - and achieved it! - substantiate and prove the opposite of the ideologies of fascism (with its varieties ...) as the ideology that shaped the West European civilization; and communism (by this variety ...) - as the ideology that shaped East European civilization - in many respects - eastern ... If "exudative": fascism is an association of individuals (within the framework of competition and struggle for existence) with the aim of joint action against ..., and communism is a joint action originally united individuals (as part of a collective struggle for existence and mutual assistance ...) with the aim of joint action FOR ...
      -------------------------------------
      ... nothing like?
      capitalism and socialism, for example ...
      1. Dzmicer
        Dzmicer 2 November 2017 10: 39 New
        +3
        ideas of racial superiority as part of European culture, and - for definiteness: the civilization-forming ideology of European civilization

        This is German Nazism. Neither Mussolini’s fascism, nor Franco’s phalanx, nor Salado’s Estado Novo carried such an idea.
        And the author set a goal - and achieved it! - substantiate and prove the opposite of the ideologies of fascism (with its varieties ...) as the ideology that shaped the West European civilization

        European civilization is ancient philosophy, Roman law and Christian ethics.
        These elements were characteristic of the authoritarian (in Soviet historiography - "fascist") regimes of Italy, Spain and Portugal. The German Nazis rejected them, which means they are rather reckless to attribute them to the bearers of European ideology.
        communism is the joint action of initially united individuals (as part of a collective struggle for existence and mutual assistance

        Well, well.

        The fact that the ideology of socialism is developed in the West - in England and Germany - does not bother you? As well as the fact that its founder - Karl Marx - was the brother-in-law of the head of the Prussian police?
        1. RomanS
          RomanS 2 November 2017 11: 18 New
          +2
          European civilization is ancient philosophy, Roman law and Christian ethics.
          As well as the Holy Inquisition, colonial conquests and slavery.
          1. Dzmicer
            Dzmicer 2 November 2017 11: 26 New
            +2
            As well as the Holy Inquisition

            In the Moscow kingdom did not burn heretics?
            colonial captures

            Siberia is native Russian land, and yasak are voluntary gifts of natives to Russian civilizers in gratitude for joining Holy Russia?)
            slavery

            Kievan Rus did not trade in smerds? Oh, wei!
            1. CONTROL
              CONTROL 2 November 2017 13: 13 New
              +1
              Quote: Dzmicer
              Kievan Rus did not trade in smerds? Oh, wei!

              Wei oh ...
              Not stinkers - but servants what were the foreigners exclusively captured in the war!
              There were slaves - slaves from their own tribe, for one reason or another fell into slavery (as a rule - debts or crime); had rights - like the tribesmen of the slave owner! - Larger than the servants.
              “East Slavic society knew slavery. Customary law forbade the slaves of their fellow tribesmen. Therefore, slaves became captured foreigners. They were called servants. For the Russian Slavs, servants are first of all a commodity ... "

              Smerdy - free community farmers in IX-XIV centuries. , who made up the bulk of the population of Kievan Rus, obliged to pay the feudal lord a tribute during the flood, and gradually became dependent on the feudal lord. . In the XIV-XV centuries. S. concept in Russia was replaced by a new one - the peasants.
              Procurement - people who work off debt (in ancient Russian - “kupa”), who had their own household; Having fulfilled debt, procurement became free.
              Ryadovichi - in Ancient Russia, persons who served landowners under a series of (agreements), as a rule, became dependent on him for money debt, help with seeds or tools, forced to work out part of his time from the master; close to purchases.
          2. Lieutenant Teterin
            Lieutenant Teterin 2 November 2017 11: 36 New
            15
            Such a small amendment. Inquisition - it was exclusively investigative organ. Executions were carried out by secular authorities. And in the practice of the Inquisition there have been cases when people themselves called themselves sorcerers ... so that the Inquisition would investigate their affairs. By all the rules of Roman jurisprudence, with the interrogation of witnesses, the search for evidence and the defender of the accused. That is, the man was accused of theft, the baronial court is preparing to hang him, and he declares to the baron: "I am supposedly a sorcerer. I stole things with dark spells." And this case is already being transferred to the Inquisition, whose investigators are already investigating not so much the circumstances of "witchcraft" as theft.
            And with the colonies, not everything is clear. Colonialists often stopped aboriginal "sweet" customs such as human sacrifices and tribal massacres when they killed everyone: from old people to infants.
        2. Rey_ka
          Rey_ka 2 November 2017 12: 02 New
          +1
          Well, unlucky Krlusha with relatives what to do?
        3. CONTROL
          CONTROL 2 November 2017 12: 32 New
          +2
          Quote: Dzmicer
          ideas of racial superiority as part of European culture, and - for definiteness: the civilization-forming ideology of European civilization

          This is German Nazism. Neither Mussolini’s fascism, nor Franco’s phalanx, nor Salado’s Estado Novo carried such an idea.
          .....
          European civilization is ancient philosophy, Roman law and Christian ethics.

