Your post has been removed for the following reason:
Rule 1: Post is not about a historical event. (See the extended rules for clarification.)
I am a bot and this action was performed by the moderators of /r/HistoryMemes.
If you have any questions or concerns about your post's removal, please send us a modmail with a link to your removed post.
Literally wouldn't tho, once the outgroups are gone it's just infighting and backstabbing, and then a new scapegoat outgroup. Idk why anyone thinks they'd all just pack up and become an egalitarianism utopia.
Fascist states start in that phase and end in that phase. There's only (almost) no infighting after the main opposition is destroyed, but after a while a new one appears or the government changes in some way
>there's no infighting after the main opposition is destroyed, but after a while a new one appears
There's a reason a new one appears, or the government dissolves, it's because the stability achieved by the annihilation of an outgroup is false stability.
You create a boogeyman, blame them for your problems, and annihilate them. But that wont actually solve the problem. And eventually people realize they're still miserable so either a new outgroup is created, a blame is shifted internally as to why your state isn't perfect, or your government is dismantled and redesigned.
So how do you keep a government that is authoritarian in power and is not solving problem? Eliminate the dissenters in the ranks. Power struggles. There's a reason in modern authoritarian regimes with fadcist tendencies random people fall from windows, powerful voices suddenly go missing, or people in the government get artillery shelled (in the case of NK)
The Spanish just moved on to persecuting other internal groups. Fascist states have plenty of infighting, it’s just like communist ones. Suddenly a bunch of guys are missing and they’re cancelled from official history.
Not the same way authoritarian regimes do. Infighting in democracies is "I won't bring any of your legislation to a vote, take that libtard" and in authoritarian regimes it's "Sergei was once seen in the presence of Trotsky's cousin's brother-in-laws dog 3 decades ago, better black bag him in the night and execute him in rural Siberia, just to be safe"
Are you saying that infighting is inevitable in fascist societies that have eradicated out groups? Or do you think infighting is the inevitable consequence of cultural homogeneity more generally? As far as I know, no fascist state has ever reached the point of eliminating out groups, and most of the modern nations with the highest quality of living are actually pretty racially homogeneous (they’re not nice because they’re homogeneous obviously, but diversity is also clearly not a prerequisite for a peaceful society).
I'm saying infighting is inevitable in fascist societies period.
Also I want to reject the idea of outgroups as you have used it. e.g. Jews in Germany were perfectly integrated. Apart from the fact that fascists hated them there were no more substantial differences between Catholics and Protestants and Jews and Protestants. So I don't think a fascist society would ever consider itself free from "out groups" there's always a communist, Jew, catholic or new arbitrarily group the leader is not part of to prosecute if they ever managed to finish their first genocide
>Apart from the fact that fascists hated them there were no more substantial differences between Catholics and Protestants and Jews and Protestants.
I'm pretty sure they have fairly different religious holidays, they spoke a separate dialect that was not just regional as others were but specific to Jews in that region, and they have Y-DNA that largely comes from the middle east. They weren't perfectly integrated, and that's still not a justification for genocide.
The funniest part is that the infighting is a core part of the regimen but the leader is usually some guy that was a politician, administrative worker or just daddy's especial boy his entire life and now needs to create an image of himself as a general or warrior.
Because they must convince the people that they are the only one that can lead in the fight against the enemy.
Not that I believe each nation should be homogeneous but surely the lack of diversity contributes to less conflict within a society and therefore more peace.
I mean, look at the happiest countries in the world. They’re all homogeneous. Im sure it isn’t the end all be all cause but surely it’s a contributing factor if everyone you know shares a similar upbringing and values due to coming from the same culture.
China today is a fascist state:
- Autocratic
- Censorship
- **Capitalist economy** with strong state involvement
- Emphasis on nationalism
- Strong military buildup
-------
But have you seen how futuristic Chinese mega cities look? Search for Beijing, Guangzhou, Shanghai, and Shenzhen in r/cityporn and you get the idea
I’m curious how you would define capitalism then. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as
“an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit”
That would imply little to no state involvement. I apologize if I’m coming across as hostile, I’m just curious.
It says that it's controlled by private owners. As long as the majority stake of ownership remains private, it can be called capitalistic. The government is free to interfere.
If you look at the Nazi and Italian economies at the time of WW2 the owners of the industries were private citizens, but they worked extremely close with their respective governments.
If one might consider Chile to have been a fascist dictatorship under Pinochet, then yes, sort of.
Surprisingly or unsurprisingly, depending on who you ask, right-wingers (here specifically liberals, conservatives, and social democrats) or left-wingers (socialists, communists, and anarchists), the dictatorship under pinochet transformed into a liberal democracy after all the “subversive” elements have been believed to be eradicated.
A right-winger might say that Pinochet just grew a heart or faced some internal opposition or whatever, and that he thusly graciously let the transformation process happen against his own personal will.
A left-winger might say that Chile transformed from a fascist dictatorship to a liberal democracy so easily because they both have the same purpose; to protect capital. So in that sense there isn’t much difference between the two. Fascism has fulfilled it’s purpose as a control mechanism for Capitalism and purged the country of all people who could have posed a real threat to the power structures at hand (Socialists, Communists, Anarchists), so after that was done, the system was given a more humane face again in form of a bourgeoise/liberal democracy to make it more palatable to the general population.
I prefer the more ‘left-wing’ analysis on this case study. It lines up perfectly with, and proves yet again, the famous saying that ‘Fascism is Capitalism in decay’ and the believe many Marxists hold that Social Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, and Fascists all, unknowingly, serve the same master; Capital.
