Unz评论•另类媒体选择
美国主流媒体大都排除了有趣,重要和有争议的观点
 玩笑俄罗斯反应博客
墨索里尼没做错
通过电子邮件将此页面发送给其他人

 记住我的信息



=>

书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复了解更多
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
同意不同意谢谢LOL轮唱
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论
列表 书签

每隔一段时间,一些贝卢斯科尼兄弟就会在某种程度上赞美墨索里尼,并招来一连串值得握手的人的谴责。 这 刚刚发生 与欧洲议会主席安东尼奥·塔贾尼(Antonio Tajani)。 然后,当然,还有马泰奥·萨尔维尼 (Matteo Salvini) 对意大利独裁者的赞同引述 去年.

不过,据我所知,他确实没有做错任何事——至少在当时没有比任何其他国家更严重。

  • 共XNUMX人因政治罪被处决 在他从 1922 年到 1943 年的整个统治期间。 这些是专门为谋杀和政治恐怖而分发的。
    • 相比之下,这比苏联低约 700,000 个数量级 [约 15 次政治处决已牢固确立; 总共可能大约一百万]。 在那二十年里,邪恶的意大利法西斯分子大约每三年就处决一个人; 英勇的苏联人每 XNUMX 分钟就处决一个人。
    • 这是在针对墨索里尼的频繁暗杀企图的背景下发生的(例如,仅 1926 年就有五次)。
    • 它也可以与西方民主国家的政治化处决率相媲美,例如 Sacco 和 Vanzetti (1927) 无疑符合条件。
  • 4,500人被判犯有政治罪 在法西斯意大利。
    • 相比之下,4 年至 1921 年在苏联古拉格有 1953 万人被判犯有政治罪。 三个数量级的差异。
    • 意大利的情况要好得多。 葛兰西在舒适的监狱里写书。 意大利共产党领导人阿马德奥·博尔迪加被流放三年,获释后安然无恙。 现实是,即使对共产党人来说,法西斯意大利也是一个比许多实际的共产主义政权更好、更安全的地方。
    • 西方民主国家并没有关押大量犯罪思想家,因此意大利在这方面更糟。 但它与纳粹/苏联之间的鸿沟与西方之间的鸿沟要窄得多。
  • 但是犹太人呢?
    • 虽然他们在早期法西斯政权下过得很好,但从 1930 年代后期开始,他们开始被赶出新闻界和学术界等领域,主要是在纳粹的压力下。
    • 这是令人遗憾的,但即使与纳粹德国本身不在同一个宇宙中; 或者就此而言,在苏联,旧资产阶级和贵族——“前人”——不仅被禁止进入高等教育等领域(支持——是的——犹太人*),而且积极迫害并最终被谋杀。 即使在西方,众所周知,美国当时的 WASP 精英为犹太人向上流动设置了大量正式和非正式的障碍。
    • 特别是墨索里尼领导下的意大利军队 防止 德国人在法国和克罗地亚等外国的控制区内驱逐犹太人,更不用说意大利本身了。 直到驱逐出境才开始 推翻 墨索里尼和意大利被纳粹德国部分占领。
  • 领土侵略: 是的,意大利变得贪婪了。 但是,按照 1930 年代欧洲的标准,抢夺敌对国家的领土是公平的游戏,包括波兰等原本“蓬松”的国家。 充分利用 捷克斯洛伐克在 1938 年被肢解。
  • 法西斯意大利最大的实际犯罪 – 具有讽刺意味的是,基本上每个人都忽略了 – 可能是 叶卡蒂12,在企图暗杀意大利占领军首领后,大约 20,000 名埃塞俄比亚知识分子被灭绝。
    • 这基本上是纳粹德国或苏联一周的工作。
    • 对于佛朗哥的西班牙,大约一年的工作。
    • 与 1950 年代英国镇压茅茅起义所造成的肯尼亚平民伤亡人数相当。

德国人必须是精神病患者才能为希特勒道歉。 为了向列宁或斯大林道歉,俄罗斯人不仅必须是精神病患者,而且必须是戴绿帽子的智障。

鉴于西班牙人可以为佛朗哥道歉 提供的替代方案,但它应该带有许多警告。 他确实杀死了比墨索里尼更多的人,尽管其中大部分是在残酷的内战的背景下。 对法西斯意大利而言,弗朗索瓦西班牙的主要拯救恩典和追溯性公关拯救是它最终没有与希特勒结盟。

然而,意大利人没有特别需要为墨索里尼感到羞耻。 即使他让火车准点运行的说法也是一个都市传说。

***

*尤里·斯莱兹金 犹太世纪 (2004):“艺术史学家 A. Anisimov 写信给布拉格的一位同事(1923 年 100 月):“莫斯科大学的 78 名申请者中,有 XNUMX 名是犹太人; 因此,如果俄罗斯大学现在在布拉格,那么犹太大学就在莫斯科。” 一名即将因外星血统而被“清除”的学生的父亲写信给塞尔维亚的朋友或亲戚:“帕维尔和他的朋友们正在等待他们的命运。 但很明显,只有耶路撒冷的学者和共产党员,一般来说,会留下来。” 根据列宁格勒大学教授的妻子的说法,“在所有机构中,只招收工人和以色列人; 知识分子的生活非常艰苦。”

 
• 类别: 历史 •标签: 法西斯主义, 意大利, 墨索里尼 
隐藏77条评论发表评论
忽略评论者...跟随Endorsed Only
修剪评论?
  1. This is complete nonsense and inexcusable. (And I am on the right wing of the right wing.)

    Anyone who claims the Duce was basically ok needs to read about what his soldiers did in Ethiopia.

    Poison gas against barefoot fighters.

    Killing all the monks in entire monasteries without provocation to humiliate and intimidate the Ethiopians.

    May he and his apologists burn in hell.

    • 同意: German_reader, Beckow
    • 回复: @Anatoly Karlin
    @米歇尔特

    Explicitly mentioned as Fascist Italy's likely worst crime. And this was in the context of Africans not really being people to *any* Europeans in the 1930s (or 50s).

    回复:@Thorfinnsson

    , @Priss Factor
    @米歇尔特

    Mussolini's imperialist venture was terrible. But what did US do to Korea, Guatemala, and Vietnam? And then to Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine?
    And during the Cold War, the US backed right-wing regimes in Latin America with blood in their hands.

    Also, British killed plenty in Africa and Asia. And French didn't go easily in Vietnam and Algeria. Algerian War was esp bloody.

    None of this excuses Mussolini's crimes, and he was really stupid to invade Albania and then Greece(where he was humiliated).

    Still, I don't see Mussolini was worse than Bush II or Obama/Hillary. Or Albright who blithely said it was worth it to kill 500,000 children in Iraq.

    , @Beckow
    @米歇尔特

    War is hell. An aggressive war is the ultimate crime, all other crimes follow from it. That was the view of the Nuremberg tribunal after WWII.

    Mussolini, and younger Churchill, Hitler, Stalin, Brezhnev, Bush, Clinton, Saddam Hussein, etc... have all started unprovoked, aggressive wars. In most cases with no personal consequences. That is clearly a big issue because a lack of consequences leads to irresponsibility, hubris and eventually a kind of infantilism with advanced tools (roughly the current state in the West).

    Mussolini deserved what he got, his fate is not the issue. But there is no current mechanism to hold the '胜利' leaders accountable. That creates an incentive not to lose under any circumstances, only losers are held accountable. When societies lose the ability to police themselves internally, it becomes a downward spiral.

  2. @Michelt
    This is complete nonsense and inexcusable. (And I am on the right wing of the right wing.)

    Anyone who claims the Duce was basically ok needs to read about what his soldiers did in Ethiopia.

    Poison gas against barefoot fighters.

    Killing all the monks in entire monasteries without provocation to humiliate and intimidate the Ethiopians.

    May he and his apologists burn in hell.

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin, @Priss Factor, @Beckow

    Explicitly mentioned as Fascist Italy’s likely worst crime. And this was in the context of Africans not really being people to *任何* Europeans in the 1930s (or 50s).

    • 回复: @Thorfinnsson
    @Anatoly卡琳


    And this was in the context of Africans not really being people to *any* Europeans in the 1930s (or 50s).
     
    This isn't accurate. The bizarre idea that Africans were equal to whites and had some sort of right to govern themselves merely because they breathe oxygen did not exist, but human rights was an established concept and had been for decades as evidenced by the international outrage over Leopold's Congo during the fin de siecle. During this time period it was debated whether or not to give the League of Nations control over Liberia or perhaps make Liberia an American colony in order to stamp out slavery, mutilation, torture, etc. in the country.

    The fascist response to this was that the established colonial powers were hypocritical in light of how their empires were built and that it was all a front to prevent competition from "young" and "proletarian" nations (one of Mussolini's favorite concepts).

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin, @Brabantian

  3. The pacification of Libya resulted in 80,000 deaths, and a further 100,000 people were driven from their homes.

    In addition to Yekatit 12, the Italians of course launched a war of aggressive conquest without pretext against a sovereign state and used chemical weapons in the war.

    I like the idea of Italians replacing Libyans and Ethiopes, but it’s something wrong by contemporary standards of morality.

    Italians, including of the based variety, would also be on firm ground to criticize Mussolini for his strategic errors. The invasion of Ethiopia, the alliance with Germany, Operazione E, the pathetic invasion of Greece, Armata Italiana in Russia, etc…

    • 回复: @Dieter Kief
    @托尔芬森

    "Italians, including of the based variety, would also be on firm ground to criticize Mussolini for his strategic errors. The invasion of Ethiopia, the alliance with Germany, Operazione E, the pathetic invasion of Greece, Armata Italiana in Russia, etc…"

    Yeah right. But that's fascism: Not that rational, a bit loony and always on the wild side of life. - It was action, that brought satisfaction. And civilization which - - - - sting/k/s... Sigh - ask Dr. Freud - who was on the right too, as a young lad. But pssst: That's a well-kept secret!

    , @Priss Factor
    @托尔芬森

    Right, right, but look at US war in Philippines. Its way of war in Korea and Vietnam. It was near-genocidal at times.

    So, the question is "Was Mussolini worse?" By the standards of the time, no.

  4. Conditions in Italy were incomparably better. Gramsci wrote his books from a comfortable jail.

    Isn’t that the Bioleninism guy?

    So what happened in the West, anyway? There’s one guy who thought about it very deeply. For a long, long time. Mostly because he was in jail so he had plenty of time to study the problem. I’m talking about Antonio Gramsci. He was a communist agitator in Italy who got caught by Mussolini, and was sentenced to rot in prison. During that time he thought a very reasonable problem. Why am I here? Why did I lose? Fucking Lenin did a coup d’etat and he won, now he has power. Now look at me, rotting in prison. What went wrong?

    His idea, which was hugely influential, and for good reason, was that the power structure wanted to keep being the power structure and you couldn’t just throw it away and replace it with your boys. You can try your chance in electoral politics, but there’s only so many resentful fucks who are willing to vote for the abolition of the very foundation of social life (property), at least in moderately prosperous Western countries. In these kind of places, if you want to take absolute power, you have to colonize the power structure very slowly. You have to influence their minds. You have to change the culture. This sounds very esoteric and spiritual but it’s not. Basically Gramsci argues that you gotta grab the press and the education system, and slowly but steadily do in every institution with some power what you do in a political party. Political parties work by hiring loyal people by preying on their low-status. Well, find a way into HR of every school, every newspaper, every government department, every judicial board. And to the very same thing. Run a distributed covert Leninist party. Until you run everything.

