About "terrible Russian fascists"

As a result of certain historical events of the 20th century, the name "Hitler" and the name "Nazism" have become a household name. As it happened, it happened. To change something is very difficult. That in fact hitler was not quite the man draws his propaganda, and that in fact fascism and nazism are several different (very different) — is another question.

Happened what happened, happened exactly what happened. Hitler and nazism/fascism (in the West, often used the word "Nazi" with its derivatives) have become a kind of brands (antipode). Was imbedded so tightly in the mass consciousness after the second world war. And we, in the West. Hitler is bad and nazis are bad.

And this became so persistent stereotype, so frozen and ossified that "Break" is virtually impossible. But the story goes, the political situation has changed and after 1991, the year began to be some fun conflict. In principle, they began to emerge even earlier when Germany became part of NATO and the eu — that is actually "His" country, but the Soviet Union — just the enemy. But is most clearly and openly, it became apparent in recent years (life goes on, and the policy is not in place). Hitler was pure evil, and he with his hordes excuse not to be, but what to do, how to act in the current situation? was he just de facto pan-European (Western) leader, and fought with soviet russia.

And lost, too, soviet russia. This is where it all started to happen. Aspects of this problem are many, one of the most interesting — just charge a modern Russian fascism. A kind of "Knight's move". As has been said, is not casually and not suddenly never.

Is "Bad fascism", and someone has to be extreme. It is clear that the leaders, for example, the modern german extreme do not want to be strongly, and one of the European leaders do not want. Meanwhile, fascism (nazism) did not arise suddenly and immediately, but is a kind of an organic part of European history/culture. It is European, but not Russian. The history of the origin and development of fascist (nazi) ideology — the topic is certainly very interesting and even exciting, but that's why it is quite well investigated (to describe them quite late).

Hitler, mussolini, franco quite organically fit into the European culture and history. They "Own" fully, finally and irrevocably. In 20-ies/30-ies of 20th century fascism/nazism in Europe was a kind of "Mainstream". To deny this is pointless — so it was, from the song words can not erase. If not for a crushing defeat of the axis powers, who knows how it would have developed further European (and world) history.

The future of mankind for generations to come could be quite a national socialist. Fascist regimes in hungary, croatia, romania also looked quite a organic. And had prospects at different outcome of the great war. But not in russia. The regime that emerged in the ussr was communist so to say, categorically and fundamentally distantsirovaniya and "Bourgeois democracy" and various nazi/fascist regimes.

Ideological differences, for example between hitler and stalin was fundamentally insurmountable. Not even between them there was a giant gap size to overcome that was impossible. If: regimes of mussolini, hitler and franco, even no problems with the legitimization did not know — they recognized almost immediately. But the ussr-and with the international recognition was a huge problem. Huge problem.

Finally they resolved toward the end of wwii. Or even in potsdam. After the war. But herr hitler from such worries were completely spared, as signor mussolini.

Remember: the Soviet Union from the time of its formation until the collapse was in a fierce ideological blockade and political isolation, but from the german nazis, no one fiend in the 30-ies did not. And even more — they are actively "Collaborated". Attempts to unite nazism/fascism and communism under the name of some "Totalitarian" ideologies causing too many issues — too different to them was the attitude in the West. Does not fit somehow. Here today, someone out there in the West "Sees no difference", but before wwii the "Difference" was just blatant.

And "Brand" of communism is so "Lit up", what to merge it with "Nazism" into a single entity — the task is still absolutely not for children. I'm not about to broadcast is a good idea, "Communism" or not, and about the fact that it is quite a lived an independent life and had quite a typical signs. With nazism, it had very little in common. Even then, in the 20-ies/30-ies stalin was against the nazis. That is, he opposed the nazis, when "It was not yet a trend"! you can find hundreds of photos of Western politicians, who had visited hitler and was friends with him.

And after all everyone knew about the gestapo and about the concentration camps, but almost no one is outraged. Nobody wanted especially to get up "To fight with the nazi regime" in Europe of the 30's. In the us too, no one stood up to watch. And now we have to prove that is the main culprit and was the main stronghold of the totalitarian nazi ideas.

But the photo of stalin along with hitler you will find — you have to make collages. Because there is such a political order is what makes. Problem here in what: was a very tough opposition and absolutely uncompromising war, including in the ideological sphere. Hitler's nazism and stalin's communism are not compatible at all. She and the other doctrine clearly and unambiguously set forth in the public works and implemented.

The information is accessible to everyone. So, if the basis of the soviet ideology of internationalism and friendship among peoples, in the ideology of Germany was clearly spelled out the idea of "Racial superiority". Excuse me, what is there in common? the problem of overpopulation of the planet and scarcity of resources in the Soviet Union and Germany decided each in their own way — the decision was absolutely perpendicular. By the way, the nazi version of "Bright future" (in case of victory in the east/non-aggression against the ussr), it had the prospects. But when the Soviet Union, stalin and the communist ideology? today, made intensive attempts to prove that the Soviet Union and nazi Germany, or stalin and hitler are one and the same. Strange are the attempts.

Between the two systems there was overt antagonism. They had absolute and obvious incompatibility: after the molotov-ribbentrop pact with hitler, there was a huge ideological problems inside of Germany and with the European fascist allies, and even "Militaristic Japan" — he did not understand anybody. It is the ideological problems. Any treaty with england or France almost no disputes did not cause, and here happened "Plugging". The pact did not accept and did not understand neither in Italy nor in Spain nor in Japan.

Hitler fucked with this pact, on the one hand, large practical benefits (about it we say!), but, on the other hand, he alienated wide nazi-fascist community. That is, even for an absolute dictator adolf hitler's pact with stalin had a very high price in the field of ideology (in contrast to the covenant with almost any other country). And we now say that stalin and hitler (and their modes) — twins! so that they are not merged then in a totalitarian ecstasy? something interrupted them. One of the reasons for hitler's attack on ussr — categorical and ideological incompatibility with the add-on. Hitler's regime and stalin's regime could not long exist under the same sky.

Here, franco and mussolini "Life together" was possible, as with the regime of horthy in hungary, as with antonescu in romania, but not with stalin and the communists. Basically, until recently this was strange enough to tell, but time is. Changing political attitudes. And today, we are persistently trying to prove that the regimes of hitler and stalin were each other as close as possible. If so, then what prevented them from "Tender friendship"? the war for life and death are not a joke. During wwii, hitler repeatedly and persistently sought a truce with the Western allies.

"Sitting war" is just a continuous attempt to "Play nice". Hitler, in principle, did not want to take paris, but i had to. But in regard to the ussr, it was much simpler and more brutal. No one in Berlin and tried to stop the fighting on the Eastern front, nobody was looking for a truce, even when the front rolled back.

And ideologically it was acceptable. But not with the Western allies. That is, between the third reich and the Soviet Union there was an ideological chasm, and between the reich and the allies, it just wasn't. Why? even during the "Joint war with the nazi regime" the level of trust achieved in the West by hitler in the 30s, stalin were very elusive. Why all this long and banal introduction is to summarize the "Doctrine of democracy", "The doctrine of nazism" and "The doctrine of communism" is a long, tedious and overly today, in the presence of the internet. The author just wanted to show that communist doctrine was completely separate and "Equidistant" from nazism, and from "Bourgeois democracy", which is just well combined among themselves. Alas, it was.

Alas, today.