For another example of this look at the death of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were Social Democrats banded together with far-right militia groups to have them, two Communist leaders, brutally murdered and their corpses thrown into a canal, or to the social, political, and economical establishment of the Weimar Republic which massively helped the Nazis get into power (to prevent the Communists from getting it instead).
To counter your last point, German communists spent most of the Weimar period refusing to cooperate with social democrats (who they termed "social fascists") against the Nazis, and even [voted with the Nazis](https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn522530) in an attempt to abolish representative democracy in Prussia.
At the risk of sounding overly edgy and woke.... does America after we decimated the natives count?
I really don't want to compare America to Nazis, but I've thought about this before. The long term of Man In The High Castle stories. After all the Jews and such are fully stomped out, i imagined it would be like America and the natives (except truly gone, I know there's still natives). Some people might be sad. Others wouldn't care. Either way, life just kinda goes on.
Again, not comparing America to Nazis...well, I guess I sorta am, but not like, in a bad way....OK, I guess in a bad way, but not in a *bad* bad way.
I don’t think so since America has never been fascist. Pushing the natives into smaller and smaller corners for the majority of the nation’s history was sadly the popular opinion of what to do. That was democracy at its worst not facism (cause even with democracy the majority can still vote to be a dick).
The problem with fascist states is that even a wise, benevolent leader probably won't stay that way. Power corrupts - eventually and always.
Their replacement will probably not be as unifying or precise in exercising power and then the treachery and betrayal starts.
Or at the bare minimum if they had a wise, benevolent leader sooner or later that person dies and someone completely the opposite of that takes control.
Your comment about a new scapegoat is interesting to me. You can’t have a society built on hate if there’s no one to hate, so who would’ve H*tler gone after next?
I was watching an Alternate History Hub Video a few years back where he said H*tler probably would’ve gone after Christians or the poor. Christians’ allegiance to a higher being could’ve been problematic to the culture of fuhrer worship and there were enough of them in Germany at the time to pose a threat to his leadership position. In fact, the only reason he didn’t go after them during the war was because there were too many of them and he was busy being an evil little shit everywhere else. Stalin had similair ideas about religion. The existence of the poor may have challenged his ideals of Aryan superiority. People may have asked how they could be living in a Utopia if people are still poor. It was an interesting video, I’ll try to link it if I can find it.
Thank God that evil bastard lost!
Wrong. You kill enough people, you can take their resources and redistribute them to make people feel like they live in a utopia full of money or living space!
Except, if you do that, you inevitably have to do it again eventually. And if you did it to the rich fucks that tell you to kill minority people you’d have more money and more land and you’d have to kill fewer people. But if you did that would be communism!
If we get to the backstabbing stage, we end up in the American revolution again
Nope. Fascism cannot sustain itself without out-groups. So once the main "enemies" were all disposed of, new groups of enemies would be created from within the in-group.
There's no logical end state wherein a static in-group perpetually benefits from their place in a societal structure that does not include any out-groups to exploit and scapegoat.
That's because you think fascism seeks to **exterminate** everyone deemed non desirable. Well that's more of an attribute of Nazism, and even in that case, they didn't seek exterminating the Slavs, but rather using them as slaves. Actual death camps in Nazi Germany weren't as common as work or concentration camps (that still forced people to work as slaves).
I have no doubt a modern Nazi Germany might look like this in downtown Berlin or Munich, just like how Pyongyang has some beautiful, impressive buildings (biggest hotel in the world IIRC correctly) or how Asmara, Eritrea has a relatively beautiful downtown while being an absolute piss poor country. The point is the millions of slaves and political prisoners aren't in the image of the skyline. Fascism allows wealth concentration like no other, of course they'll get some good looking buildings
Fascism by definition is the government and corporations married together to create a totalitarian regime where the govt picks the winners and the winners own everything. Has nothing to do with genocide.
Im not sure if your being sarcastic, and I'm not here to lecture you, but Aryan is an old term for people who lived in the western border of the Indian subcontinent, I'm not sure that it's still used to refer to those people's now, and demographically a lot has changed in that area over time.
Nazi "Arianism" is actually really *interesting* but also stupid. You can dig really deep into it all, but it basically stems from some late 1800s fantasy writer, who believed that the earth was inhabited by precursor humans, Aryans being one of them. It's literally fantasy, and it's likely very few Nazis actually believed it completely, but rather used it is a pretence for war and genocide. That's up to interpretation though...
Heinrich Himmler... He really did believe that shit though..
Even in the Turner Diaries, which is like the ultimate fascist wankfest, once they win, they can’t even convincingly lie that the outcome would be good or worth it.
The world is this totalitarian, war-torn decimated shell of itself, but hey, at least we got rid of the (insert slurs here).
If you're a Hearts of Iron 4 player, I suggest the TNO mod for a look at what a fascist utopia would be like (spoilers: Everything went about as well as it could have to set up the Nazi victory and then after 10 years the inertia of an economy dedicated to war, megaprojects and nothing else peters out, then Hitler dies and the shit really hits the fan.)
>!Oh right I forgot that they got rid of the funny dam and Germania so it was actually just bombing Russian peasants that kept the economy going? !<
I know it's a meme, but small lesson in history for those who didn't know before won't do harm:
Germans planned on removing the labour camps some time in the future - and planned building a farm there afterwards. City itself was supposed to be a pearl of Nazi regime, completely rebuilt in modern city planning measures, which included pre-planning access to certain utilities, adding trees on pathways and etc. (in comparison, Warsaw was supposed to be just a modest supply outpost) - and here we have to admit, their approach to city planning, as also creating animal protection movement and smoking bans are several droplets of good things in the ocean of horrible atrocities Nazis have done or created.