    If Mussolini had not doomed himself by allying with Hitler, his system would have been destroyed by future progressives anyway.

    • 回复: @Anatoly Karlin
    @Mitleser

    While I admire spandrell's Bioleninism articles, that Mussolini treated his Communists with kiddie gloves was long known to me.

    E.g. another example - Palmiro Togliatti was also exiled for a few years and then allowed to quietly leave for France and the USSR. (Disgusting how Russia still has a major city named after some foreign Communist).

    Replies: @Mitleser, @Priss Factor

  5. @Anatoly Karlin
    @米歇尔特

    Explicitly mentioned as Fascist Italy's likely worst crime. And this was in the context of Africans not really being people to *any* Europeans in the 1930s (or 50s).

    回复:@Thorfinnsson

    And this was in the context of Africans not really being people to *任何* Europeans in the 1930s (or 50s).

    This isn’t accurate. The bizarre idea that Africans were equal to whites and had some sort of right to govern themselves merely because they breathe oxygen did not exist, but human rights was an established concept and had been for decades as evidenced by the international outrage over Leopold’s Congo during the fin de siecle. During this time period it was debated whether or not to give the League of Nations control over Liberia or perhaps make Liberia an American colony in order to stamp out slavery, mutilation, torture, etc. in the country.

    The fascist response to this was that the established colonial powers were hypocritical in light of how their empires were built and that it was all a front to prevent competition from “young” and “proletarian” nations (one of Mussolini’s favorite concepts).

    • 回复: @Anatoly Karlin
    @托尔芬森

    I agree, poor phrasing. I recall it being shown on previous threads that the atrocities in the Congo Free State were greatly exaggerated, and almost all carried out by the Belgians' local auxiliaries. And that's probably the most extreme example of European "exterminationism" in Africa. The point I should have made less hyperbolically is that African lives were valued much lower than European ones, which is much less true today. Compare how many people know of Katyn vs. Yekatit 12.


    The pacification of Libya resulted in 80,000 deaths, and a further 100,000 people were driven from their homes.
     
    Good point. That should be added. Though this doesn't seem cardinally different to the civilian casualty numbers in the Algerian War of Independence.

    Replies: @Thorfinnsson, @Priss Factor

    , @Brabantian
    @托尔芬森

    It was the 1700s that maybe saw the first national-scale abuse-of-colonials human rights proceeding, brought by famous conservative writer and MP Edmund Burke (1729-97), against Governor-General of India Warren Hastings, the impeachment proceedings of Hastings lasting for 7 years, 1788-95, and ultimately greatly distracted by the French Revolution

  6. He did declare war on the US, which is crazy enough if you are Germany or Japan, but to do so when you are Italy…

    • 回复: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    @鸣禽

    By the way, why, exactly, did Italy declare war on the US?

    For that matter, would anyone here like to answer this too: why did Germany declare war on the US? I've never been clear on this. Granted, it's obvious FDR would have pulled some string to get that done anyway.

    Replies: @German_reader, @for-the-record, @songbird, @Stolen Valor Detective

  7. @Thorfinnsson
    @Anatoly卡琳


    And this was in the context of Africans not really being people to *any* Europeans in the 1930s (or 50s).
     
    This isn't accurate. The bizarre idea that Africans were equal to whites and had some sort of right to govern themselves merely because they breathe oxygen did not exist, but human rights was an established concept and had been for decades as evidenced by the international outrage over Leopold's Congo during the fin de siecle. During this time period it was debated whether or not to give the League of Nations control over Liberia or perhaps make Liberia an American colony in order to stamp out slavery, mutilation, torture, etc. in the country.

    The fascist response to this was that the established colonial powers were hypocritical in light of how their empires were built and that it was all a front to prevent competition from "young" and "proletarian" nations (one of Mussolini's favorite concepts).

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin, @Brabantian

    I agree, poor phrasing. I recall it being shown on previous threads that the atrocities in the Congo Free State were greatly exaggerated, and almost all carried out by the Belgians’ local auxiliaries. And that’s probably the most extreme example of European “exterminationism” in Africa. The point I should have made less hyperbolically is that African lives were valued much lower than European ones, which is much less true today. Compare how many people know of Katyn vs. Yekatit 12.

    The pacification of Libya resulted in 80,000 deaths, and a further 100,000 people were driven from their homes.

    Good point. That should be added. Though this doesn’t seem cardinally different to the civilian casualty numbers in the Algerian War of Independence.

    • 回复: @Thorfinnsson
    @Anatoly卡琳

    Italian Libya had less than one-tenth of French Algeria's population.

    回复:@Anatoly Karlin

    , @Priss Factor
    @Anatoly卡琳

    And that’s probably the most extreme example of European “exterminationism” in Africa.

    Germans went pretty far in Namibia.

  8. A German would have to be a psychopath to apologize for Hitler.

    No, all it takes for a German to defend Hitler is a belief that the rights of other peoples and nations don’t matter anyway (of course Hitler’s regime did have extremely negative effects on Germany herself in the end, but that wasn’t his original intention).
    The Italians defending Mussolini are basically doing the same…all the external aggression and the ugly things Italians did in their colonies (which may even have been of some interest to the Nazis, Himmler visited Libya in 1937 and was interested in Italian colonization efforts there) don’t matter, because Mussolini did some good things for Italians.
    Italy in the first half of the 20th century has a rather too good reputation imo, somehow little of the history is remembered except the war crimes Germans committed in Italy after September 1943. In reality Italy in the entire first half of the 20th century, even before fascism, was an expansionist state with a destabilizing effect on the international order, and its armed forces committed numerous war crimes (probably in Russia as well btw, which makes your defense of Mussolini all the stranger).

    • 同意: Thulean Friend
    • 回复: @songbird
    @German_reader

    One could make the argument that the genesis of WW2 was really Hitler selling out ethnic Germans in the Tyrol to Mussolini.

    回复:@German_reader

    , @Anatoly Karlin
    @German_reader


    No, all it takes for a German to defend Hitler is a belief that the rights of other peoples and nations don’t matter anyway (of course Hitler’s regime did have extremely negative effects on Germany herself in the end, but that wasn’t his original intention).
     
    There's a minor difference between that (frankly, more or less universal to European nationalists at that time, and universal to Europeans in general wrt non-Europeans) and democide (which the USSR and Nazi Germany did, but Italy did not).

    In reality Italy in the entire first half of the 20th century, even before fascism, was an expansionist state with a destabilizing effect on the international order, and its armed forces committed numerous war crimes (probably in Russia as well btw, which makes your defense of Mussolini all the stranger).
     
    Italy was fighting a classical war in the USSR, not a race war. They would have exterminated its Communist elite (big loss... not), but had no designs on exterminating/enslaving Russians or any other peoples in Eastern Europe.

    回复:@German_reader

  9. @Mitleser

    Conditions in Italy were incomparably better. Gramsci wrote his books from a comfortable jail.
     
    Isn't that the Bioleninism guy?

    So what happened in the West, anyway? There’s one guy who thought about it very deeply. For a long, long time. Mostly because he was in jail so he had plenty of time to study the problem. I’m talking about Antonio Gramsci. He was a communist agitator in Italy who got caught by Mussolini, and was sentenced to rot in prison. During that time he thought a very reasonable problem. Why am I here? Why did I lose? Fucking Lenin did a coup d’etat and he won, now he has power. Now look at me, rotting in prison. What went wrong?

    His idea, which was hugely influential, and for good reason, was that the power structure wanted to keep being the power structure and you couldn’t just throw it away and replace it with your boys. You can try your chance in electoral politics, but there’s only so many resentful fucks who are willing to vote for the abolition of the very foundation of social life (property), at least in moderately prosperous Western countries. In these kind of places, if you want to take absolute power, you have to colonize the power structure very slowly. You have to influence their minds. You have to change the culture. This sounds very esoteric and spiritual but it’s not. Basically Gramsci argues that you gotta grab the press and the education system, and slowly but steadily do in every institution with some power what you do in a political party. Political parties work by hiring loyal people by preying on their low-status. Well, find a way into HR of every school, every newspaper, every government department, every judicial board. And to the very same thing. Run a distributed covert Leninist party. Until you run everything.
     
    If Mussolini had not doomed himself by allying with Hitler, his system would have been destroyed by future progressives anyway.

    回复:@Anatoly Karlin

    While I admire spandrell’s Bioleninism articles, that Mussolini treated his Communists with kiddie gloves was long known to me.

    E.g. another example – Palmiro Togliatti was also exiled for a few years and then allowed to quietly leave for France and the USSR. (Disgusting how Russia still has a major city named after some foreign Communist).

    • 回复: @Mitleser
    @Anatoly卡琳

    I can understand disliking Engels, but what is so bad about Togliatti?

    , @Priss Factor
    @Anatoly卡琳

    Italy was like the US in its human rights. Italian citizens were treated with leniency and allowed relative freedom. But foreigners could be terrorized.

    US is the same way. Americans in the US have rights(though eroding away), but US can turn entire nations into rubble with air power, drones, and use of Jihadis.

  10. @Anatoly Karlin
    @托尔芬森

    I agree, poor phrasing. I recall it being shown on previous threads that the atrocities in the Congo Free State were greatly exaggerated, and almost all carried out by the Belgians' local auxiliaries. And that's probably the most extreme example of European "exterminationism" in Africa. The point I should have made less hyperbolically is that African lives were valued much lower than European ones, which is much less true today. Compare how many people know of Katyn vs. Yekatit 12.


    The pacification of Libya resulted in 80,000 deaths, and a further 100,000 people were driven from their homes.
     
    Good point. That should be added. Though this doesn't seem cardinally different to the civilian casualty numbers in the Algerian War of Independence.

    Replies: @Thorfinnsson, @Priss Factor

    Italian Libya had less than one-tenth of French Algeria’s population.

    • 回复: @Anatoly Karlin
    @托尔芬森

    OK, point conceded.

  11. @Anatoly Karlin
    @Mitleser

    While I admire spandrell's Bioleninism articles, that Mussolini treated his Communists with kiddie gloves was long known to me.

    E.g. another example - Palmiro Togliatti was also exiled for a few years and then allowed to quietly leave for France and the USSR. (Disgusting how Russia still has a major city named after some foreign Communist).

    Replies: @Mitleser, @Priss Factor

    I can understand disliking Engels, but what is so bad about Togliatti?

  12. @German_reader

    A German would have to be a psychopath to apologize for Hitler.
     
    No, all it takes for a German to defend Hitler is a belief that the rights of other peoples and nations don't matter anyway (of course Hitler's regime did have extremely negative effects on Germany herself in the end, but that wasn't his original intention).
    The Italians defending Mussolini are basically doing the same...all the external aggression and the ugly things Italians did in their colonies (which may even have been of some interest to the Nazis, Himmler visited Libya in 1937 and was interested in Italian colonization efforts there) don't matter, because Mussolini did some good things for Italians.
    Italy in the first half of the 20th century has a rather too good reputation imo, somehow little of the history is remembered except the war crimes Germans committed in Italy after September 1943. In reality Italy in the entire first half of the 20th century, even before fascism, was an expansionist state with a destabilizing effect on the international order, and its armed forces committed numerous war crimes (probably in Russia as well btw, which makes your defense of Mussolini all the stranger).