          Roman law и western christianity - this, in fact, is the basis of both German Nazism, and Francoism, and other varieties of fascism: - this is what modern Western civilization, Western "democracy" is based on! "divide and conquer" - on races, on classes and strata, the "golden billion" in terms of 100-200 thousand "super-billionaires-elitists"! The "Tablets of Georgia" didn’t just appear in the USA and in the 80s! "Well-intentioned - the direct road to HELL!" (by the way - before the fascist ideology arose in Italy - you will be surprised! - in Georgia! a country with predominantly farm-craft-individual production-social relations).
          The fact that the ideology of socialism is developed in the West - in England and Germany - does not bother you? As well as the fact that its founder - Karl Marx - was the brother-in-law of the head of the Prussian police?
          Russian socialism - in general, ideologically and has never been completely "Marxism"! Despite the attempts by Lenin with his "guard" of revolutionary romantics ...
          Stalin - practically used Marx and Engels to create the new ideologies and theories of building socialism (read his works ...), often - and justifying! - retreating, contradicting and refuting the "classics" ...
          ... and Marx, they say, also rarely washed ... messy, well!
          -----------------------------------
          "Russian socialism" and "Russian communism" did not at all take root in Europe - the general mentality is different, not collectivist; perhaps in Latin America (because of the mestos “Latinos / Native American?”).
          1. Lieutenant Teterin
            Lieutenant Teterin 2 November 2017 12: 54 New
            14
            Quote: CONTROL
            Roman law and Western Christianity - this, in fact, is the basis of both German Nazism, and Francoism and other varieties of fascism: - this is what modern Western civilization, Western "democracy" is based on! "divide and rule" - on races, classes and strata

            Sorry, but "divide and rule" - this is a maxim of the policy of pagan Rome, and not law. Roman law brought into the world such concepts as the "presumption of innocence" - you cannot be found guilty without proof of guilt; the principle of one-time punishment for one crime and the idea of ​​guaranteeing citizens a certain set of rights by the state.
            And Christianity supplemented these principles with the concept of mercy and responsibility for neighbors (yes, a social state with the support of the elderly, sick and disabled was created thanks to Christianity) and the concept of natural, God-given, inalienable human rights (to life, honor, dignity, etc.)
            Nazism, however, completely ignored these concepts. So, neither Roman law nor Christianity have any relation to Nazism. There is nothing similar to the ideas of the Nazis either in the Gospel, or in the laws of 12 tables, or in Digests, or in the Justinian Codex.
            1. CONTROL
              CONTROL 2 November 2017 13: 25 New
              +1
              Quote: Lieutenant Teterin

              Sorry, but "divide and rule" - this is a maxim of the policy of pagan Rome, and not law. Roman law brought into the world such concepts as the "presumption of innocence" - you cannot be found guilty without proof of guilt; the principle of one-time punishment for one crime and the idea of ​​guaranteeing citizens a certain set of rights by the state. ...
              And Christianity supplemented these principles with the concept of mercy and responsibility for those near it a.

              The Roman Empire and its influence on world culture: prosperity and expansion

              https://www.planet-kob.ru/articles/5027
              The Roman Empire and its influence on world culture: degradation and decay

              https://www.planet-kob.ru/articles/5057
              ... about Western Christianity, its hypocrisy and "double standards" - and so much has been said! Therefore, I’m silent ...
              And under the so-called. "Roman law" has long meant "Byzantine law" (where everything is decided by the will of the legislator) - the right of the master-slave owners (world elite) over slaves (inhabitants of the planet Earth); essentially this elite is reptilian aliens ..
              1. Lieutenant Teterin
                Lieutenant Teterin 2 November 2017 13: 38 New
                15
                Sorry, but referring to the website of supporters of the so-called "BER" is, among serious people, a bad taste. You would bring Nosovsky along with Fomenko.
                Quote: CONTROL
                Western Christianity, its hypocrisy and "double standards" - and so much has been said! Therefore, I’m silent ...

                Interesting by whom and when is it said? I personally have not heard anything like this or read.
                1. CONTROL
                  CONTROL 2 November 2017 14: 04 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
                  Sorry, but referring to the website of supporters of the so-called "BER" is, among serious people, a bad taste. .