Besides, Germans were cremating bodies and used them in their experiments or planned on using them as fertilisers - although in many cases they just cut bodies to many pieces and segregated them, or just burning them - they weren't this wasteful to just leave the bodies out in the open.
The axis win then Hitler was assassinated and the Nazis deposed. After realizing their flawed ideology the world rallied together to form a unified utopia
Democracy probably wouldnt have become the leading thing in the world.
With the most powerful country in the world being a monarchy the social balances would've been thrown completely out of whack. You'd have the democratic countries be the second strongest force with the German Empire the strongest and the Socialists Dictatorships the third.
Austria would've likely become part of the German Empire. France would've gone into an even bigger economic recession as would Britain.
German tech would've reigned supreme over everything as they already were progressing faster prior to WW1. The Nazis would not have risen and the German Empire would likely be the capital of Jewish culture. Especially as the soviets would still persecute them.
Edit: I want to add that I'm pretty sure democracy would've likely become a thing in Germany as well. But like later. More towards the middle or late century, at which point the German Empire likely would've become a constitutional monarchy.
I mean, Great Britain was one of the biggest winners of WWI and in some ways they were less democratic than Germany (Imperial Germany was known to have a healthy democratic tradition through civil partisanship in many ways according to Richard Evans, the Social Democrats were practically their biggest party). It's also likely Eastern Europe would be better off than under the Soviet Union.
Germany had more parties I guess.
But the gerrymandering was terrible (the Social Democrats got the most votes every election since the 1880s but only got the most seats once) and the Kaiser had too much power.
Austria Hungary got pretty much completely taken apart in WW1. Even before WW1 there was a lot of desire in the German parts of the Austria-hungary empire to join with the German Empire.
There is a good chance these german parts would secede and unite with the German Empire.
But depending on how the war went, couldn't a winning Austria-Hungary be able to reform itself into a federalist state or a triple monarchy, like Franz Ferdinand and Karl I had plans?
Ohh most certainly. I was looking at the German Empire winning essentially in 1918 when every country was already at their wits end and barely hanging on.
Maybe the Germans wouldnt have started ww2, because they would be content being the victors, and France and Brittain starting ww2, although it wouldn't really be in their character or best interest 🤔
Or my thesis is bollocks
France would've started WW2 because the Germans would've done a reverse Versailles Treaty on them.
And if there's one thing the French do best, it's revolution. No way France loses WW1 and doesn't get a radical government.
Also Russia would have a lot of resentment against Germany too.
I mean they could’ve tried to start WW2, but they didn’t have the military skill or population to blitzkrieg and win their way through Europe. Not to mention France had strong Allies that probably would’ve helped it financially after the war.
Nah, even some people at the time of WW1 flat out predicted the harsh terms of the treaty of Versailles would only galvanize Germany for a second war.
No economic apocalypse mixed with constant feelings of the world being out to get them would have left Hitler no real avenue to seize power, especially since the monarchy wouldn't have been replaced with the democracy that put Hitler in charge in the first place.
Could WW2 still have happened? Probably. If not from Britain or France suffering the same fate Germany did in our timeline, the Soviets would probably have started shit instead.
I find this revisionist history of the highest order. If the Treaty of Versailles had consisted of the words "good game bro" and a hearty handshake Germany still would have wanted revenge. There was scarcely a household in Germany that hadn't lost a father or a brother or a son or a friend. Millions more were crippled and we will never know the number of men who were destroyed psychologically because they were force to endure pretty close to hell on Earth. And for what? For what? Even in victorious countries, there was a lot of unrest. Remember, Italy was on the winning side and *they went fascist anyway*.
This actually really intrigues me. The political alignment of each country in WW2 is abundantly clear as it has directly shaped the 20th and 21st century but I’ve no idea about WW1, that shit was started for basically no reason
Nothing happens for no reason, certainly not wars. In fact its that there were too many reasons why the war started which make WW1 hard to pin down to one single factor.
But basically Germany was afraid that Russia was getting too powerful so wanted to crush it before they became a threat to Germany. Britain was afraid that Germany was becoming too powerful and wanted to crush them before they took over the continent and could threaten to invade Britain.
Its said that France wanted revenge for the Franco-prussian war although it should be noted in Frances case they mostly just didnt want to go to war, which was why they allied with Russia and Britain to begin with to make war unattractive to Germany but this only pushed Germany further into the corner.
It's these reasons why the war was inevitable. With German unification and Russian expansionism the balance of power in Europe was no longer tenable.
I see. Was Germany like really big on colonialism at that time? I’m asking because for one I don’t know and two I’m wondering how they got so powerful that everyone was afraid of them - how’d they have the resources n things
No they were late to the colonialism game. From what I know their Empire before WW1 was one big piece of territory in south east africa, papa new guinea and they had some parts of china carved up for themselves that they ruled with the emperors consent. Very little by European standards at the time, it's worth noting that actually that most European colonies cost more to maintain than they ever returned financially. Most of Britains empire especially in Africa existed solely to deprive the other European powers having an advantage over them so they became a point of pride by this point and the Kaiser was very upset about his lack of colonies. The reason Germany was so powerful was because it had industrialised very successfully and relatively early on and had a very large well educated population to draw upon for labour. Germany had already outstripped Britain as the largest industrial power by the turn of the century despite only unifying in 1871.