    回复:@ songbird,@ Anatoly Karlin

    One could make the argument that the genesis of WW2 was really Hitler selling out ethnic Germans in the Tyrol to Mussolini.

    • 回复: @German_reader
    @鸣禽

    That showed what a liar Hitler was when he made the treatment of Sudeten Germans a pretext for dismembering Chechoslovakia (which had faults, but Germans had democratic representation there), Italian treatment of the Austrians in South Tyrol was much worse, even after WW2.

  13. @German_reader

    A German would have to be a psychopath to apologize for Hitler.
     
    No, all it takes for a German to defend Hitler is a belief that the rights of other peoples and nations don't matter anyway (of course Hitler's regime did have extremely negative effects on Germany herself in the end, but that wasn't his original intention).
    The Italians defending Mussolini are basically doing the same...all the external aggression and the ugly things Italians did in their colonies (which may even have been of some interest to the Nazis, Himmler visited Libya in 1937 and was interested in Italian colonization efforts there) don't matter, because Mussolini did some good things for Italians.
    Italy in the first half of the 20th century has a rather too good reputation imo, somehow little of the history is remembered except the war crimes Germans committed in Italy after September 1943. In reality Italy in the entire first half of the 20th century, even before fascism, was an expansionist state with a destabilizing effect on the international order, and its armed forces committed numerous war crimes (probably in Russia as well btw, which makes your defense of Mussolini all the stranger).

    回复:@ songbird,@ Anatoly Karlin

    No, all it takes for a German to defend Hitler is a belief that the rights of other peoples and nations don’t matter anyway (of course Hitler’s regime did have extremely negative effects on Germany herself in the end, but that wasn’t his original intention).

    There’s a minor difference between that (frankly, more or less universal to European nationalists at that time, and universal to Europeans in general wrt non-Europeans) and democide (which the USSR and Nazi Germany did, but Italy did not).

    In reality Italy in the entire first half of the 20th century, even before fascism, was an expansionist state with a destabilizing effect on the international order, and its armed forces committed numerous war crimes (probably in Russia as well btw, which makes your defense of Mussolini all the stranger).

    Italy was fighting a classical war in the USSR, not a race war. They would have exterminated its Communist elite (big loss… not), but had no designs on exterminating/enslaving Russians or any other peoples in Eastern Europe.

    • 回复: @German_reader
    @Anatoly卡琳


    but had no designs on exterminating/enslaving Russians or any other peoples in Eastern Europe.
     
    Italian rule certainly wasn't positive for the Slavs in the Balkan areas which Italy intended to colonize.
  14. @Thorfinnsson
    @Anatoly卡琳

    Italian Libya had less than one-tenth of French Algeria's population.

    回复:@Anatoly Karlin

    OK, point conceded.

  15. Since AK is well indoctrinated by Americans, he can’t bring himself up to comparisons with US. You would have though that the one of the largest empires in history would be a good source of anecdotes about mass murder. But no, US official narrative is that US were pure like angels until maybe 1978, or maybe until Drumpf. All their victims were savages who deserved it, and AK can’t possibly compare Mussolini’s tally with FDR’s.

    I don’t know about other countries, but 1,500 civilians were killed in Bucharest, solely on one day (4/4/44), by the Peaceful FDR, his Peaceful Nazi-free Nation, and their bombs. Apparently, Romanians weren’t too keen to surrender to Papa Joe, and FDR thought this would help them.

    • 回复: @German_reader
    @达西安·朱利安·索罗斯(Dacian Julien Soros)


    I don’t know about other countries, but 1,500 civilians were killed in Bucharest
     
    Maybe you should blame Antonescu for his enthusiastic participation in Hitler's war.

    回复:@Anon

    , @Pericles
    @达西安·朱利安·索罗斯(Dacian Julien Soros)

    I always thought the US-Phillipine war (1896-1902) was odd, and now mostly forgotten. Yet estimated at 200,000 dead brown people, a respectable number for the times. I assume this was round the time when the US started to flex its imperial muscles.

  16. @Anatoly Karlin
    @German_reader


    No, all it takes for a German to defend Hitler is a belief that the rights of other peoples and nations don’t matter anyway (of course Hitler’s regime did have extremely negative effects on Germany herself in the end, but that wasn’t his original intention).
     
    There's a minor difference between that (frankly, more or less universal to European nationalists at that time, and universal to Europeans in general wrt non-Europeans) and democide (which the USSR and Nazi Germany did, but Italy did not).

    In reality Italy in the entire first half of the 20th century, even before fascism, was an expansionist state with a destabilizing effect on the international order, and its armed forces committed numerous war crimes (probably in Russia as well btw, which makes your defense of Mussolini all the stranger).
     
    Italy was fighting a classical war in the USSR, not a race war. They would have exterminated its Communist elite (big loss... not), but had no designs on exterminating/enslaving Russians or any other peoples in Eastern Europe.

    回复:@German_reader

    but had no designs on exterminating/enslaving Russians or any other peoples in Eastern Europe.

    Italian rule certainly wasn’t positive for the Slavs in the Balkan areas which Italy intended to colonize.

  17. @Dacian Julien Soros
    Since AK is well indoctrinated by Americans, he can't bring himself up to comparisons with US. You would have though that the one of the largest empires in history would be a good source of anecdotes about mass murder. But no, US official narrative is that US were pure like angels until maybe 1978, or maybe until Drumpf. All their victims were savages who deserved it, and AK can't possibly compare Mussolini's tally with FDR's.

    I don't know about other countries, but 1,500 civilians were killed in Bucharest, solely on one day (4/4/44), by the Peaceful FDR, his Peaceful Nazi-free Nation, and their bombs. Apparently, Romanians weren't too keen to surrender to Papa Joe, and FDR thought this would help them.

    回复:@ German_reader,@ Pericles

    I don’t know about other countries, but 1,500 civilians were killed in Bucharest

    Maybe you should blame Antonescu for his enthusiastic participation in Hitler’s war.

    • 回复: @Anon
    @German_reader

    I am sure someone else with your smarts could find equally plausible excuses to defend Nero, Hitler, or Netanyahu.

    How is Antonescu's "attack on America" an excuse for a massacre of 1,500 innocents? All able men were thousands of kilometers away. At that time, Bucharest was a town of women, children, and Jews. The oil was 100 km to the North.

    Maybe Antonescu was hiding WMDs? Perhaps he was an undemocratic tyrant, unlike Dyadya Joseph?

    Also, FYI, it's not like Antonescu had much of a choice. Romania had been promised protection by France and UK - not by Germany, yet neither of the guarantors gave a damn when Romania was quartered by its neighbors. That was all prior to Antonescu. What was Antonescu to do? Send Romanian soldiers to die for France and UK?

    回复:@German_reader

  18. Explicitly mentioned as Fascist Italy’s likely worst crime. And this was in the context of Africans not really being people to *任何* Europeans in the 1930s (or 50s).

    Um, no. Most European nations didn’t get involved in the colonization of Africa, certainly the Eastern ones didn’t (as I never tire of reminding the SJWs who want to accuse “Europeans”, as a whole, of colonizing “Africans”, as a whole).

    I recall it being shown on previous threads that the atrocities in the Congo Free State were greatly exaggerated, and almost all carried out by the Belgians’ local auxiliaries. And that’s probably the most extreme example of European “exterminationism” in Africa

    German genocide against the Herero & Nama (40% death toll) is at least equally as extreme, although Namibia’s population was much much smaller than the Congo’s. In fairness to the Germans that crime may not have been ordered from the top and the general in charge was penalized afterwards, to some degree, I think.

    I’ve never heard that the Congo Free State atrocities were exagerrated, do you have a cite for that?

    • 回复: @German_reader
    @Hector_St_Clare


    I’ve never heard that the Congo Free State atrocities were exagerrated, do you have a cite for that?
     
    I don't know of a specific study, but the chapters about the colonial era in David van Reybrouck's Congo: The epic history of a people seemed convincing to me.
    Basically the argument is that it wasn't intentional genocide, "only" brutal, profit-driven exploitation. And some of the numbers (10 million dead) thrown around today are likely to be massively exaggerated; the spread of diseases like sleeeping sickness (facilitated by the movement of people which the establishment of the colonial system entailed) also seems to have played a significant role for demographic losses, so it wasn't just due to direct brutality.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    @Hector_St_Clare


    Most European nations didn’t get involved in the colonization of Africa, certainly the Eastern ones didn’t...
     
    If they were more powerful, and had, I doubt the Poles would have been significantly more respectful towards the national feelings (to the extent it is appropriate to even talk of them at that stage of Africa's development) of the Togolese, or whatever.

    I’ve never heard that the Congo Free State atrocities were exagerrated, do you have a cite for that?
     
    There were a couple of seemingly informed discussions about it:

    * https://www.unz.com/akarlin/china-demographics/#comment-2441402
    * https://www.unz.com/akarlin/brussels-impressions/#comment-2235437
    , @Pericles
    @Hector_St_Clare


    I’ve never heard that the Congo Free State atrocities were exagerrated, do you have a cite for that?

     

    The numbers don't seem to add up. See the comments pointed out by AK for more details.

    回复:@Pericles

  19. @Hector_St_Clare
    Explicitly mentioned as Fascist Italy’s likely worst crime. And this was in the context of Africans not really being people to *any* Europeans in the 1930s (or 50s).

    Um, no. Most European nations didn't get involved in the colonization of Africa, certainly the Eastern ones didn't (as I never tire of reminding the SJWs who want to accuse "Europeans", as a whole, of colonizing "Africans", as a whole).

    I recall it being shown on previous threads that the atrocities in the Congo Free State were greatly exaggerated, and almost all carried out by the Belgians’ local auxiliaries. And that’s probably the most extreme example of European “exterminationism” in Africa

    German genocide against the Herero & Nama (40% death toll) is at least equally as extreme, although Namibia's population was much much smaller than the Congo's. In fairness to the Germans that crime may not have been ordered from the top and the general in charge was penalized afterwards, to some degree, I think.

    I've never heard that the Congo Free State atrocities were exagerrated, do you have a cite for that?

    Replies: @German_reader, @Anatoly Karlin, @Pericles

    I’ve never heard that the Congo Free State atrocities were exagerrated, do you have a cite for that?

    I don’t know of a specific study, but the chapters about the colonial era in David van Reybrouck’s Congo: The epic history of a people seemed convincing to me.
    Basically the argument is that it wasn’t intentional genocide, “only” brutal, profit-driven exploitation. And some of the numbers (10 million dead) thrown around today are likely to be massively exaggerated; the spread of diseases like sleeeping sickness (facilitated by the movement of people which the establishment of the colonial system entailed) also seems to have played a significant role for demographic losses, so it wasn’t just due to direct brutality.

    • 同意: Anatoly Karlin
  20. @Hector_St_Clare
    Explicitly mentioned as Fascist Italy’s likely worst crime. And this was in the context of Africans not really being people to *any* Europeans in the 1930s (or 50s).

