PBS - Fascism in Europe

[mysteryowl]

1 1/2 hour documentary is on PBS - now (CST). Rick Steves is hosting.


They just said Hitler's book written in prison was gibberish, with poor grammar.
"Fascism starts with violence". It started with "the black shirts".

They said the fascism code is, belief, obey, fight. Sound familiar?

Have you seen this documentary? What did you think?

[Trumpocalypse]

1. One thing they always fail to point out

Is that in the 20s and 30s European countries had no tradition of democracy. Before WWI they were mostly all autocratic monarchys. So fascism wasn’t such a big difference.

[Wounded Bear]

6. Most of Europe, that is...

France and England were fairly well set in their democratic styles. Germany and Italy were both young countries with weak democratic institutions, and Europe east of the Rhine was a creation of the Versailles Treaty, patched together from the wreck of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Spain tried the Western 'constitutional monarchy' model, but fell to Franco in the 30's, with help from Hitler, of course.

Russia (USSR), of course, had succumbed to the Communists and was a boogeyman to all of the emerging fascist states.

France was politically very chaotic between the wars, and never really recovered from WWI until after WWII.

So yeah, not a lot of democratic traditions there.

[DBoon]

2. Generally it was very good

It covered Mussolini, Hitler and Franco

I wish he had looked at other European fascist movements, especially in Eastern Europe. Croatia's clerical fascism and the Romanian Iron Guard in particular.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. I haven't seen it, but seen enough others. In a nutshell...

After WWI, the Treaty of Versailles was extremely punitive. The Allies blamed Germany for the war and insisted they pay for it-- in spades.

Kaiser Wilhelm abdicated after the war, leaving no heir apparent, so a republic was de jure created.

With limited experience in democracy, Soviets threatening in the east, and the Depression hitting Germany harder than other countries (hyperinflation was horrible) Hitler seemed like an acceptable ally to some of the parties involved, and power brokers like the Krupps thought they could control him if he became less useful.

Hitler became popular thanks to his master propagandists and his ability to zoom in on popular fears and wants. The Reichstag fire gave him the ability to grab the last strings of power he needed.

The rest is more history, and we know how it ended.

I do not buy the parallels some are making with Trump. The biggest point is that Trump is an idiot with no ability to control events or capitalize on lucky ones. Yeah, he's got his boy Miller and a few others, but they are not in the league of Hitler's advisors. And he's incapable of listening to them anyway.

And, no matter what's going on in Portland or Chicago, comparisons with the Sturmabteilung are a bit of a stretch. And Germans were getting tired of the storm troopers' activities anyway, leading to "The Night of the Long Knives" and the murders of SA and leftist leadership. We gossip about politicians' deaths here, but imagine a massive purge like that.

Yes, it's possible-- look what they've gotten away with so far. But, I have to hold on to the faith that our history and democratic traditions are strong enough to stop that before it takes us too far down the dark road.

[Trumpocalypse]

4. Actually Kaiser Wilhelm had several sons

Some of whom tried to persuade Hitler to restore the monarchy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_II,_German_Emperor

[TreasonousBastard]

5. Yes, but in the mysterious ways of monarchies, the Kaiser has to name a successor. And there was...

no way Hitler was going to allow a legitimate monarchy.

[Trumpocalypse]

9. That's not true

Why don’t you admit your error that the Kaiser had no heir instead of trying to spin it?

[Silent3]

10. Isn't this just silly semantics?

"Kaiser Wilhelm had several sons" can be true while "leaving no heir apparent" is also true.

[Trumpocalypse]

11. No it's not

The crown prince was his successor. The monarchy in Germany was not abolished for the reason you gave. Why not just admit that you made a mistake instead of trying to argue the point?

[Silent3]

12. For the reasons *I* gave?

I don't think you're paying attention to which poster you're responding to.

[Trumpocalypse]

13. Sorry

I made a mistake.

[TreasonousBastard]

14. In theory he had an heir or two, but Hindenburg made it clear that the military would not...

support the monarchy.

There were two crowns at stake, btw, Prussia and the Empire, and they were intertwined. At the time of abdication, no royalty was accepted by either one, and the SPD took over as the Republic.

It was a time when European royalty was wandering the streets looking under the couch cushions for spare jewels to sell. Prussia, Bavaria, Schleswig-Holstein, Austria-Hungary, Sicily, Trieste...

All gone.

[Trumpocalypse]

15. Not in theory, he had heirs

But the rest of what you wrote is true. That’s why the monarchy was abolished not because the Kaiser had no heirs.

[TreasonousBastard]

16. This all started when I said "leaving no heir apparent" not "leaving no heir".

[Trumpocalypse]

17. The crown prince was the heir apparent

but the monarchy was abolished.

[GemState]

8. Thanks for this post TreasonousBastard

[Wounded Bear]

7. I've only seen parts of it. Seemed pretty accurate for what it covers...

those as some have pointed out above, there could have been a lot more done. That's a series that could go on for several hours.