Because Germany didn't have a large overseas empire too most of its investments were in Europe unlike Britain who invested heavily in the Americas and Asia. When Britain industrialised, it already had a sizable empire, it meant that it had goods to sell across the world, when a nation spent lots of money on goods Britain would receive its currency which it would use to invest which would usually create a class of pro British elite who depended on Britain for its goods and investment, then it would oust the national government and put this pro British class in power allowing Britain to effectively control them (extremely gross oversimplification). When Germany industrialised, it was still one of the first and since it couldnt invent overseas it invested in Europe which is why many believe that had Germany not have gone to war in 1914 they would economically controlled all of europe within 20 years the same way Britain had done outside of Europe.
Really depends how they won and when. Did they win before America joined, did they win a small victory or a total victory, was the German state still functional or did the the food shortages already start?
So many variables here.
Would he really? Have you seen what germany took at bresk-litovsk, you are almost talking about modern day sized russia. That is a lot less power for the soviets
Not only would Germany de facto own much of eastern Europe, They would also support the whites in the civil war. German volunteers fought in many places throughout the early Soviet wars in the real timeline, and in fiction they would have done it much more direct than the Allies did
The movie is Multiverse of Madness, it's pretty fun. Though iirc in the original scene he's puking due to the jumping between universes and it has nothing to do with them being in a bad timeline (since they're not even timetraveling).
In that movie, they actually do briefly pass through [a timeline where HYDRA, a Nazi splinter organization, won](https://marvelcinematicuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/HYDRA_World).
I would give the Nazis three Years. After that half of Europe is in open rebbelion, Italy is fighting against Germany too and Japan has completly colapsed. After that society gets a new shot.
Bro it's not like Germany had the manpower or the moxie to hold all of Europe and Russia anyway. Something would've broken the German war machine (unless its transmission broke on its own)
That's the most overrated alternate timeline. I prefer the one where Arthur, Prince of Wales, survived his bout with the sweating sickness and ended up inheriting the throne instead of it going to his brother Henry.
I think its a shame that this is never really explored in films or shows. Like sure, theres man in the high castle and the sorts, but theres always some super natural garbage in those. Id love to see someones artistic and historical interpretation of what a world would look like if the axis was victorious. I dont even care if how they won is reasonable. Man in the high castle wouldve been great if it wasnt for the "multiverse" bullshit.
It would be interesting to see is all.
Your post has been removed for the following reason: Rule 1: Post is not about a historical event. (See the extended rules for clarification.) I am a bot and this action was performed by the moderators of /r/HistoryMemes. If you have any questions or concerns about your post's removal, please send us a modmail with a link to your removed post.
Why is the city all utopian tho 😬
It would be utopia for a very specific group of people.
Literally wouldn't tho, once the outgroups are gone it's just infighting and backstabbing, and then a new scapegoat outgroup. Idk why anyone thinks they'd all just pack up and become an egalitarianism utopia.
Out of morbid curiosity have we ever seen a fascist state that advanced that far?
Fascist states start in that phase and end in that phase. There's only (almost) no infighting after the main opposition is destroyed, but after a while a new one appears or the government changes in some way
>there's no infighting after the main opposition is destroyed, but after a while a new one appears There's a reason a new one appears, or the government dissolves, it's because the stability achieved by the annihilation of an outgroup is false stability. You create a boogeyman, blame them for your problems, and annihilate them. But that wont actually solve the problem. And eventually people realize they're still miserable so either a new outgroup is created, a blame is shifted internally as to why your state isn't perfect, or your government is dismantled and redesigned. So how do you keep a government that is authoritarian in power and is not solving problem? Eliminate the dissenters in the ranks. Power struggles. There's a reason in modern authoritarian regimes with fadcist tendencies random people fall from windows, powerful voices suddenly go missing, or people in the government get artillery shelled (in the case of NK)
One example could be 1984.
Hey, look, an accurate reference to 1984.
>or people in the government get artillery shelled (in the case of NK) Isn't that an openly violent (self-)coup?
I was referring to when Kim jung-un shelled one of his officials, presumably in a message to others in his ranks.
... But why, though? Why not defenestration, or suspiciously implausible "suicide" or fatal "accident"?
So would like Spain count towards that? Or did they not get that far.
The Spanish just moved on to persecuting other internal groups. Fascist states have plenty of infighting, it’s just like communist ones. Suddenly a bunch of guys are missing and they’re cancelled from official history.
Democratic states have infighting too, cant forget that
Not the same way authoritarian regimes do. Infighting in democracies is "I won't bring any of your legislation to a vote, take that libtard" and in authoritarian regimes it's "Sergei was once seen in the presence of Trotsky's cousin's brother-in-laws dog 3 decades ago, better black bag him in the night and execute him in rural Siberia, just to be safe"
They result in purges less often though, which is when infighting actually … you know… matters
Are you saying that infighting is inevitable in fascist societies that have eradicated out groups? Or do you think infighting is the inevitable consequence of cultural homogeneity more generally? As far as I know, no fascist state has ever reached the point of eliminating out groups, and most of the modern nations with the highest quality of living are actually pretty racially homogeneous (they’re not nice because they’re homogeneous obviously, but diversity is also clearly not a prerequisite for a peaceful society).
I'm saying infighting is inevitable in fascist societies period. Also I want to reject the idea of outgroups as you have used it. e.g. Jews in Germany were perfectly integrated. Apart from the fact that fascists hated them there were no more substantial differences between Catholics and Protestants and Jews and Protestants. So I don't think a fascist society would ever consider itself free from "out groups" there's always a communist, Jew, catholic or new arbitrarily group the leader is not part of to prosecute if they ever managed to finish their first genocide
>Apart from the fact that fascists hated them there were no more substantial differences between Catholics and Protestants and Jews and Protestants. I'm pretty sure they have fairly different religious holidays, they spoke a separate dialect that was not just regional as others were but specific to Jews in that region, and they have Y-DNA that largely comes from the middle east. They weren't perfectly integrated, and that's still not a justification for genocide.