    Um, no. Most European nations didn't get involved in the colonization of Africa, certainly the Eastern ones didn't (as I never tire of reminding the SJWs who want to accuse "Europeans", as a whole, of colonizing "Africans", as a whole).

    I recall it being shown on previous threads that the atrocities in the Congo Free State were greatly exaggerated, and almost all carried out by the Belgians’ local auxiliaries. And that’s probably the most extreme example of European “exterminationism” in Africa

    German genocide against the Herero & Nama (40% death toll) is at least equally as extreme, although Namibia's population was much much smaller than the Congo's. In fairness to the Germans that crime may not have been ordered from the top and the general in charge was penalized afterwards, to some degree, I think.

    I've never heard that the Congo Free State atrocities were exagerrated, do you have a cite for that?

    Replies: @German_reader, @Anatoly Karlin, @Pericles

    Most European nations didn’t get involved in the colonization of Africa, certainly the Eastern ones didn’t…

    If they were more powerful, and had, I doubt the Poles would have been significantly more respectful towards the national feelings (to the extent it is appropriate to even talk of them at that stage of Africa’s development) of the Togolese, or whatever.

    I’ve never heard that the Congo Free State atrocities were exagerrated, do you have a cite for that?

    There were a couple of seemingly informed discussions about it:

    * https://www.unz.com/akarlin/china-demographics/#comment-2441402
    * https://www.unz.com/akarlin/brussels-impressions/#comment-2235437

  21. I think this is the position of a non-trivial number of Italians as well. Mussolini’s grand-daughter is a right-wing MEP there:

    Also a former Playboy model and certified MILF (albeit now looking a bit tragic due to excessive plastic surgery).

  22. @songbird
    @German_reader

    One could make the argument that the genesis of WW2 was really Hitler selling out ethnic Germans in the Tyrol to Mussolini.

    回复:@German_reader

    That showed what a liar Hitler was when he made the treatment of Sudeten Germans a pretext for dismembering Chechoslovakia (which had faults, but Germans had democratic representation there), Italian treatment of the Austrians in South Tyrol was much worse, even after WW2.

  23. @Thorfinnsson
    The pacification of Libya resulted in 80,000 deaths, and a further 100,000 people were driven from their homes.

    In addition to Yekatit 12, the Italians of course launched a war of aggressive conquest without pretext against a sovereign state and used chemical weapons in the war.

    I like the idea of Italians replacing Libyans and Ethiopes, but it's something wrong by contemporary standards of morality.

    Italians, including of the based variety, would also be on firm ground to criticize Mussolini for his strategic errors. The invasion of Ethiopia, the alliance with Germany, Operazione E, the pathetic invasion of Greece, Armata Italiana in Russia, etc...

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Priss Factor

    “Italians, including of the based variety, would also be on firm ground to criticize Mussolini for his strategic errors. The invasion of Ethiopia, the alliance with Germany, Operazione E, the pathetic invasion of Greece, Armata Italiana in Russia, etc…”

    Yeah right. But that’s fascism: Not that rational, a bit loony and always on the wild side of life. – It was action, that brought satisfaction. And civilization which – – – – sting/k/s… Sigh – ask Dr. Freud – who was on the right too, as a young lad. But pssst: That’s a well-kept secret!

  24. 西方民主国家并没有关押大量犯罪思想家,因此意大利在这方面更糟。 但它与纳粹/苏联之间的鸿沟与西方之间的鸿沟要窄得多。

    Just ask the anti-war dissidents during WWI.

    And according to Jews, McCarthyism was one of the worst things that ever happened.

    And Japanese internment in WWII. Not horrific but still hardly ‘liberal democratic’.

    • 回复: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    @棱镜系数

    Ron Unz had an excellent article about the purge of anti-war Americans during the 1940s

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-our-great-purge-of-the-1940s/

    回复:@fnn

  25. @Michelt
    This is complete nonsense and inexcusable. (And I am on the right wing of the right wing.)

    Anyone who claims the Duce was basically ok needs to read about what his soldiers did in Ethiopia.

    Poison gas against barefoot fighters.

    Killing all the monks in entire monasteries without provocation to humiliate and intimidate the Ethiopians.

    May he and his apologists burn in hell.

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin, @Priss Factor, @Beckow

    Mussolini’s imperialist venture was terrible. But what did US do to Korea, Guatemala, and Vietnam? And then to Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine?
    And during the Cold War, the US backed right-wing regimes in Latin America with blood in their hands.

    Also, British killed plenty in Africa and Asia. And French didn’t go easily in Vietnam and Algeria. Algerian War was esp bloody.

    None of this excuses Mussolini’s crimes, and he was really stupid to invade Albania and then Greece(where he was humiliated).

    Still, I don’t see Mussolini was worse than Bush II or Obama/Hillary. Or Albright who blithely said it was worth it to kill 500,000 children in Iraq.

  26. @Thorfinnsson
    The pacification of Libya resulted in 80,000 deaths, and a further 100,000 people were driven from their homes.

    In addition to Yekatit 12, the Italians of course launched a war of aggressive conquest without pretext against a sovereign state and used chemical weapons in the war.

    I like the idea of Italians replacing Libyans and Ethiopes, but it's something wrong by contemporary standards of morality.

    Italians, including of the based variety, would also be on firm ground to criticize Mussolini for his strategic errors. The invasion of Ethiopia, the alliance with Germany, Operazione E, the pathetic invasion of Greece, Armata Italiana in Russia, etc...

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Priss Factor

    Right, right, but look at US war in Philippines. Its way of war in Korea and Vietnam. It was near-genocidal at times.

    So, the question is “Was Mussolini worse?” By the standards of the time, no.

  27. @Anatoly Karlin
    @托尔芬森

    I agree, poor phrasing. I recall it being shown on previous threads that the atrocities in the Congo Free State were greatly exaggerated, and almost all carried out by the Belgians' local auxiliaries. And that's probably the most extreme example of European "exterminationism" in Africa. The point I should have made less hyperbolically is that African lives were valued much lower than European ones, which is much less true today. Compare how many people know of Katyn vs. Yekatit 12.


    The pacification of Libya resulted in 80,000 deaths, and a further 100,000 people were driven from their homes.
     
    Good point. That should be added. Though this doesn't seem cardinally different to the civilian casualty numbers in the Algerian War of Independence.

    Replies: @Thorfinnsson, @Priss Factor

    And that’s probably the most extreme example of European “exterminationism” in Africa.

    Germans went pretty far in Namibia.

  28. @Anatoly Karlin
    @Mitleser

    While I admire spandrell's Bioleninism articles, that Mussolini treated his Communists with kiddie gloves was long known to me.

    E.g. another example - Palmiro Togliatti was also exiled for a few years and then allowed to quietly leave for France and the USSR. (Disgusting how Russia still has a major city named after some foreign Communist).

    Replies: @Mitleser, @Priss Factor

    Italy was like the US in its human rights. Italian citizens were treated with leniency and allowed relative freedom. But foreigners could be terrorized.

    US is the same way. Americans in the US have rights(though eroding away), but US can turn entire nations into rubble with air power, drones, and use of Jihadis.

  29. IIRC, the Italians legally ended slavery in Ethiopia. I certainly wouldn’t be surprised to discover that it was a PR stunt.

    I remember coming across something years ago about Italian bad behavior in Albania during WW2. Retail stuff like torture by the occupation police.

  30. may have been Yekatit 12, the extermination of about 20,000 of the Ethiopian intelligentsia

    Can we safely assume that the official number is exaggerated by at least an order of magnitude?

    • 同意: utu
    • 回复: @Haxo Angmark
    @河马

    & @Karlin: Ethiopian "intelligentsia"...

    you're joking, right?

    Right?? and BTW,

    2 of the 4 main Tribal groupings in Ethiopia

    fought on the side of the Italians, against the killer-klepto Salaisse. (They

    must have been the even stupider ones.)

  31. @songbird
    He did declare war on the US, which is crazy enough if you are Germany or Japan, but to do so when you are Italy...

    回复:@约翰·伯恩斯,葛底斯堡游击队

    By the way, why, exactly, did Italy declare war on the US?

    For that matter, would anyone here like to answer this too: why did Germany declare war on the US? I’ve never been clear on this. Granted, it’s obvious FDR would have pulled some string to get that done anyway.

    • 回复: @German_reader
    @葛底斯堡游击队约翰·伯恩斯(John Burns)


    why did Germany declare war on the US?
     
    iirc Hitler thought the US was involved in the war against Germany anyway, due to lend-lease and US navy patrols in the western Atlantic (there had been clashes between US ships and German submarines already), so he wanted the opportunity to use Germany's submarines against US shipping (and at first German submarines did have really spectacular successes because the US had taken few precautions, so it wasn't a total miscalculation).
    Obviously a very serious mistake though, especially given the previous failure of Operation Barbarossa. But then at some point it must have become less about winning the war for Hitler anyway, and more about a grandiose exit and doing as much damage (especially killing as many Jews) as possible.

    回复:@Haxo Angmark

    , @for-the-record
    @葛底斯堡游击队约翰·伯恩斯(John Burns)

    why did Germany declare war on the US?

    There are some who think it was in reaction to the leak earlier that week of the top secret US war plans, and even that FDR may have secretly orchestrated this to goad Hitler into his declaration of war.


    Who Leaked FDR’s War Plans?

    In December 1941, someone leaked America’s top-secret blueprint for war for all the world—even Hitler—to see

    . . . F.D.R.’s War Plans!,” screamed the front-page banner headline in the 论坛’s Thursday, December 4 edition. Smaller headlines proclaimed, “Goal Is 10 Million Armed Men” and “Proposes Land Drive by July 1, 1943, to Smash Nazis.” The 论坛’s sister paper, the Washington Times-Herald, played the story big, too.

    The secret military plan was a “blueprint for total war on a scale unprecedented in at least two oceans and three continents, Europe, Africa, and Asia,” Manly wrote, and he reported that July 1, 1943, was the date fixed for an Allied invasion of Europe. The plan called for a U.S. armed force of 10 million men, more than seven times the strength at the time, with five million slated to be deployed to Europe. The War Department admitted that Britain and Russia alone could not beat Hitler, Manly noted, and that victory would require the United States to enter the war. An ecstatic McCormick congratulated Manly and the rest of the 论坛’s Washington bureau on what he called “perhaps the greatest scoop in the history of journalism.”

    。 。 。

    More recently, in 1987, historian Thomas Fleming advanced the intriguing theory that President Roosevelt himself orchestrated the leak as a way to goad Hitler into declaring war on the United States.

    The president knew that only American military intervention could defeat Hitler. He suspected Japan would soon attack American territory, probably the Philippines, and that would get the country into war in the Pacific—but not in Europe. Only a German declaration of war against the United States would suffice. Hitler’s treaty with Japan required Germany to declare war if the U.S. attacked Japan but not if Japan attacked America, so the president needed to convince Hitler that the United States was his true enemy, Fleming believed. As fascinating as this theory is, however, there is no hard evidence to support it.

