No Nazis in Germany?

What you said was "owing to their being Germans, hardassed stiffnecks that they ar, it is impossible for interwar Germany to come under any sort of right-wing authoritarian regime which is not anti-semitic and racist. They hate Jews, dontchaknow! Not like we Italians."
I don't have speak of jews or Anti-Semitism (and in my opinion the fascist anti-semitic laws in 1938 was a terrible shame for Italy,because were motivated only for reasons of foreign policy),
i have said that the nature of the Italians was (and is) very different from that of Germans,not that italians are better and more goods.
you were speaking completely wiuthout evidence and historical rigour, never mind tact!
Said the italians are different from Germans is a thing without evidence?
Ok,if you say.

I repeat: you did nto say that "the Italian regime was an Italian phenomenon and even a "Mussolini-style" regime in Germany will be very noticably differant", which I completely agree with
i said exactly this.
you said "Germans take everything seriously.
For sure,
and this is fantastic for the good things,but very dangerous for the bad things
This is why they can't possibly treat Jews in a civilised fashion. Not like we Italians." That there is exactly what you said, rephrased slightly, and is of course a load of bollocks.
No.
I dont' never speak about the jews.
My convinction is that an authoritarian regime in Germany was a more serious thing for the Germans that the fascism for the Italians.
"Was possible a fascist regime like that of Mussolini in Germany"?
No,because the nature of two peoples are very different.
What you're saying here (as opposed to what you said earlier) is true in its essentials, although I rather think all that skepticism and individualism is being, if not anything else, back-reflected rather. The whoel things sounds to me a bit like an Italian version of Ve Ver Ohnly Follovink Ohders.
Well,is your opinion,but is a mistake.​
 
Last edited:
I don't have speak of jews or Anti-Semitism (and in my opinion the fascist anti-semitic laws in 1938 was a terrible shame for Italy,because were motivated only for reasons of foreign policy),

I know it wasn''t your intention, but you hvae to realise how incredibly offensive it looked in context:

"Could the Germans have come under a none-racist fascist regime?"
"No! There's Germans!:rolleyes:"

i have said the nature of the Italians are very different from that of Germans,not that italians are better and more goods.

"Because they're Germans.:rolleyes:" looks terribly mean and condescending however you spin it.

Said the italians are different from Germans is a thing without evidence?
Ok,if you say.

There's no evidence that Germany couldn't have come under a non-anti-semitic fascist regime. You seem to have misunderstood the question: it wasn't "Good Italian fascism in all respects have occured in Germany?", it was "Could Germany have come under a non-antisemitic fasvcist government?"

i said exactly this.

Only in your second post. Your first post didnt say anything in particular, it was just nebulous offense.

For sure,and this is fantastic for good things,but very dangerous for bad things)

For sure, this is simple stereotyping.

No.
I dont' have speak about jews.

Euroman's phrasing was, I admit, rather poor, but I think it's clear that by "euality-style Mussolini regime" he means "a regime like early Italian fascism in not being anti-semitic". He refers explicitly to Jews, so by replying to him (in the blunt, tasteless negative) you refer to them.

I don't have speak of jews or Anti-Semitism (and in my opinion the fascist anti-semitic laws in 1938 was a terrible shame for Italy,because were motivated only for reasons of foreign policy),

I know it wasn''t your intention, but you hvae to realise how incredibly offensive it looked in context:

"Could the Germans have come under a none-racist fascist regime?"
"No! There's Germans!:rolleyes:"

i have said the nature of the Italians are very different from that of Germans,not that italians are better and more goods.

"Because they're Germans.:rolleyes:" looks terribly mean and condescending however you spin it.

Said the italians are different from Germans is a thing without evidence?
Ok,if you say.

There's no evidence that Germany couldn't have come under a non-anti-semitic fascist regime. You seem to have misunderstood the question: it wasn't "Good Italian fascism in all respects have occured in Germany?", it was "Could Germany have come under a non-antisemitic fasvcist government?"

i said exactly this.

Only in your second post. Your first post didnt say anything in particular, it was just nebulous offense.

For sure,and this is fantastic for good things,but very dangerous for bad things)

For sure, this is simple stereotyping.

No.
I dont' have speak about jews.


My convinction is that an authoritarian regime in Germany was a more serious thing for Germans that the fascism for Italians.

I'm not sure. Would some sort of Schleicher-style regime have been any "more serious" that Mussolini?

"Was possible a fascist regime like that of Mussolini in Germany"?
No,because the nature of two peoples are very different.

True up to a point, but the question was about anti-semitism as best I can tell.

Well,is your opinion,but is a mistake.

Possibly it is, however you were mistaken to phrase youself ina way obviously liable to cause offense.
 