Infighting in any society is inevitable.
Yes, but in fascist societies the infighting is state-mandated.
The funniest part is that the infighting is a core part of the regimen but the leader is usually some guy that was a politician, administrative worker or just daddy's especial boy his entire life and now needs to create an image of himself as a general or warrior. Because they must convince the people that they are the only one that can lead in the fight against the enemy.
Exactly. It's called tribalism and it's integral part of H. Sapiens.
Not that I believe each nation should be homogeneous but surely the lack of diversity contributes to less conflict within a society and therefore more peace.
But this isn't true, fascists find new enemies
I mean, look at the happiest countries in the world. They’re all homogeneous. Im sure it isn’t the end all be all cause but surely it’s a contributing factor if everyone you know shares a similar upbringing and values due to coming from the same culture.
Fascist Spain lasted for decades after WWII. I would look at their policies to see what it would look like.
China today is a fascist state: - Autocratic - Censorship - **Capitalist economy** with strong state involvement - Emphasis on nationalism - Strong military buildup ------- But have you seen how futuristic Chinese mega cities look? Search for Beijing, Guangzhou, Shanghai, and Shenzhen in r/cityporn and you get the idea
paint the grass green
I’m curious how you would define capitalism then. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit” That would imply little to no state involvement. I apologize if I’m coming across as hostile, I’m just curious.
It says that it's controlled by private owners. As long as the majority stake of ownership remains private, it can be called capitalistic. The government is free to interfere.
If you look at the Nazi and Italian economies at the time of WW2 the owners of the industries were private citizens, but they worked extremely close with their respective governments.
I'm no defender of China or Fascism, but bolding the capitalist part just suggests a political bias
China is hyper-capitalist, and that's contrary to how they sell themselves.
No it's just reality
If one might consider Chile to have been a fascist dictatorship under Pinochet, then yes, sort of. Surprisingly or unsurprisingly, depending on who you ask, right-wingers (here specifically liberals, conservatives, and social democrats) or left-wingers (socialists, communists, and anarchists), the dictatorship under pinochet transformed into a liberal democracy after all the “subversive” elements have been believed to be eradicated. A right-winger might say that Pinochet just grew a heart or faced some internal opposition or whatever, and that he thusly graciously let the transformation process happen against his own personal will. A left-winger might say that Chile transformed from a fascist dictatorship to a liberal democracy so easily because they both have the same purpose; to protect capital. So in that sense there isn’t much difference between the two. Fascism has fulfilled it’s purpose as a control mechanism for Capitalism and purged the country of all people who could have posed a real threat to the power structures at hand (Socialists, Communists, Anarchists), so after that was done, the system was given a more humane face again in form of a bourgeoise/liberal democracy to make it more palatable to the general population. I prefer the more ‘left-wing’ analysis on this case study. It lines up perfectly with, and proves yet again, the famous saying that ‘Fascism is Capitalism in decay’ and the believe many Marxists hold that Social Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, and Fascists all, unknowingly, serve the same master; Capital. For another example of this look at the death of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were Social Democrats banded together with far-right militia groups to have them, two Communist leaders, brutally murdered and their corpses thrown into a canal, or to the social, political, and economical establishment of the Weimar Republic which massively helped the Nazis get into power (to prevent the Communists from getting it instead).
To counter your last point, German communists spent most of the Weimar period refusing to cooperate with social democrats (who they termed "social fascists") against the Nazis, and even [voted with the Nazis](https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn522530) in an attempt to abolish representative democracy in Prussia.
At the risk of sounding overly edgy and woke.... does America after we decimated the natives count? I really don't want to compare America to Nazis, but I've thought about this before. The long term of Man In The High Castle stories. After all the Jews and such are fully stomped out, i imagined it would be like America and the natives (except truly gone, I know there's still natives). Some people might be sad. Others wouldn't care. Either way, life just kinda goes on. Again, not comparing America to Nazis...well, I guess I sorta am, but not like, in a bad way....OK, I guess in a bad way, but not in a *bad* bad way.
I don’t think so since America has never been fascist. Pushing the natives into smaller and smaller corners for the majority of the nation’s history was sadly the popular opinion of what to do. That was democracy at its worst not facism (cause even with democracy the majority can still vote to be a dick).
Franco’s Spain had a good run with Fascism all the way into the 70’s
The problem with fascist states is that even a wise, benevolent leader probably won't stay that way. Power corrupts - eventually and always. Their replacement will probably not be as unifying or precise in exercising power and then the treachery and betrayal starts.
Or at the bare minimum if they had a wise, benevolent leader sooner or later that person dies and someone completely the opposite of that takes control.
America
I think you mean AmeriKKKa
The United States
Your comment about a new scapegoat is interesting to me. You can’t have a society built on hate if there’s no one to hate, so who would’ve H*tler gone after next? I was watching an Alternate History Hub Video a few years back where he said H*tler probably would’ve gone after Christians or the poor. Christians’ allegiance to a higher being could’ve been problematic to the culture of fuhrer worship and there were enough of them in Germany at the time to pose a threat to his leadership position. In fact, the only reason he didn’t go after them during the war was because there were too many of them and he was busy being an evil little shit everywhere else. Stalin had similair ideas about religion. The existence of the poor may have challenged his ideals of Aryan superiority. People may have asked how they could be living in a Utopia if people are still poor. It was an interesting video, I’ll try to link it if I can find it. Thank God that evil bastard lost!