    The identity of the person who leaked the Victory Program will likely never be known with certainty. All the players are gone, and no deathbed confession has surfaced. The story will endure as one of World War II’s last unsolved mysteries, a fertile ground for educated conjecture by scholars and history buffs alike, and a reminder of the bitter political divisions that wracked the country before America joined the world at war.

    https://www.historynet.com/who-leaked-fdrs-war-plans.htm
     
    Fleming's book, which I have read and found very interesting, is The New Dealers' War: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the War Within World War II. He also has an interesting book on US involvement in WWI, 胜利的幻觉. He is no fan of either Wilson or FDR.
    , @songbird
    @葛底斯堡游击队约翰·伯恩斯(John Burns)

    It is a puzzle, but still somewhat telling how it was the same day as Germany. Similarly, it is somewhat odd how they fielded men against the Soviet Union, especially when you consider that Mussolini did not seem to like Hitler, at least at first.

    The text of the Italian declaration is interesting. It seems to single out FDR. (Somewhat mirroring the Allies trying to single out Hitler) It also mentions "250,000,000 men" as being part of the Tripartite Pact. (Seems deliriously high?)

    What could possibly be the motivation? I think it was largely a case of Mussolini 's personality. In France, he seems to have wanted to have a seat at the negotiating table, which required commitment of forces. Basically, he wanted to have his hand on the post-war pencil drawing lines on the map.

    This view combined with Italy's weak performance in the war questions the wisdom of Germany having Italy as an ally - it would complicate any peace settlement. But, perhaps, Hitler thought the Italian navy was important.

    I think there is a lesson hidden in this somewhere for modern politics. Hubris of the elites and how they form spheres where they lock shields. One wonders if Franco was much smarter, or was just motivated by the Spanish Civil War to remain neutral.

    回复:@German_reader

    , @Stolen Valor Detective
    @葛底斯堡游击队约翰·伯恩斯(John Burns)


    For that matter, would anyone here like to answer this too: why did Germany declare war on the US?
     
    German_reader's response was quite accurate, but for more detail you might want to read the relevant chapter in Ian Kershaw's 命运的选择.
  32. @Priss Factor
    西方民主国家并没有关押大量犯罪思想家,因此意大利在这方面更糟。 但它与纳粹/苏联之间的鸿沟与西方之间的鸿沟要窄得多。

    Just ask the anti-war dissidents during WWI.

    And according to Jews, McCarthyism was one of the worst things that ever happened.

    And Japanese internment in WWII. Not horrific but still hardly 'liberal democratic'.

    回复:@约翰·伯恩斯,葛底斯堡游击队

    Ron Unz had an excellent article about the purge of anti-war Americans during the 1940s

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-our-great-purge-of-the-1940s/

    • 回复: @fnn
    @葛底斯堡游击队约翰·伯恩斯(John Burns)

    FDR ordered a mass sedition trial of some thirty ant-war and pro-Axis defendants in 1944 who were not engaged in espionage:
    https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Great_Sedition_Trial_of_1944

  33. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    @鸣禽

    By the way, why, exactly, did Italy declare war on the US?

    For that matter, would anyone here like to answer this too: why did Germany declare war on the US? I've never been clear on this. Granted, it's obvious FDR would have pulled some string to get that done anyway.

    Replies: @German_reader, @for-the-record, @songbird, @Stolen Valor Detective

    why did Germany declare war on the US?

    iirc Hitler thought the US was involved in the war against Germany anyway, due to lend-lease and US navy patrols in the western Atlantic (there had been clashes between US ships and German submarines already), so he wanted the opportunity to use Germany’s submarines against US shipping (and at first German submarines did have really spectacular successes because the US had taken few precautions, so it wasn’t a total miscalculation).
    Obviously a very serious mistake though, especially given the previous failure of Operation Barbarossa. But then at some point it must have become less about winning the war for Hitler anyway, and more about a grandiose exit and doing as much damage (especially killing as many Jews) as possible.

    • 回复: @Haxo Angmark
    @German_reader

    Hitler declared war on the U.S. because he wanted a Japanese quid pro quo against Russia: 72 hours before the Pearl Harbor strike, the Russians defending Moscow launched a ferocious counter-attack against Army Group Center and, by December 11th, AG Center was in desperate shape and falling back. The Japs sold him short though, and stuck to their April '41 Non-Aggression Pact with the Soviets. Japan and the Third Reich were at repeated strategic right angles 1937-42, and never able to get on the same page. That's why the "Axis" lost: it

    never really existed.

    回复:@约翰·伯恩斯,葛底斯堡游击队

  34. @Hippopotamusdrome


    may have been Yekatit 12, the extermination of about 20,000 of the Ethiopian intelligentsia

     

    Can we safely assume that the official number is exaggerated by at least an order of magnitude?

    回复:@Haxo Angmark

    & @Karlin: Ethiopian “intelligentsia”…

    you’re joking, right?

    Right?? and BTW,

    2 of the 4 main Tribal groupings in Ethiopia

    fought on the side of the Italians, against the killer-klepto Salaisse. (They

    must have been the even stupider ones.)

  35. @German_reader
    @葛底斯堡游击队约翰·伯恩斯(John Burns)


    why did Germany declare war on the US?
     
    iirc Hitler thought the US was involved in the war against Germany anyway, due to lend-lease and US navy patrols in the western Atlantic (there had been clashes between US ships and German submarines already), so he wanted the opportunity to use Germany's submarines against US shipping (and at first German submarines did have really spectacular successes because the US had taken few precautions, so it wasn't a total miscalculation).
    Obviously a very serious mistake though, especially given the previous failure of Operation Barbarossa. But then at some point it must have become less about winning the war for Hitler anyway, and more about a grandiose exit and doing as much damage (especially killing as many Jews) as possible.

    回复:@Haxo Angmark

    Hitler declared war on the U.S. because he wanted a Japanese quid pro quo against Russia: 72 hours before the Pearl Harbor strike, the Russians defending Moscow launched a ferocious counter-attack against Army Group Center and, by December 11th, AG Center was in desperate shape and falling back. The Japs sold him short though, and stuck to their April ’41 Non-Aggression Pact with the Soviets. Japan and the Third Reich were at repeated strategic right angles 1937-42, and never able to get on the same page. That’s why the “Axis” lost: it

    never really existed.

    • 回复: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    @Haxo Angmark

    Do you have any sources for the statement that the Japs sold Hitler short? And German-Japanese relations in general? Just curious - sounds interesting.

  36. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    @鸣禽

    By the way, why, exactly, did Italy declare war on the US?

    For that matter, would anyone here like to answer this too: why did Germany declare war on the US? I've never been clear on this. Granted, it's obvious FDR would have pulled some string to get that done anyway.

    Replies: @German_reader, @for-the-record, @songbird, @Stolen Valor Detective

    why did Germany declare war on the US?

    There are some who think it was in reaction to the leak earlier that week of the top secret US war plans, and even that FDR may have secretly orchestrated this to goad Hitler into his declaration of war.

    Who Leaked FDR’s War Plans?

    In December 1941, someone leaked America’s top-secret blueprint for war for all the world—even Hitler—to see

    . . . F.D.R.’s War Plans!,” screamed the front-page banner headline in the 论坛’s Thursday, December 4 edition. Smaller headlines proclaimed, “Goal Is 10 Million Armed Men” and “Proposes Land Drive by July 1, 1943, to Smash Nazis.” The 论坛’s sister paper, the Washington Times-Herald, played the story big, too.

    The secret military plan was a “blueprint for total war on a scale unprecedented in at least two oceans and three continents, Europe, Africa, and Asia,” Manly wrote, and he reported that July 1, 1943, was the date fixed for an Allied invasion of Europe. The plan called for a U.S. armed force of 10 million men, more than seven times the strength at the time, with five million slated to be deployed to Europe. The War Department admitted that Britain and Russia alone could not beat Hitler, Manly noted, and that victory would require the United States to enter the war. An ecstatic McCormick congratulated Manly and the rest of the 论坛’s Washington bureau on what he called “perhaps the greatest scoop in the history of journalism.”

    。 。 。

    More recently, in 1987, historian Thomas Fleming advanced the intriguing theory that President Roosevelt himself orchestrated the leak as a way to goad Hitler into declaring war on the United States.

    The president knew that only American military intervention could defeat Hitler. He suspected Japan would soon attack American territory, probably the Philippines, and that would get the country into war in the Pacific—but not in Europe. Only a German declaration of war against the United States would suffice. Hitler’s treaty with Japan required Germany to declare war if the U.S. attacked Japan but not if Japan attacked America, so the president needed to convince Hitler that the United States was his true enemy, Fleming believed. As fascinating as this theory is, however, there is no hard evidence to support it.

    The identity of the person who leaked the Victory Program will likely never be known with certainty. All the players are gone, and no deathbed confession has surfaced. The story will endure as one of World War II’s last unsolved mysteries, a fertile ground for educated conjecture by scholars and history buffs alike, and a reminder of the bitter political divisions that wracked the country before America joined the world at war.

    https://www.historynet.com/who-leaked-fdrs-war-plans.htm

    Fleming’s book, which I have read and found very interesting, is The New Dealers’ War: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the War Within World War II. He also has an interesting book on US involvement in WWI, 胜利的幻觉. He is no fan of either Wilson or FDR.

  37. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    @鸣禽

    By the way, why, exactly, did Italy declare war on the US?

    For that matter, would anyone here like to answer this too: why did Germany declare war on the US? I've never been clear on this. Granted, it's obvious FDR would have pulled some string to get that done anyway.

    Replies: @German_reader, @for-the-record, @songbird, @Stolen Valor Detective

    It is a puzzle, but still somewhat telling how it was the same day as Germany. Similarly, it is somewhat odd how they fielded men against the Soviet Union, especially when you consider that Mussolini did not seem to like Hitler, at least at first.

    The text of the Italian declaration is interesting. It seems to single out FDR. (Somewhat mirroring the Allies trying to single out Hitler) It also mentions “250,000,000 men” as being part of the Tripartite Pact. (Seems deliriously high?)

    What could possibly be the motivation? I think it was largely a case of Mussolini ‘s personality. In France, he seems to have wanted to have a seat at the negotiating table, which required commitment of forces. Basically, he wanted to have his hand on the post-war pencil drawing lines on the map.

    This view combined with Italy’s weak performance in the war questions the wisdom of Germany having Italy as an ally – it would complicate any peace settlement. But, perhaps, Hitler thought the Italian navy was important.

    I think there is a lesson hidden in this somewhere for modern politics. Hubris of the elites and how they form spheres where they lock shields. One wonders if Franco was much smarter, or was just motivated by the Spanish Civil War to remain neutral.

    • 回复: @German_reader
    @鸣禽


    One wonders if Franco was much smarter, or was just motivated by the Spanish Civil War to remain neutral.
     
    According to Stanley Payne's biography, Franco had rather deluded ideas of a massive rearmaments programme and entering the war at an opportune moment, to make Spain a great power again (iirc he was also at least vaguely anti-British, like many Spanish nationalists; Spain not only sent the Blue Divison to Russia, they also let German submarines refuel and refit in Spanish ports). But that didn't happen, because Spain's economy was too weak and had been devastated by the civil war, because Hitler didn't offer enough (Franco wanted territory in North Africa, but Hitler felt good relations with Vichy France were more important) and because it finally became obvious that Germany was probably going to lose the war. So Franco was probably just lucky, not especially wise. But for much of the early part of WW2 he was very interested in entering the war on the German side (even if he had apparently been somewhat disturbed by the German attack on Poland whose regime of Catholic authoritarians he considered similar to his own).