                  ... "serious people" - good afternoon! don't stumble inadvertently ...
                  1. Lieutenant Teterin
                    Lieutenant Teterin 2 November 2017 14: 30 New
                    14
                    I repeat the question if you did not understand: who and when spoke of the "double standards" of Western Christianity?
                    1. vlad-58
                      vlad-58 6 November 2017 17: 20 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
                      I repeat the question if you did not understand: who and when spoke of the "double standards" of Western Christianity?

                      Mr. Lieutenant! Do you not know that the Catholic Church recently recognized blacks and Indians as people? while having sexual intercourse with "animals" - although they condemned, but - so, through tightly closed fingers ...
                      And why? but because they are pagans ...
                      Orthodoxy has never infringed on other religions! Missionary work is only in deeds: to feed, drink, cure, learn, enlighten.
                      Actually, just like that - and not by the notorious “captivity of Shamil”, Prince Baryatinsky (in the opinion of liberal Isotriks - “lascivious and embezzler”, let's slap one more “matilda!”) Won the first in the recent history of ISIS in the Caucasus - Muridism.
          2. Dzmicer
            Dzmicer 2 November 2017 13: 56 New
            +2
            Russian socialism - in general, ideologically and has never been completely "Marxism"! Despite the attempts by Lenin with his "guard" of revolutionary romantics ...
            Stalin - practically used Marx and Engels to create a new ideology and theory of building socialism (read his works ...), often - and justifying! - retreating, contradicting and refuting the "classics" ...

            Well, well.
            1. CONTROL
              CONTROL 2 November 2017 14: 06 New
              +1
              Quote: Dzmicer
              ... (read his works ...), ...

              Well, well.

              Not an argument!
              ... for it is suggested:
              read his work
              1. Dzmicer
                Dzmicer 2 November 2017 14: 13 New
                +3
                read his work

                The fact that you think that a semi-literate Georgian seminarian who speaks poor Russian could write something himself actually says a lot about you.
                Enough to find any discussion with you pointless.
                1. CONTROL
                  CONTROL 2 November 2017 14: 34 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Dzmicer
                  The fact that you think that a semi-literate Georgian seminarian who speaks poor Russian could write something himself actually says a lot about you.

                  ... and about you!
                  Just in case:
                  This textbook of political economy was written by a team of economists composed of Academician K. Ostrovityanov, D. T. Shepilov, Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, L. A. Leontyev, Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, and I. Laptev All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences D., Professor I. Kuzminov, Doctor of Economic Sciences L. M. Gatovsky, Academician P. Yudin, Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences A. Pashkov, Candidate of Economic Sciences V. I. Pereslegin. the processing of statistical materials included in the textbook was attended by Doctor of Economics, Starovsky V.N.
                  When developing the draft textbook, many Soviet economists made valuable criticisms and made a number of useful suggestions for the text. The authors took these comments and suggestions into account in their subsequent work on the textbook.
                  Of great importance for the work on the textbook was the November 1951 economic discussion organized by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.In the course of this discussion, in which hundreds of Soviet economists took an active part, the draft textbook on political economy presented by the authors was subjected to comprehensive criticism. The proposals developed as a result of the discussion to improve the textbook project were an important source for improving the structure of the textbook and enriching its content.
                  The final edition of the textbook was carried out by the comrades: Ostrovityanov K.V., Shepilov D.T., Leontyev L.A., Laptev I.D., Kuzminov I.I., Gatovsky L.M.
                  Aware of the full significance of the Marxist textbook of political economy, the authors intend to continue work to further improve the textbook on the basis of those critical comments and suggestions that will be made by readers to familiarize themselves with the first edition of the textbook. In this regard, the authors ask readers to send their feedback and suggestions for the textbook at: Moscow, Volkhonka, 14, Institute of Economics, USSR Academy of Sciences.

                  ... and to this - the memoirs of the authors of this textbook, where they describe the meetings with the "semi-literate Georgian seminarist", essentially - more than half who wrote this textbook. Many of their cited list of authors were far from Stalin's friends, but not one of them refused him a brilliant knowledge of the “subject”, an excellent memory, possession of the majority of world literature on the “issue” ... links - “to take off,” the page quoted by memory...
                  1. Dzmicer
                    Dzmicer 2 November 2017 14: 40 New
                    +2
                    This textbook of political economy was written by a team of economists composed of Academician K. Ostrovityanov, D. T. Shepilov, Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, L. A. Leontyev, Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, and I. Laptev All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences D., Professor I. Kuzminov, Doctor of Economic Sciences L. M. Gatovsky, Academician P. Yudin, Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences A. Pashkov, Candidate of Economic Sciences V. I. Pereslegin. the processing of statistical materials included in the textbook was attended by Doctor of Economics, Starovsky V.N.