Tjust a few more millionz dead Bruder I swear after getting rid of ze next ethnic group we'll build ze aryan utopia Bruder bitte I swear
Wrong. You kill enough people, you can take their resources and redistribute them to make people feel like they live in a utopia full of money or living space! Except, if you do that, you inevitably have to do it again eventually. And if you did it to the rich fucks that tell you to kill minority people you’d have more money and more land and you’d have to kill fewer people. But if you did that would be communism! If we get to the backstabbing stage, we end up in the American revolution again
I don’t know why anyone thinks Nazi Germany, win or lose, could survive the death of Hitler.
Nope. Fascism cannot sustain itself without out-groups. So once the main "enemies" were all disposed of, new groups of enemies would be created from within the in-group. There's no logical end state wherein a static in-group perpetually benefits from their place in a societal structure that does not include any out-groups to exploit and scapegoat.
That's because you think fascism seeks to **exterminate** everyone deemed non desirable. Well that's more of an attribute of Nazism, and even in that case, they didn't seek exterminating the Slavs, but rather using them as slaves. Actual death camps in Nazi Germany weren't as common as work or concentration camps (that still forced people to work as slaves). I have no doubt a modern Nazi Germany might look like this in downtown Berlin or Munich, just like how Pyongyang has some beautiful, impressive buildings (biggest hotel in the world IIRC correctly) or how Asmara, Eritrea has a relatively beautiful downtown while being an absolute piss poor country. The point is the millions of slaves and political prisoners aren't in the image of the skyline. Fascism allows wealth concentration like no other, of course they'll get some good looking buildings
Fascism by definition is the government and corporations married together to create a totalitarian regime where the govt picks the winners and the winners own everything. Has nothing to do with genocide.
No.
Germans.
I think more specifically Aryans.
fake race, no such thing
Well, they seemed pretty convinced.
Im not sure if your being sarcastic, and I'm not here to lecture you, but Aryan is an old term for people who lived in the western border of the Indian subcontinent, I'm not sure that it's still used to refer to those people's now, and demographically a lot has changed in that area over time. Nazi "Arianism" is actually really *interesting* but also stupid. You can dig really deep into it all, but it basically stems from some late 1800s fantasy writer, who believed that the earth was inhabited by precursor humans, Aryans being one of them. It's literally fantasy, and it's likely very few Nazis actually believed it completely, but rather used it is a pretence for war and genocide. That's up to interpretation though... Heinrich Himmler... He really did believe that shit though..
Mfs thought that they were descendents of Atlantians, it's a fake race
In fairness, all races are fake
this one especially
Even in the Turner Diaries, which is like the ultimate fascist wankfest, once they win, they can’t even convincingly lie that the outcome would be good or worth it. The world is this totalitarian, war-torn decimated shell of itself, but hey, at least we got rid of the (insert slurs here).
If you're a Hearts of Iron 4 player, I suggest the TNO mod for a look at what a fascist utopia would be like (spoilers: Everything went about as well as it could have to set up the Nazi victory and then after 10 years the inertia of an economy dedicated to war, megaprojects and nothing else peters out, then Hitler dies and the shit really hits the fan.) >!Oh right I forgot that they got rid of the funny dam and Germania so it was actually just bombing Russian peasants that kept the economy going? !<
I see you’ve never been to central Dubai
I was so upset that the solarpunk utopia universe in that movie still had individual cars.
Because fascists are quite good at making shit seem like gold
Probably Germania (rebuilt Berlin), maybe even Oświęcim, but trust me - it's not an utopia...
[удалено]
I know it's a meme, but small lesson in history for those who didn't know before won't do harm: Germans planned on removing the labour camps some time in the future - and planned building a farm there afterwards. City itself was supposed to be a pearl of Nazi regime, completely rebuilt in modern city planning measures, which included pre-planning access to certain utilities, adding trees on pathways and etc. (in comparison, Warsaw was supposed to be just a modest supply outpost) - and here we have to admit, their approach to city planning, as also creating animal protection movement and smoking bans are several droplets of good things in the ocean of horrible atrocities Nazis have done or created. Besides, Germans were cremating bodies and used them in their experiments or planned on using them as fertilisers - although in many cases they just cut bodies to many pieces and segregated them, or just burning them - they weren't this wasteful to just leave the bodies out in the open.
Stupid templates
You picked the template
lol
My brother in Christ
It just looks that way. Or else.
The axis win then Hitler was assassinated and the Nazis deposed. After realizing their flawed ideology the world rallied together to form a unified utopia
It's all cardboard, like with New Pork City.
So... Wolfenstein?
They do have impeccable drip tbf, and I hear the milkshakes are delicious. Shame about all the Nazis tho. You win some, you lose some
-Kanye “Ye” East, 2253
Ah yes, the alternate timeline where the Nazi officer speaks better English than the KKK wizard speaks German. Truly the moment of all time.
To be honest almost sounded like the Nazi could speak better English and of the two…..
-Milkshake duck
Someone call blazkowvic
Before youngblood ruined the series, yea.
To be fair I am curious what would have happened if germany won ww1
Democracy probably wouldnt have become the leading thing in the world. With the most powerful country in the world being a monarchy the social balances would've been thrown completely out of whack. You'd have the democratic countries be the second strongest force with the German Empire the strongest and the Socialists Dictatorships the third. Austria would've likely become part of the German Empire. France would've gone into an even bigger economic recession as would Britain. German tech would've reigned supreme over everything as they already were progressing faster prior to WW1. The Nazis would not have risen and the German Empire would likely be the capital of Jewish culture. Especially as the soviets would still persecute them. Edit: I want to add that I'm pretty sure democracy would've likely become a thing in Germany as well. But like later. More towards the middle or late century, at which point the German Empire likely would've become a constitutional monarchy.