    Replies: @utu, @fnn, @Turgot

  38. @songbird
    @葛底斯堡游击队约翰·伯恩斯(John Burns)

    It is a puzzle, but still somewhat telling how it was the same day as Germany. Similarly, it is somewhat odd how they fielded men against the Soviet Union, especially when you consider that Mussolini did not seem to like Hitler, at least at first.

    The text of the Italian declaration is interesting. It seems to single out FDR. (Somewhat mirroring the Allies trying to single out Hitler) It also mentions "250,000,000 men" as being part of the Tripartite Pact. (Seems deliriously high?)

    What could possibly be the motivation? I think it was largely a case of Mussolini 's personality. In France, he seems to have wanted to have a seat at the negotiating table, which required commitment of forces. Basically, he wanted to have his hand on the post-war pencil drawing lines on the map.

    This view combined with Italy's weak performance in the war questions the wisdom of Germany having Italy as an ally - it would complicate any peace settlement. But, perhaps, Hitler thought the Italian navy was important.

    I think there is a lesson hidden in this somewhere for modern politics. Hubris of the elites and how they form spheres where they lock shields. One wonders if Franco was much smarter, or was just motivated by the Spanish Civil War to remain neutral.

    回复:@German_reader

    One wonders if Franco was much smarter, or was just motivated by the Spanish Civil War to remain neutral.

    According to Stanley Payne’s biography, Franco had rather deluded ideas of a massive rearmaments programme and entering the war at an opportune moment, to make Spain a great power again (iirc he was also at least vaguely anti-British, like many Spanish nationalists; Spain not only sent the Blue Divison to Russia, they also let German submarines refuel and refit in Spanish ports). But that didn’t happen, because Spain’s economy was too weak and had been devastated by the civil war, because Hitler didn’t offer enough (Franco wanted territory in North Africa, but Hitler felt good relations with Vichy France were more important) and because it finally became obvious that Germany was probably going to lose the war. So Franco was probably just lucky, not especially wise. But for much of the early part of WW2 he was very interested in entering the war on the German side (even if he had apparently been somewhat disturbed by the German attack on Poland whose regime of Catholic authoritarians he considered similar to his own).

    • 回复: @utu
    @German_reader

    Didn't Hitler say that he rather go to a dentists and have a tooth extracted than having to negotiate with Franco?

    回复:@German_reader

    , @fnn
    @German_reader

    I think the main idea behind getting Spain to enter the war was seizing Gibraltar and closing off the Med to the Royal Navy.

    , @Turgot
    @German_reader


    disturbed by the German attack on Poland whose regime of Catholic authoritarians
     
    those were freemasons, socialists, irreligious chauvinists
  39. @German_reader
    @鸣禽


    One wonders if Franco was much smarter, or was just motivated by the Spanish Civil War to remain neutral.
     
    According to Stanley Payne's biography, Franco had rather deluded ideas of a massive rearmaments programme and entering the war at an opportune moment, to make Spain a great power again (iirc he was also at least vaguely anti-British, like many Spanish nationalists; Spain not only sent the Blue Divison to Russia, they also let German submarines refuel and refit in Spanish ports). But that didn't happen, because Spain's economy was too weak and had been devastated by the civil war, because Hitler didn't offer enough (Franco wanted territory in North Africa, but Hitler felt good relations with Vichy France were more important) and because it finally became obvious that Germany was probably going to lose the war. So Franco was probably just lucky, not especially wise. But for much of the early part of WW2 he was very interested in entering the war on the German side (even if he had apparently been somewhat disturbed by the German attack on Poland whose regime of Catholic authoritarians he considered similar to his own).

    Replies: @utu, @fnn, @Turgot

    Didn’t Hitler say that he rather go to a dentists and have a tooth extracted than having to negotiate with Franco?

    • 回复: @German_reader
    @utu

    I don't know about that exact quote, but he certainly wasn't impressed by Franco, iirc he considered him merely a Catholic reactionary (not a racial revolutionary like himself).

    回复:@ utu,@ Anarcho-Supremacist

  40. @utu
    @German_reader

    Didn't Hitler say that he rather go to a dentists and have a tooth extracted than having to negotiate with Franco?

    回复:@German_reader

    I don’t know about that exact quote, but he certainly wasn’t impressed by Franco, iirc he considered him merely a Catholic reactionary (not a racial revolutionary like himself).

    • 回复: @utu
    @German_reader

    我在这里找到它:

    http://ww2today.com/23-october-1940-hitler-meets-franco-at-hendaye
    He was a difficult man to pin down. Famously Hitler is alleged to have said that he would “rather have three or four teeth pulled” than go through another meeting with him. During the early part of the war Spain offered some practical support to Germany but as the tide turned Franco shifted his allegiances.

    和这里
    https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/213287.pdf

    , @Anarcho-Supremacist
    @German_reader

    Hitler was so pissed at Franco he thought that he ultimately supported the wrong side and it would have been better had the Reds won the civil war.

  41. King Leopold III made roughly 60 million francs from the Congo Independent State, 24 more million francs went to the Begian State after the handover in 1908.

    Costs of administration, defense and transport however were roughly 210 million francs. The Belgian government ended up with Leopold’s debts and bearing the bulk of the costs of running the colony.

    (Calculations from a source which cites Jean Stengers).

    The reward for the Belgian people were many statues commemorating how they were ripped off by their King.

    不值得。

  42. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    @棱镜系数

    Ron Unz had an excellent article about the purge of anti-war Americans during the 1940s

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-our-great-purge-of-the-1940s/

    回复:@fnn

    FDR ordered a mass sedition trial of some thirty ant-war and pro-Axis defendants in 1944 who were not engaged in espionage:
    https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Great_Sedition_Trial_of_1944

  43. @German_reader
    @鸣禽


    One wonders if Franco was much smarter, or was just motivated by the Spanish Civil War to remain neutral.
     
    According to Stanley Payne's biography, Franco had rather deluded ideas of a massive rearmaments programme and entering the war at an opportune moment, to make Spain a great power again (iirc he was also at least vaguely anti-British, like many Spanish nationalists; Spain not only sent the Blue Divison to Russia, they also let German submarines refuel and refit in Spanish ports). But that didn't happen, because Spain's economy was too weak and had been devastated by the civil war, because Hitler didn't offer enough (Franco wanted territory in North Africa, but Hitler felt good relations with Vichy France were more important) and because it finally became obvious that Germany was probably going to lose the war. So Franco was probably just lucky, not especially wise. But for much of the early part of WW2 he was very interested in entering the war on the German side (even if he had apparently been somewhat disturbed by the German attack on Poland whose regime of Catholic authoritarians he considered similar to his own).

    Replies: @utu, @fnn, @Turgot

    I think the main idea behind getting Spain to enter the war was seizing Gibraltar and closing off the Med to the Royal Navy.

  44. Is there a good summary of the railroad situation before and after Mussolini’s rise? Evola said a lot of his backers were very pleased with improvements in the line from Milan to the Alpine resorts.

  45. I somewhat disagree with this framing. I don’t think that Mussolini’s rule should only be compared with governance in other nations; it should also be compared with Italian governments before and after his rule, which are arguably more relevant. I don’t know enough about Italian history to make such a comparison in detail, but I suspect that it would be much less favorable to Mussolini than a comparison with Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s USSR.

    Mussolini tried to play history like a Paradox game, which was a bad idea. As I’ve argued previously, wars in general often turn out to be more costly and less successful than their proponents predict, and it’s much easier, both tactically and geopolitically, to fight a war to defend the status quo than it is to fight one to change it. Mussolini’s decisions weren’t as foolish at the time as they seem in retrospect—it certainly looked like Britain and France were on the ropes in 1940, and it was not clear when, if at all, the US would enter the war. But I think a valuable lesson of history is that there are more ways you can’t predict that a war can go wrong than there are ways you can’t predict it will go right.

  46. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    @鸣禽

    By the way, why, exactly, did Italy declare war on the US?

    For that matter, would anyone here like to answer this too: why did Germany declare war on the US? I've never been clear on this. Granted, it's obvious FDR would have pulled some string to get that done anyway.

    Replies: @German_reader, @for-the-record, @songbird, @Stolen Valor Detective

    For that matter, would anyone here like to answer this too: why did Germany declare war on the US?

    German_reader’s response was quite accurate, but for more detail you might want to read the relevant chapter in Ian Kershaw’s 命运的选择.

  47. @German_reader
    @utu

    I don't know about that exact quote, but he certainly wasn't impressed by Franco, iirc he considered him merely a Catholic reactionary (not a racial revolutionary like himself).

    回复:@ utu,@ Anarcho-Supremacist

    我在这里找到它:

    http://ww2today.com/23-october-1940-hitler-meets-franco-at-hendaye
    He was a difficult man to pin down. Famously Hitler is alleged to have said that he would “rather have three or four teeth pulled” than go through another meeting with him. During the early part of the war Spain offered some practical support to Germany but as the tide turned Franco shifted his allegiances.

    和这里
    https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/213287.pdf

  48. The Funny thing is the Italian Facists were Civic Nationalists.

    • 回复: @Hyperborean
    @ Anarcho-Supremacist


    The Funny thing is the Italian Facists were Civic Nationalists.
     
    It is a bit simplistic to apply the ideology of a different era and country.

    回复:@neutral

  49. His alliance with Hitler was very dumb(I know hindsight is a bitch) compared to how Franco handled the situation. Shoot growth in Italy was not that impressive compared to other places and post war Italy.

  50. @German_reader
    @utu

    I don't know about that exact quote, but he certainly wasn't impressed by Franco, iirc he considered him merely a Catholic reactionary (not a racial revolutionary like himself).

    回复:@ utu,@ Anarcho-Supremacist

    Hitler was so pissed at Franco he thought that he ultimately supported the wrong side and it would have been better had the Reds won the civil war.

  51. @Anarcho-Supremacist
    The Funny thing is the Italian Facists were Civic Nationalists.

    回复:@Hyperborean

    The Funny thing is the Italian Facists were Civic Nationalists.

    It is a bit simplistic to apply the ideology of a different era and country.

    • 回复: @neutral
    @超北

    I also highly doubt that the original Italian fascists would have support the current max influx of Africans because they would eventually assimilate into Italian culture. Hitler had the completely correct awareness what the future held regarding the non white world overwhelming the white world, which is why it was so necessary to fight. Mussolini or Franco just did not think this could ever happen.

    Even the likes of Stalin or Mao, I cannot believe they would have supported their lands becoming majority black because all that mattered was their workers revolution.

  52. This is regrettable

    No it is not, by going after the jews it shows that Mussolini was a good leader for Italy (unless you think that having jews rule your country is a good thing).

  53. @Hyperborean
    @ Anarcho-Supremacist


    The Funny thing is the Italian Facists were Civic Nationalists.
     
    It is a bit simplistic to apply the ideology of a different era and country.

    回复:@neutral

    I also highly doubt that the original Italian fascists would have support the current max influx of Africans because they would eventually assimilate into Italian culture. Hitler had the completely correct awareness what the future held regarding the non white world overwhelming the white world, which is why it was so necessary to fight. Mussolini or Franco just did not think this could ever happen.