I know it wasn''t your intention, but you hvae to realise how incredibly offensive it looked in context:

"Could the Germans have come under a none-racist fascist regime?"
"No! There's Germans!:rolleyes:"
Ok,when you have right, have right.
So,start again.
"Could the Germans have come under a none-racist fascist regime?"
Well, in my opinion i have fear that this is improbable.
Anti-semitism was present in German right wing culture,and many after the war were to blame for defeat at "cosmopolitans" jews.
So is probable that an authoritarian right wing regime was anti-semitic (but not genocidal).
About "fascism",if with this word means "Italian fascism", i think no,a fascist regime in Italian way was very improbable because the nature of two peoples (Italians and Germans) are very different.
The Italians are inclined at compromises,are very individualistics,and unfortunately (but fortunately in this case) are a bit disorganized ,and Mussolini complained that the majority of Italian peoples not are enough "hard and masters" (see the Ciano diary).
So i have fear that an authoritarian right wing regime in Germany was a thing a little more serious (and maybe dangerous for the peace of Europe) that the Italian fascism.
 
Last edited:
1) Without Nazis, the republic mostly likely would still "fall," in that its democratic institutions become more and more sham-- even if there was no open complete rearrangement a la Nazis. However, the problem arises from the fact that the conservatives in Germany at the time were extraordinarily incompetent, Stressemann being the only capable one and he died before something could've happened. With decrepit Hindenburg at top and the Junkertum being utter losers, I think some sort of a radical dictatorship was inevitable. 2) Germany was no more, no less antisemitic than anywhere else in the West. In fact, the old Kaiserreich had extraordinariily high degree of professionalization and assimilation within the Jewish population; for example, there were more Jewish judges within the imperial judiciary than there were Catholic judges, despite the fact that Catholics made up almost half of German population! Historians who've studied public opinion cannot agree on the extent to which the German people agreed with antisemitic measures, at least up to late 30's. From '38 or so, people's opinions did appear to have changed for good against Jews, more than one would find in other Western countries. But as late as 1936, various historians have reached different conclusions, e.g., David Bunkier argues that the Germans were complicit, while Otto Dov Kulka (an Israeli historian) argues that ordinary Germans saw various antisemitic measures as a law and order issue, thus their support was less about antisemitism than about alleviating the perception of lawlessness that had existed during the Weimar period. 3) Britain ran an extremely brutal counterinsurgency campaign in Iraq after WWI, which wasn't as bad Ethiopia but pretty bad nonetheless and make mockery of British complaints against the Japanese brutalities in the 30's, up to certain point. Then there was the massacre of Indian demonstrators, where Britain Tiannemened and machinegunned hapless Indian demonstrators-- and the men responsible for the massacre were never punished, until a brave lone Indian gunman took the matter into his own hands and shot to death the head butcher. Good riddance! 4) The Weimar Republic, at least as a real democratic institution, was doomed the minute the Weimar coalition made its devil's bargain with the army. Instead of letting the army take the fall (rightly too) for the defeat, the civilian leadership let it off the hook, which allowed the army to fashion the backstabbed myth. If the army had to admit publicly of its defeat and inability to defend Germny, then the SPD would've been in incomparably stronger position in the 20's and 30's. Of course, if there were no Great Depression, then the republic could have survived. But that's a BIG IF. Without the Great Depression, all bets are off. Heck, Papin or even Bruning could've survived on without the GD, though the republic was hardly democratic by that point, being run by presidential fiat.
 

Goldstein

Banned
I'm sorry if I have skipped a response similar to what I'm about to say, but my opinion is that it could have happened. In fact, it is a much more logical outcome than OTL Nazism. Nazism's traits were in any way corresponent to the German traits of the time; its success, apart from being rooted in general discontent (which could have boosted plenty of ideologies), was rooted in a very new and flamboyant discourse that needed of a demagogical figure like that of Adolf Hitler, to lift off. As for antisemitism at that time, I can't see why the jews could neccesarily be seen as THE scapegoat.

Think about this scenario: A more standard Fascist-like regime emerges in Germany, due to the right potential leader being in the right places at the right time. It has a strong unionist/corporativist discourse... it uses the anti-semitic feelings to label the jews as one "privileged group" out of many, so the regime expropriates their properties, but after that, they're seen as a threat no more, and they are treated as equal citizens as long as they remain loyal. The frustrations of the regime, instead, are directed towards the subversion, the intellectuals, the ones who oppose to the new regime regardless their procendence. Well... why is this so unthinkable? It is Nazism what strikes me as a kind of historical anomaly.
 
Last edited:
Think about this scenario: A more standard Fascist-like regime emerges in Germany, due to the right potential leader being in the right places at the right time. It has a strong unionist/corporativist discourse... it uses the anti-semitic feelings to label the jews as one "privileged group" out of many, so the regime expropriates their properties, but after that, they're seen as a threat no more, and they are treated as equal citizens as long as they remain loyal. The frustrations of the regime, instead, are directed towards the subversion, the intellectuals, the ones who oppose to the new regime regardless their procendence. Well... why is this so unthinkable? It is Nazism what strikes me as a kind of historical anomaly.

This makes sense to me; anti-Semitism was pretty common all over the world in the 1930s, but it took a special type of ideology for that to transmute into actual genocide as opposed to random pogroms.

For that matter you might simply see an authoritarian but non-ideological regime. I tend to think a non-democratic regime is more likely than a continuing Weimar, either way, simply because not-long-established democracies all over the world in the interwar period didn't have a good time of it (Poland, Hungary, Spain, even France was pretty wobbly). I don't see much reason to think Weimar was uniquely better placed to survive.
 
Top