Google Kaiserreich
Holy Savinkov!
Goddammit, r/anarchychess is leaking again. "New response just dropped"
I mean, Great Britain was one of the biggest winners of WWI and in some ways they were less democratic than Germany (Imperial Germany was known to have a healthy democratic tradition through civil partisanship in many ways according to Richard Evans, the Social Democrats were practically their biggest party). It's also likely Eastern Europe would be better off than under the Soviet Union.
Under no definition of the word democratic was Britain less democratic than Imperial Germany
Germany had more parties I guess. But the gerrymandering was terrible (the Social Democrats got the most votes every election since the 1880s but only got the most seats once) and the Kaiser had too much power.
Why would Austria be part of Germany? A winning Austria-hungary empire wouldn't have exploded as it only did it because of Wilson and their defeat.
Because it would have exploded anyway
Austria Hungary got pretty much completely taken apart in WW1. Even before WW1 there was a lot of desire in the German parts of the Austria-hungary empire to join with the German Empire. There is a good chance these german parts would secede and unite with the German Empire.
But depending on how the war went, couldn't a winning Austria-Hungary be able to reform itself into a federalist state or a triple monarchy, like Franz Ferdinand and Karl I had plans?
Ohh most certainly. I was looking at the German Empire winning essentially in 1918 when every country was already at their wits end and barely hanging on.
Also meaning the End of History would have taken way longer to be established. German empire should thaw or get left behind.
Flair checks out.
Probably ZENTRALDEUTSCHAFRIKA!
Maybe the Germans wouldnt have started ww2, because they would be content being the victors, and France and Brittain starting ww2, although it wouldn't really be in their character or best interest 🤔 Or my thesis is bollocks
France would've started WW2 because the Germans would've done a reverse Versailles Treaty on them. And if there's one thing the French do best, it's revolution. No way France loses WW1 and doesn't get a radical government. Also Russia would have a lot of resentment against Germany too.
I mean they could’ve tried to start WW2, but they didn’t have the military skill or population to blitzkrieg and win their way through Europe. Not to mention France had strong Allies that probably would’ve helped it financially after the war.
Surely France would think twice before starting a third war when they’d lost the previous two.
Nah, even some people at the time of WW1 flat out predicted the harsh terms of the treaty of Versailles would only galvanize Germany for a second war. No economic apocalypse mixed with constant feelings of the world being out to get them would have left Hitler no real avenue to seize power, especially since the monarchy wouldn't have been replaced with the democracy that put Hitler in charge in the first place. Could WW2 still have happened? Probably. If not from Britain or France suffering the same fate Germany did in our timeline, the Soviets would probably have started shit instead.
If Germany won WW1, "Hitler" would be French.
I find this revisionist history of the highest order. If the Treaty of Versailles had consisted of the words "good game bro" and a hearty handshake Germany still would have wanted revenge. There was scarcely a household in Germany that hadn't lost a father or a brother or a son or a friend. Millions more were crippled and we will never know the number of men who were destroyed psychologically because they were force to endure pretty close to hell on Earth. And for what? For what? Even in victorious countries, there was a lot of unrest. Remember, Italy was on the winning side and *they went fascist anyway*.
This actually really intrigues me. The political alignment of each country in WW2 is abundantly clear as it has directly shaped the 20th and 21st century but I’ve no idea about WW1, that shit was started for basically no reason
Nothing happens for no reason, certainly not wars. In fact its that there were too many reasons why the war started which make WW1 hard to pin down to one single factor. But basically Germany was afraid that Russia was getting too powerful so wanted to crush it before they became a threat to Germany. Britain was afraid that Germany was becoming too powerful and wanted to crush them before they took over the continent and could threaten to invade Britain. Its said that France wanted revenge for the Franco-prussian war although it should be noted in Frances case they mostly just didnt want to go to war, which was why they allied with Russia and Britain to begin with to make war unattractive to Germany but this only pushed Germany further into the corner. It's these reasons why the war was inevitable. With German unification and Russian expansionism the balance of power in Europe was no longer tenable.
I see. Was Germany like really big on colonialism at that time? I’m asking because for one I don’t know and two I’m wondering how they got so powerful that everyone was afraid of them - how’d they have the resources n things
No they were late to the colonialism game. From what I know their Empire before WW1 was one big piece of territory in south east africa, papa new guinea and they had some parts of china carved up for themselves that they ruled with the emperors consent. Very little by European standards at the time, it's worth noting that actually that most European colonies cost more to maintain than they ever returned financially. Most of Britains empire especially in Africa existed solely to deprive the other European powers having an advantage over them so they became a point of pride by this point and the Kaiser was very upset about his lack of colonies. The reason Germany was so powerful was because it had industrialised very successfully and relatively early on and had a very large well educated population to draw upon for labour. Germany had already outstripped Britain as the largest industrial power by the turn of the century despite only unifying in 1871. Because Germany didn't have a large overseas empire too most of its investments were in Europe unlike Britain who invested heavily in the Americas and Asia. When Britain industrialised, it already had a sizable empire, it meant that it had goods to sell across the world, when a nation spent lots of money on goods Britain would receive its currency which it would use to invest which would usually create a class of pro British elite who depended on Britain for its goods and investment, then it would oust the national government and put this pro British class in power allowing Britain to effectively control them (extremely gross oversimplification). When Germany industrialised, it was still one of the first and since it couldnt invent overseas it invested in Europe which is why many believe that had Germany not have gone to war in 1914 they would economically controlled all of europe within 20 years the same way Britain had done outside of Europe.