    Even the likes of Stalin or Mao, I cannot believe they would have supported their lands becoming majority black because all that mattered was their workers revolution.

  54. @Dacian Julien Soros
    Since AK is well indoctrinated by Americans, he can't bring himself up to comparisons with US. You would have though that the one of the largest empires in history would be a good source of anecdotes about mass murder. But no, US official narrative is that US were pure like angels until maybe 1978, or maybe until Drumpf. All their victims were savages who deserved it, and AK can't possibly compare Mussolini's tally with FDR's.

    I don't know about other countries, but 1,500 civilians were killed in Bucharest, solely on one day (4/4/44), by the Peaceful FDR, his Peaceful Nazi-free Nation, and their bombs. Apparently, Romanians weren't too keen to surrender to Papa Joe, and FDR thought this would help them.

    回复:@ German_reader,@ Pericles

    I always thought the US-Phillipine war (1896-1902) was odd, and now mostly forgotten. Yet estimated at 200,000 dead brown people, a respectable number for the times. I assume this was round the time when the US started to flex its imperial muscles.

  55. Many Italians praise Mussolini for his destruction of the mafia and its influence in Sicily. They accuse the US that they, after the US-invasion of Sicily, put the different mafias back in power in southern Italy. There is an ongoing discussion in Italy about the truth of this matter.

  56. Anonymous [AKA "urquhart"] 说:

    Mircea Eliade on Mussolini’s death:

    I have seen the photographs from Piazza Loretto in Milan; the profile of Mussolini beside his mistress who was shot with him; then the picture of him hung up by his feet. My last fragment of esteem for the Italian people has disappeared.

    A race of stooges, traitors, and pimps. Some five thousand workers in Milan filed past Mussolini’s corpse, and each one declared his anti-Fascist sentiments, kicking Il Duce as he hung upside down. They had the courage to do this, of course, because they were kicking a corpse. What were these anti-Fascist workers of Milan doing for the past twenty years? How many plots, how many insurrections?

    The whole affair is disgraceful. Mussolini tries to save himself instead of committing suicide. Mussolini is caught along with the entire Fascist-Republican government, although there still existed in Italy a German army of almost a million men, in the process of surrendering. It was possible to capture him because he was betrayed. He was betrayed because he was surrounded by Italians.

    • 哈哈: Anatoly Karlin
    • 回复: @Kaiju
    @匿名的

    What about those 700000 gallant soldiers who surrendered on the Kiev pocket? What could you infer about the national character of Russians from that?

    回复:@Adam

  57. @Hector_St_Clare
    Explicitly mentioned as Fascist Italy’s likely worst crime. And this was in the context of Africans not really being people to *any* Europeans in the 1930s (or 50s).

    Um, no. Most European nations didn't get involved in the colonization of Africa, certainly the Eastern ones didn't (as I never tire of reminding the SJWs who want to accuse "Europeans", as a whole, of colonizing "Africans", as a whole).

    I recall it being shown on previous threads that the atrocities in the Congo Free State were greatly exaggerated, and almost all carried out by the Belgians’ local auxiliaries. And that’s probably the most extreme example of European “exterminationism” in Africa

    German genocide against the Herero & Nama (40% death toll) is at least equally as extreme, although Namibia's population was much much smaller than the Congo's. In fairness to the Germans that crime may not have been ordered from the top and the general in charge was penalized afterwards, to some degree, I think.

    I've never heard that the Congo Free State atrocities were exagerrated, do you have a cite for that?

    Replies: @German_reader, @Anatoly Karlin, @Pericles

    I’ve never heard that the Congo Free State atrocities were exagerrated, do you have a cite for that?

    The numbers don’t seem to add up. See the comments pointed out by AK for more details.

    • 回复: @Pericles
    @伯里克利斯

    To add a bit to those comments:

    My rule of thumb is that a modernist, brutal war reduces population by 5-10%. The Black Plague killed off "30-60%" of the population of Europe (W). The infamous Thirty Years' War killed eight million (W) or possibly less ("One estimate based on the frontiers of Germany in 1870 gives a population of [the Holy Roman Empire of] some 15–17 million around 1600, declined to 10–13 million around 1650 (following the Thirty Years' War).", W). That is something like 25-33%. The 'African World War' in Congo killed roughly 5% of the population (W).

    So, King Leopold and his guys killing off 50% or 10 million of the CFS inhabitants, in a colonial setting in a vast jungle at that, seems implausible. See the old comments for why 20 million CFS inhabitants is likely to be a gross overestimate too.

  58. Anonymous [AKA“ 5461”] 说:

    So if scores were not killed – directly executed – then it is OK, then?

    I assume you are familiar with Italy gaining a lot of territory from the Austrian Empire after the WW1. Unfortunately for Italians these territories were occupied not only by Italians but also by Slovenes and Croats living there among and side by side with Italians for centuries.

    I do agree that the policy of forced assimilation is not a fascist specialty, and it started way before and lasted long after the defeat of facsisim; but was especially intense and cruel in the period between the two wars.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italianization#Istria,_Julian_March_and_Dalmatia 进一步阅读。

  59. @Thorfinnsson
    @Anatoly卡琳


    And this was in the context of Africans not really being people to *any* Europeans in the 1930s (or 50s).
     
    This isn't accurate. The bizarre idea that Africans were equal to whites and had some sort of right to govern themselves merely because they breathe oxygen did not exist, but human rights was an established concept and had been for decades as evidenced by the international outrage over Leopold's Congo during the fin de siecle. During this time period it was debated whether or not to give the League of Nations control over Liberia or perhaps make Liberia an American colony in order to stamp out slavery, mutilation, torture, etc. in the country.

    The fascist response to this was that the established colonial powers were hypocritical in light of how their empires were built and that it was all a front to prevent competition from "young" and "proletarian" nations (one of Mussolini's favorite concepts).

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin, @Brabantian

    It was the 1700s that maybe saw the first national-scale abuse-of-colonials human rights proceeding, brought by famous conservative writer and MP Edmund Burke (1729-97), against Governor-General of India Warren Hastings, the impeachment proceedings of Hastings lasting for 7 years, 1788-95, and ultimately greatly distracted by the French Revolution

  60. Reminded of the old adage, concerning how the victors often dominate the historical overview. Note how the Red Habsburg Tito is generally treated, relative to Il Duce.

    • 回复: @Toronto Russian
    @米哈伊尔

    But the Tito rule was a golden age for Yugoslavians, especially Macedonians who ended up much richer than they would be in communist Bulgaria. OK, I only heard about that time from rural Macedonians so it's one-sided, but it was overall positive and sounded like a different world from the Soviet life under Brezhnev. Peasants weren't forced into kolkhoz for one, and actually earned a lot selling their produce. There was a lot of freedom and the biggest thing - no ethnic wars that would wreck the region both before and after.

    https://youtu.be/6UtsPxI-0X8

  61. @Pericles
    @Hector_St_Clare


    I’ve never heard that the Congo Free State atrocities were exagerrated, do you have a cite for that?

     

    The numbers don't seem to add up. See the comments pointed out by AK for more details.

    回复:@Pericles

    To add a bit to those comments:

    My rule of thumb is that a modernist, brutal war reduces population by 5-10%. The Black Plague killed off “30-60%” of the population of Europe (W). The infamous Thirty Years’ War killed eight million (W) or possibly less (“One estimate based on the frontiers of Germany in 1870 gives a population of [the Holy Roman Empire of] some 15–17 million around 1600, declined to 10–13 million around 1650 (following the Thirty Years’ War).”, W). That is something like 25-33%. The ‘African World War’ in Congo killed roughly 5% of the population (W).

    So, King Leopold and his guys killing off 50% or 10 million of the CFS inhabitants, in a colonial setting in a vast jungle at that, seems implausible. See the old comments for why 20 million CFS inhabitants is likely to be a gross overestimate too.

  62. @Anonymous
    Mircea Eliade on Mussolini's death:

    I have seen the photographs from Piazza Loretto in Milan; the profile of Mussolini beside his mistress who was shot with him; then the picture of him hung up by his feet. My last fragment of esteem for the Italian people has disappeared.

    A race of stooges, traitors, and pimps. Some five thousand workers in Milan filed past Mussolini’s corpse, and each one declared his anti-Fascist sentiments, kicking Il Duce as he hung upside down. They had the courage to do this, of course, because they were kicking a corpse. What were these anti-Fascist workers of Milan doing for the past twenty years? How many plots, how many insurrections?

    The whole affair is disgraceful. Mussolini tries to save himself instead of committing suicide. Mussolini is caught along with the entire Fascist-Republican government, although there still existed in Italy a German army of almost a million men, in the process of surrendering. It was possible to capture him because he was betrayed. He was betrayed because he was surrounded by Italians.
     

    Replies: @Kaiju

    What about those 700000 gallant soldiers who surrendered on the Kiev pocket? What could you infer about the national character of Russians from that?

    • 回复: @Adam
    @Kaiju

    There was no love for the Bolsheviks among common Soviet soldiers, and rightfully so. Only when the genocidal intentions of the Nazis became clear did the mass surrenders began to stop and after that point the fighting spirit of the Russian and Ukrainian soldiers became legendary.

    Replies: @Kaiju

  63. @German_reader
    @达西安·朱利安·索罗斯(Dacian Julien Soros)


    I don’t know about other countries, but 1,500 civilians were killed in Bucharest
     
    Maybe you should blame Antonescu for his enthusiastic participation in Hitler's war.

    回复:@Anon

    I am sure someone else with your smarts could find equally plausible excuses to defend Nero, Hitler, or Netanyahu.

    How is Antonescu’s “attack on America” an excuse for a massacre of 1,500 innocents? All able men were thousands of kilometers away. At that time, Bucharest was a town of women, children, and Jews. The oil was 100 km to the North.

    Maybe Antonescu was hiding WMDs? Perhaps he was an undemocratic tyrant, unlike Dyadya Joseph?

    Also, FYI, it’s not like Antonescu had much of a choice. Romania had been promised protection by France and UK – not by Germany, yet neither of the guarantors gave a damn when Romania was quartered by its neighbors. That was all prior to Antonescu. What was Antonescu to do? Send Romanian soldiers to die for France and UK?

    • 回复: @German_reader
    @阿农


    Also, FYI, it’s not like Antonescu had much of a choice.
     
    His unusual enthusiasm for Hitler's war which he regarded as a race war against Slavs was his choice, most of Germany's other allies weren't invested to the same degree in the project. Romanian forces also managed to kill a few hundred thousand Jews all on their own, which was also very unusual.
    Of course that doesn't mean those killed by American bombing deserved their fate, I reject views of WW2 bombing as just punishment. But still, one has to see things in perspective. I'm profoundly anti-American, but one has to admit that in the context of WW2 the US was one of the better actors (though hardly flawless).

    回复:@ utu,@ neutral

  64. The demonization of the perceived “right wing dictators” vis a vis the communist totalitarians and the liberal oligarchies (a.k.a. “democracies”) always was a matter of optics and a post-enlightenment/kosher bias against anything that smacked of monarchism, clericalism, reaction, or economic nationalism as opposed to internationalism. Hitler is simply the head boogeyman in the Manichean comic book world of the Twentieth century, and anyone associated with him- however tenuously- must share the opprobrium.