                    So there were literary blacks Dzhugashvili.
                    1. badens1111
                      badens1111 2 November 2017 15: 01 New
                      0
                      Quote: CONTROL
                      the memoirs of the authors of this textbook, where they describe the meetings with the “semi-literate Georgian seminarist,” who essentially wrote more than half of this textbook. Many of their cited list of authors were far from Stalin's friends, but not one of them refused him a brilliant knowledge of the “subject”, an excellent memory, possession of the majority of world literature on the “issue” ... links - “to take off,” the page quoted by memory...

                      Do not understand what is written?
                2. Lieutenant Teterin
                  Lieutenant Teterin 2 November 2017 14: 52 New
                  15
                  As I understand it, it’s completely pointless to have a discussion with a person, because if a person is seriously broadcasting, that:
                  Quote: CONTROL
                  And under the so-called. "Roman law" has long meant "Byzantine law" (where everything is decided by the will of the legislator) - the right of the master-slave owners (world elite) over slaves (inhabitants of the planet Earth); essentially this elite is reptilian aliens ..
                  ,
                  it’s either a troll or a client of gentlemen in white coats. Tertium non datur, as they say.
                  1. CONTROL
                    CONTROL 2 November 2017 15: 05 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
                    or a gentlemen’s client in white coats. Tertium non datur, as they say.

                    Client, client! ... Calm down, lieutenant ...
                    - Listen, Lieutenant, do you accidentally not paint your lips?
                    - I paint, paint ... Calm down! ..
                    - Well, business ...
                    "One among strangers, a stranger among his own"
          3. badens1111
            badens1111 2 November 2017 15: 00 New
            +1
            Quote: CONTROL
            Russian socialism - in general, ideologically and has never been completely "Marxism"! Despite the attempts by Lenin with his "guard" of revolutionary romantics ...
            Stalin - practically used Marx and Engels to create a new ideology and theory of building socialism (read his works ...), often - and justifying! - retreating, contradicting and refuting the "classics" ...

            This is where you were mistaken ... precisely because Lenin, contrary to Marx, put forward the idea of ​​an alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry, called Russian socialism, the whole army of hired gorlopans of all stripes and nailing Lenin and Stalin.
            This is exactly what he used in his provocation, in the struggle against the country, none other than A. Yakovlev and Gorbachev.
            1. CONTROL
              CONTROL 2 November 2017 15: 09 New
              +1
              Quote: badens1111
              ... precisely because Lenin, contrary to Marx, put forward the idea of ​​an alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry, dubbed Russian socialism, the whole army of hired gorlopans of all stripes and is nailing Lenin and Stalin.
              This is exactly what he used in his provocation, in the struggle against the country, none other than A. Yakovlev and Gorbachev.
              Oh! If for this one idea ...
        4. Ivan Yarasov
          Ivan Yarasov 2 November 2017 14: 44 New
          +1
          Only this "brother-in-law" destroyed all the books that Marx, printing in exile abroad, tried to transfer to his homeland, and this brother-in-law, urgently tried to get Marx to be extradited for trial, because of which Marx renounced his citizenship.
  7. San Sanych
    San Sanych 2 November 2017 10: 38 New
    +1
    /// "... and then some Russian-speaking (but certainly not Russian) clowns tell us about Russian fascism, which is worse than German." /// author, what is there to be surprised? if our main foreign minister, blonde Maria Zakharova, once declared that Stalin was worse than Hitler, comments are redundant here, or then it turns out that this Masha is also not ours and pours water on the mill of our enemies, if she allows herself such statements, does not equate fascism with communism, but he believes that he is even worse than fascism, in general one can say he runs ahead of the paravoz
  8. Altona
    Altona 2 November 2017 11: 19 New
    +1
    The author of the article too often stumbles on the exhortations of potential readers who have the point of view of fascism = communism. In general, the message of the article is correct, but it is stated somewhat inconsistently.
    1. Olezhek
      4 November 2017 20: 03 New
      0
      The author of the article too often stumbles upon exhortations from potential readers,


      An attempt to explain is calm and polite.
  9. Altona
    Altona 2 November 2017 11: 24 New
    +3
    Quote: San Sanych
    if our main foreign minister, blonde Maria Zakharova, once declared that Stalin was worse than Hitler, comments are redundant here, or then it turns out that this Masha is also not ours and pours water on the mill of our enemies, if she allows herself such statements, does not equate fascism with communism