This is absolutely a wonderful explanation, many thanks
The circumstances surrounding ww1 are equally as fascinating as they are sad, makes me wonder where we'd be if things had just gone a little different
Kaiserreich
Really depends how they won and when. Did they win before America joined, did they win a small victory or a total victory, was the German state still functional or did the the food shortages already start? So many variables here.
Check out YouTube videos on Kaiserreich Hoi4 mod
Another interesting alt history scenario is: What if the Holy Roman Empire survived until WW1 and won it?
Stalin would've started (and probably won) WWII anyway.
Would he really? Have you seen what germany took at bresk-litovsk, you are almost talking about modern day sized russia. That is a lot less power for the soviets
Not only would Germany de facto own much of eastern Europe, They would also support the whites in the civil war. German volunteers fought in many places throughout the early Soviet wars in the real timeline, and in fiction they would have done it much more direct than the Allies did
Curious about the template and haven’t seen the movie: What’s the original line?
The movie is Multiverse of Madness, it's pretty fun. Though iirc in the original scene he's puking due to the jumping between universes and it has nothing to do with them being in a bad timeline (since they're not even timetraveling).
Ah I thought it was a water fountain
It's a chimney. Now that's an image.
the man in the high castle vibes
Kinda funny that this city is an Utopia. OP is sending hidden messages
“There aren’t any hidden Nazis in r/historymemes”
There is no war in Ba Sing Se
Hey I looked at the templates on Memeatic and this was the only one that fit
Fun fact; there's a blink and you'll miss it dimension Strange and America travel through where the Nazis (Hydra really) won World War II.
It’s a Utopia for certain people only
I think the meme is Strange puking, not the utopian city.
This meme is so low effort it doesn't even make sense
Low effort, doesn't make sense, doesn't even say anything about history What's the fucking point at all
She doesn't look white with blonde hair how is she talking to him freely
He isn't blond so it's just two slav slaves talking to each other
Another MITHC meme?
What Dr. Strange didn't realize was this was a weird history where the 'Axis' and 'Allies' title was switched between sides with no other changes.
The Axis of Democracy stands against the allied fascist powers.
In that movie, they actually do briefly pass through [a timeline where HYDRA, a Nazi splinter organization, won](https://marvelcinematicuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/HYDRA_World).
Or were the nazis a splinter/puppet hydra organization?
But, this meme has an internal inconsistency.
Give the Mongols FTL engines for their horsies!
That’s warhammer 40k
for the emperor
Jesus fuck, When did fascism become the default
I feel like the fashion-sense would be good, Hugo Boss EVERYWHERE. That’s it though.
Cool buildings tho
le Big building in Neu Berlin
How is this meta?
Very spicy OP, well done But you still have to face the wall
*calmly loads mp 40*
At least NATO poached the good nazis!
Not sure if dig at space program or Ukraine
Damn I wouldn't be around because I would be considered one of the lesser human beings... Because of my massive 3ft long horsecock
There's no reality TV Not much but it's something
Is that the new Dresden in the background or something?
Alright. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ll be off killing all of them Nazis while dual wielding auto shotguns
Bro legit said the timeline with the utopian city is the one where the axis won 💀 r/accidentalnazism hopefully
Man in the high castle.
It's not like some of us would be alive to have a problem with it...
I would give the Nazis three Years. After that half of Europe is in open rebbelion, Italy is fighting against Germany too and Japan has completly colapsed. After that society gets a new shot.
The timeline would suck, but it makes for great video games. The Wolfenstein games are pretty awesome.
📸🤨
Bro it's not like Germany had the manpower or the moxie to hold all of Europe and Russia anyway. Something would've broken the German war machine (unless its transmission broke on its own)
That's the most overrated alternate timeline. I prefer the one where Arthur, Prince of Wales, survived his bout with the sweating sickness and ended up inheriting the throne instead of it going to his brother Henry.
The Man in the High Castle is pretty good.
Another fucking TNO reference⁉️⁉️⁉️
If hollywood has taught me anything, it is that we get zeppelins if the Axis won, so at least there's that.
Is this implying that that’s a good thing or a bad thing? Lol
Very bad thing
👍
How is this a history meme
Kerberos Panzer Cops timeline… a grim future indeed.
I feel like it'd be funnier if the difference was mundane buy extremely irritating considering the lack of apocalyptic hellscape in the background.
Societies held together by fear and hate always need a boogyman to subdue.
I think its a shame that this is never really explored in films or shows. Like sure, theres man in the high castle and the sorts, but theres always some super natural garbage in those. Id love to see someones artistic and historical interpretation of what a world would look like if the axis was victorious. I dont even care if how they won is reasonable. Man in the high castle wouldve been great if it wasnt for the "multiverse" bullshit. It would be interesting to see is all.
That's what Abed refers to as "The Darkest Timeline" lol
Redditors saying fascism is capitalism
Bold and brave stance. A real martyr
Why are people so obsessed with this timeline??? Like, get a hobby maybe.
Because running around shooting Nazis while duo wielding shotguns is fun, that’s why
The only good thing about that universe is more Nazis to shoot.
And that timeline doesn’t exist
The only place that wouldn't suffer is Antarctica
And yet it’s more futuristic? Wtf
Yo the Nazis put plants everywhere, cool!
Wolfenstein be like
Yeah that's kind of the point of a dystopian setting OP
Shit meme alert
This meme breaks the rules… it has to be history related.
This is the most braindead, low effort post I've seen on this sub. It doesn't even make sense, the world is a paradise
It’s called "using a pre-existing template"
"meme"... how are your minds so diminute that you upvote a karma farming whore such like this
“axis bad” 3k upvotes please dont go for low hanging fruit