    The truth is that the “dictators” were pikers- I would even say, relatively benign pikers- compared to the Soviets, the British and the Americans, all of whose governments murdered and destroyed upon scales which dwarfed anything realistically imputed to the Third Reich and its dictatorial associates. (The US continues to do so to this day.)
    This Judeophilic turning of history upon its head has lead to perhaps the greatest lie of the past millennium.

    • 同意: neutral
  65. @Michelt
    This is complete nonsense and inexcusable. (And I am on the right wing of the right wing.)

    Anyone who claims the Duce was basically ok needs to read about what his soldiers did in Ethiopia.

    Poison gas against barefoot fighters.

    Killing all the monks in entire monasteries without provocation to humiliate and intimidate the Ethiopians.

    May he and his apologists burn in hell.

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin, @Priss Factor, @Beckow

    War is hell. An aggressive war is the ultimate crime, all other crimes follow from it. That was the view of the Nuremberg tribunal after WWII.

    Mussolini, and younger Churchill, Hitler, Stalin, Brezhnev, Bush, Clinton, Saddam Hussein, etc… have all started unprovoked, aggressive wars. In most cases with no personal consequences. That is clearly a big issue because a lack of consequences leads to irresponsibility, hubris and eventually a kind of infantilism with advanced tools (roughly the current state in the West).

    Mussolini deserved what he got, his fate is not the issue. But there is no current mechanism to hold the ‘胜利‘ leaders accountable. That creates an incentive not to lose under any circumstances, only losers are held accountable. When societies lose the ability to police themselves internally, it becomes a downward spiral.

  66. @Anon
    @German_reader

    I am sure someone else with your smarts could find equally plausible excuses to defend Nero, Hitler, or Netanyahu.

    How is Antonescu's "attack on America" an excuse for a massacre of 1,500 innocents? All able men were thousands of kilometers away. At that time, Bucharest was a town of women, children, and Jews. The oil was 100 km to the North.

    Maybe Antonescu was hiding WMDs? Perhaps he was an undemocratic tyrant, unlike Dyadya Joseph?

    Also, FYI, it's not like Antonescu had much of a choice. Romania had been promised protection by France and UK - not by Germany, yet neither of the guarantors gave a damn when Romania was quartered by its neighbors. That was all prior to Antonescu. What was Antonescu to do? Send Romanian soldiers to die for France and UK?

    回复:@German_reader

    Also, FYI, it’s not like Antonescu had much of a choice.

    His unusual enthusiasm for Hitler’s war which he regarded as a race war against Slavs was his choice, most of Germany’s other allies weren’t invested to the same degree in the project. Romanian forces also managed to kill a few hundred thousand Jews all on their own, which was also very unusual.
    Of course that doesn’t mean those killed by American bombing deserved their fate, I reject views of WW2 bombing as just punishment. But still, one has to see things in perspective. I’m profoundly anti-American, but one has to admit that in the context of WW2 the US was one of the better actors (though hardly flawless).

    • 回复: @utu
    @German_reader


    I’m profoundly anti-American
     
    I put some hope in German anti-Americanism.

    https://www.unz.com/ldinh/heart-of-darkness-germany/#comment-3040960
    , @neutral
    @German_reader

    Yet you are profoundly pro jew.

  67. Mussolini’s biggest crime was trying to run a total state with italians in it.

    You can get sth done with germans with these methods, but they’re the most domesticated human breed.

    The conditions that Italian Army fought under Ciano were inexcusable, it approaches the polish level of disgrace.

    Hitler’s War by Irving touches on these subjects.

  68. @Haxo Angmark
    @German_reader

    Hitler declared war on the U.S. because he wanted a Japanese quid pro quo against Russia: 72 hours before the Pearl Harbor strike, the Russians defending Moscow launched a ferocious counter-attack against Army Group Center and, by December 11th, AG Center was in desperate shape and falling back. The Japs sold him short though, and stuck to their April '41 Non-Aggression Pact with the Soviets. Japan and the Third Reich were at repeated strategic right angles 1937-42, and never able to get on the same page. That's why the "Axis" lost: it

    never really existed.

    回复:@约翰·伯恩斯,葛底斯堡游击队

    Do you have any sources for the statement that the Japs sold Hitler short? And German-Japanese relations in general? Just curious – sounds interesting.

  69. @Kaiju
    @匿名的

    What about those 700000 gallant soldiers who surrendered on the Kiev pocket? What could you infer about the national character of Russians from that?

    回复:@Adam

    There was no love for the Bolsheviks among common Soviet soldiers, and rightfully so. Only when the genocidal intentions of the Nazis became clear did the mass surrenders began to stop and after that point the fighting spirit of the Russian and Ukrainian soldiers became legendary.

    • 回复: @Kaiju
    @亚当

    Then why did the Whites lose the civil war if the Reds were that disliked?

  70. @German_reader
    @阿农


    Also, FYI, it’s not like Antonescu had much of a choice.
     
    His unusual enthusiasm for Hitler's war which he regarded as a race war against Slavs was his choice, most of Germany's other allies weren't invested to the same degree in the project. Romanian forces also managed to kill a few hundred thousand Jews all on their own, which was also very unusual.
    Of course that doesn't mean those killed by American bombing deserved their fate, I reject views of WW2 bombing as just punishment. But still, one has to see things in perspective. I'm profoundly anti-American, but one has to admit that in the context of WW2 the US was one of the better actors (though hardly flawless).

    回复:@ utu,@ neutral

    I’m profoundly anti-American

    I put some hope in German anti-Americanism.

    https://www.unz.com/ldinh/heart-of-darkness-germany/#comment-3040960

  71. @German_reader
    @阿农


    Also, FYI, it’s not like Antonescu had much of a choice.
     
    His unusual enthusiasm for Hitler's war which he regarded as a race war against Slavs was his choice, most of Germany's other allies weren't invested to the same degree in the project. Romanian forces also managed to kill a few hundred thousand Jews all on their own, which was also very unusual.
    Of course that doesn't mean those killed by American bombing deserved their fate, I reject views of WW2 bombing as just punishment. But still, one has to see things in perspective. I'm profoundly anti-American, but one has to admit that in the context of WW2 the US was one of the better actors (though hardly flawless).

    回复:@ utu,@ neutral

    Yet you are profoundly pro jew.

  72. “including on the part of otherwise “fluffy” countries such as Poland that took full advantage of Czechoslovakia’s dismemberment in 1938.”

    Well this is quite dishonest. First of all what Poland did was just a tiny, tiny land grab, that’s not even imperialism of Germany, Soviet Union, Italy, Britain or France. And then besides that – this piece of land was taken in 1920 by the Czechs during the polish-bolshevik war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Czechoslovak_War

  73. @German_reader
    @鸣禽


    One wonders if Franco was much smarter, or was just motivated by the Spanish Civil War to remain neutral.
     
    According to Stanley Payne's biography, Franco had rather deluded ideas of a massive rearmaments programme and entering the war at an opportune moment, to make Spain a great power again (iirc he was also at least vaguely anti-British, like many Spanish nationalists; Spain not only sent the Blue Divison to Russia, they also let German submarines refuel and refit in Spanish ports). But that didn't happen, because Spain's economy was too weak and had been devastated by the civil war, because Hitler didn't offer enough (Franco wanted territory in North Africa, but Hitler felt good relations with Vichy France were more important) and because it finally became obvious that Germany was probably going to lose the war. So Franco was probably just lucky, not especially wise. But for much of the early part of WW2 he was very interested in entering the war on the German side (even if he had apparently been somewhat disturbed by the German attack on Poland whose regime of Catholic authoritarians he considered similar to his own).

    Replies: @utu, @fnn, @Turgot

    disturbed by the German attack on Poland whose regime of Catholic authoritarians

    those were freemasons, socialists, irreligious chauvinists

  74. @Mikhail
    Reminded of the old adage, concerning how the victors often dominate the historical overview. Note how the Red Habsburg Tito is generally treated, relative to Il Duce.

    回复:@Toronto Russian

    But the Tito rule was a golden age for Yugoslavians, especially Macedonians who ended up much richer than they would be in communist Bulgaria. OK, I only heard about that time from rural Macedonians so it’s one-sided, but it was overall positive and sounded like a different world from the Soviet life under Brezhnev. Peasants weren’t forced into kolkhoz for one, and actually earned a lot selling their produce. There was a lot of freedom and the biggest thing – no ethnic wars that would wreck the region both before and after.

  75. @Adam
    @Kaiju

    There was no love for the Bolsheviks among common Soviet soldiers, and rightfully so. Only when the genocidal intentions of the Nazis became clear did the mass surrenders began to stop and after that point the fighting spirit of the Russian and Ukrainian soldiers became legendary.

    Replies: @Kaiju

    Then why did the Whites lose the civil war if the Reds were that disliked?

  76. “politicized executions in the Western democracies, e.g. Sacco and Vanzetti (1927) would doubtless qualify”

    Sacco and Vanzetti were almost certainly guilty. Upton Sinclair was told by their lawyer that they were. He kept quiet because he thought he’d be an outcast on the left and maybe even killed.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20170215072403/http://articles.latimes.com/2005/dec/24/local/me-sinclair24

    “The story was “Boston,” Sinclair’s 1920s novelized condemnation of the trial and execution of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, Italian immigrants accused of killing two men in the robbery of a Massachusetts shoe factory.

    Prosecutors characterized the anarchists as ruthless killers who had used the money to bankroll antigovernment bombings and deserved to die. Sinclair thought the pair were innocent and being railroaded because of their political views.

    辛克莱很快就会学到一些令他充满疑惑的东西。 在对“波士顿”的研究中,辛克莱在丹佛的一家汽车旅馆里会见了男律师弗雷德·摩尔。 辛克莱(Sinclair)在十年前海格尼斯(Hegness)在拍卖会上发现的一封打字稿中写道,摩尔“让我感到恐慌”。

    Alone in a hotel room with Fred, I begged him to tell me the full truth,” Sinclair wrote. ” … He then told me that the men were guilty, and he told me in every detail how he had framed a set of alibis for them.=

    Hegness paid $100 for the box containing Sinclair’s confessional letter and tucked it away in a closet — where it gathered dust. Now, after stumbling upon it again, he plans to donate it to Sinclair’s archives at Indiana University, where it will join a trove of correspondence that reveals the ethical quandary that confronted Sinclair — papers that even some scholars of the author weren’t aware of…

    Other letters tucked away in the Indiana archive illuminate why one of America’s most strident truth tellers kept his reservations to himself.

    “My wife is absolutely certain that if I tell what I believe, I will be called a traitor to the movement and may not live to finish the book,” Sinclair wrote Robert Minor, a confidant at the Socialist Daily Worker in New York, in 1927.

    “Of course,” he added, “the next big case may be a frame-up, and my telling the truth about the Sacco-Vanzetti case will make things harder for the victims.”

    He also worried that revealing what he had been told would cost him readers. “It is much better copy as a naive defense of Sacco and Vanzetti because this is what all my foreign readers expect, and they are 90% of my public,” he wrote to Minor.”

评论被关闭。

通过RSS订阅所有Anatoly Karlin评论