    -------------------------------------------------
    The ideology of modern Russian authorities is the complete desovetization and de-communization of Russia, with the aim of completely rejecting any claims to illegally privatized, actually stolen, public property. Justifying oneself as the legitimate rulers of modern Russia, for this, giving the Yeltsin legacy the necessary excuses and embellishing it. You should not be mistaken in this regard, the GDP will cry at all the Jewish walls that have been erected and condemned by the "300 millionth" victims of the Gulag with the 200 millionth population of the USSR.
    1. CONTROL
      CONTROL 2 November 2017 12: 49 New
      +1
      Quote: Altona
      The ideology of modern Russian authorities is the complete desovetization and de-communization of Russia, with the aim of completely rejecting any claims to illegally privatized, actually stolen, public property. Justifying oneself as the legitimate rulers of modern Russia, for this, giving the Yeltsin legacy the necessary excuses and embellishing it.

      Ideological divisiveness? ... propaganda undermining of the "conciliar mentality"? ...
      “But curious, but well, as I see it, this land should be Sicily. So you said - man: what’s a man like him? Is it so perfect as the Russian man is wide in the shoulders and plows the land, or not?
      "Marriage" Gogol
      - Nooooo, you're not a Russian person! If you don’t want to go with the people! ...
      it seems from Gorky
  10. A.V.S.
    A.V.S. 2 November 2017 11: 36 New
    +1
    Fascism is a right ideology, it is a tradition elevated to absolute. National socialism is a left-wing idea and it resembles communism. The difference is that communism is based on class solidarity, and Nazism is national solidarity. This is the difference between national socialism and Soviet international -socialism. The author did not mention that National Socialism was born as a labor movement. The NSDAP activists called for revolution and cooperation with the USSR in the fight against capitalism. Hitler's right turn, which came to an agreement with the national and monopoly circles of Germany, caused a split in the party. Hitler's Nazis National Socialists were killed, and prominent NSDAP leaders like Strasser and Stennes fought against Nazism in the 30s and 40s.
    1. Ivan Yarasov
      Ivan Yarasov 2 November 2017 14: 51 New
      0
      A.V.S, you are a clinical Debyl. Before discussing anything you need to know, but you do not have knowledge, you have your own opinion.
  11. Altona
    Altona 2 November 2017 13: 02 New
    0
    Quote: CONTROL
    Ideological divisiveness? ... propaganda undermining of the "conciliar mentality"? ...

    -----------------------------------
    The Cathedral is a representative body, a kind of MPs from the people, this is not a Novgorod chamber with direct democracy. Why write such remarks without understanding the meaning of what was written?
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. CONTROL
      CONTROL 3 November 2017 13: 08 New
      +1
      Quote: Altona
      Quote: CONTROL
      Ideological divisiveness? ... propaganda undermining of the "conciliar mentality"? ...

      -----------------------------------
      The Cathedral is a representative body, a kind of MPs from the people, this is not a Novgorod chamber with direct democracy. Why write such remarks without understanding the meaning of what was written?

      Altona is so biased at the VO forums that other people's contra comments are removed?
      Well, eat: "I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church."
      The word "catholic" translated the Greek concept of "catholic" - i.e. Catholic, ecumenical; it is one and the same term translated in Orthodoxy and Catholicism in different ways, and - in very different ways! Even the opposite ...
      The Catholic Church understands its "catholicity", universality - as its own global distribution, the church must cover the whole world and all peoples. This is a superficial understanding of the church, flat - directed outward, into the outside world.
      The Orthodox understanding of collegiality is the understanding of the Church as the body of Christ, where all its members are cells of a single organism; that is, the Church is one, not the only ... What is characteristic of such an understanding? The apostle says: if one member hurts, the whole organism is sick; - mutual influence of all parts and cells of the body on each other.
      Here it is - "catholicity", universality, or - collegiality - in Russian ... And not the "State Duma" in the form of a Catholic "cathedral"!
  12. misti1973
    misti1973 2 November 2017 19: 12 New
    0
    Yes, there was no communism in the USSR! And ideology was launched from above. Internationalism was just as mainstream as Nazism in the 30s, and it had nothing to do with politics or economics, so if all this ideological bullshit is thrown off, then the union is very could have happened. Hitler was counting on this very much, hence the signing of the pact. But Stalin, signing the pact, just wanted to buy time for the rearmament of the Red Army and for mobilization. After that, he would attack Germany himself! This is 100%. Because he needed foreign markets - how else could an industrial power develop. The European markets would have been quite suitable, but for this you needed a redistribution of spheres of influence. Hitler had already shown his grin to the whole world, so you could only count on an alliance or a warrior. In addition, the United States gave money to Hitler, and he simply decided to throw it, so he unleashed the WWII.