International *Nazism*

I'm not posting this tread because we had a lot of similar treads and it sounds funny. Ok, just a little bit.

But it makes sence. The races are divided in different countries so why not have a movement wanting to create a country for all the members of the race? I think this idea flows around in rasist circles anyway. So how would a international nazism be?
 
I'm not posting this tread because we had a lot of similar treads and it sounds funny. Ok, just a little bit.

But it makes sence. The races are divided in different countries so why not have a movement wanting to create a country for all the members of the race? I think this idea flows around in rasist circles anyway. So how would a international nazism be?
Well, the German 'race' was split in several countries in OTL...
Austria, you know.

I must have misunderstood what you mean, really...
 
Plus: Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Poland, Switzerland, Romania, Hungary, Russia, the Baltic states...
Yes, but not as the majority (except for Switzerland, but the Swiss weren't keen on Nazism, even when surrounded by the Axis, and, in any case, the Austrians were closer to the other Germans).
I would have mentioned Italy, by the way.
They were a bigger miniority there then in some of the other states (and, after Anchluss, the area with them were one to which Germany had a border), so it was a more clear-cut case of 'extreme nationalists would want this area' then some of the other you mentioned.
 
Nazism was National Socialism. Internationalism was anathama and so was the idea of creating separate countries for different 'races' to live unmolested. Even the idea of using some distant land as a temporary dumping ground for the Jews was intended to be a band aid solution and not the Final Solution.

Any separate country populated solely by some mythical division between humans would be used by the Nazis as a slave state. So any International Nazism seems impossible as a concept. Different national strains of Nazism already existed in OTL.
 
Yes, but not as the majority (except for Switzerland, but the Swiss weren't keen on Nazism, even when surrounded by the Axis, and, in any case, the Austrians were closer to the other Germans).
I would have mentioned Italy, by the way.
They were a bigger miniority there then in some of the other states (and, after Anchluss, the area with them were one to which Germany had a border), so it was a more clear-cut case of 'extreme nationalists would want this area' then some of the other you mentioned.

Ah, you meant like that. I thought the discussion was about areas for which the Nazis IOTL looked for excuses to colonise.

And yes, I should probably have mentioned Bosen. Funny thing there, though, that Hitler actually wanted to leave the area to the Italians. And that the Germans there were to be resettled to the Crimean.

I wonder if that would've messed up Himmler's plans to replant the peninsula with pine trees and turn it into a hunting preserve?:rolleyes:
 
I ment race in the sence of the white race or the black race and so on forming large power blocks as opposed to the nazi idea that Germans are a race of their own. It wouildn't make sence calling them National Socialists of course but I like the oxymoron.
 
I think "International Nazism" what websites like nazi.org promote. Although they wouldn't call it "International" Nazism at it isn't really international integration but a world where every ethnic group voluntarily segregates themselves from the rest of the world and fight "globalisation" as a common enemy. Although I might not agree with this, I believe that there is nothing inconsistent in this position.
 
I ment race in the sence of the white race or the black race and so on forming large power blocks as opposed to the nazi idea that Germans are a race of their own. It wouildn't make sence calling them National Socialists of course but I like the oxymoron.
In essence, National Socialism, but with really, really broad Nations, compared to OTL?
 
Nazis aren't big on consistency. This International Naziism doesn't have to be consistent with anything Hitler ever said. :)

Why is everybody putting an asterisk next to the word?
 
Nazis aren't big on consistency. This International Naziism doesn't have to be consistent with anything Hitler ever said. :)

Why is everybody putting an asterisk next to the word?
Because it wouldn't be Nazism if it were in another language, really.
It is short for Nationalsozialism, and, hmm, most other languages lacks the zed in Socialism...
So, for example, a Swedish (or English) Nazism would be Nacism, litteraly, but that sounds bad, so it'd have to change more.
 
International fascism (as opposed to Nazism) almost got somewhere OTL; In the December of 1934 there was an attempt to establish a kind of “Fascist International”, when delegates from thirteen countries met at a congress known as the “Action Committees for the Universality of Rome”. The congress was not a success, as it was prominently boycotted by the most influential of the new fascist nations, Germany. The delegates who did meet in Montreux in 1934 clearly believed that their political stances had a common denominator, but they were unable to agree exactly on what it was, the State’s role towards the church, racism and anti-Semitism all being sticking points amongst many others.

IMO 1934 is too late for this; stick it in 1929 or 1930 though and you may have a decent starting point...
 
International fascism (as opposed to Nazism) almost got somewhere OTL; In the December of 1934 there was an attempt to establish a kind of “Fascist International”, when delegates from thirteen countries met at a congress known as the “Action Committees for the Universality of Rome”. The congress was not a success, as it was prominently boycotted by the most influential of the new fascist nations, Germany. The delegates who did meet in Montreux in 1934 clearly believed that their political stances had a common denominator, but they were unable to agree exactly on what it was, the State’s role towards the church, racism and anti-Semitism all being sticking points amongst many others.

IMO 1934 is too late for this; stick it in 1929 or 1930 though and you may have a decent starting point...
Like in Jarres Goes For It.?
No, that is even earlier... but it works, still (even if that great TL is on hold for now).
 
Top