Five of swords

The germans had no interest in controlling France but duh, they had interest in trying to prevent the allies from landing in Europe from the Atlantic Ocean. Hitler actually allowed people to have authority in Vichy France who had always been critical of hitler. Because he felt they would simply be better at administration of France. As long as France was not a threat to Germany he really did not care what they did. A 'puppet state' is unnecessary if you actually want to control a country. In fact, duh, it is the very principles of the nsdap that they prefer not to have any german citizens. If germany absorbed France, then you will have non german citizens. That is the opposite of hitlers ideology...both stated and practiced. Hitler also believed jews were a national security threat. You can try to insist he was wrong, but all of his actions were consistent with that belief.

Considering your 'point' is totally irrelevant and implies nothing, it might as well be correct. If you are going to be irrelevant then at least you can be correct. But you aren't even correct. The first Reich referred to thr holy Roman empire as defined by otto I. France was not even included in the first Reich. Even if it wasn't that wouldn't imply the third Reich should include it, of course, so it doesn't matter. But you aren't even correct about what the first Reich was lol

All I would really ask is why you are being retarded. You literally tried to pretend that Hitler wanted to conquer Europe because...the number 3. That was a very dumb argument.

He wanted Ukraine simply because they had farmland and oil which Germany desperately needed as a resource. His plan to 'germanize' Ukraine was via a long period of mass migration...similar to how the western world is currently becoming the 3rd world. His only interest was Ukraine and it was only because of those specific resources.

Is that what 3 means? There is zero evidence Hitler wanted to rule Europe. In fact you can easily prove he didn't. After conquering france, he didn't even absorb it. He just set up Vichy france. That is exactly what I said and you are talking in circles now.

Huh? The 3rd Reich was german. It wasn't french.

Any ‘excuse’ for the Russian attack on Ukraine – because it felt threatened – should be viewed with the lens of history. That was the same reason given by Hitler, for the invasion of half of Europe. He was only protecting the Germans in the Sudetenland. Austrians speak German, anyway. He was only defending against the Polish attack on the radio transmitter in Gleiwitz… And the suggestion Ukraine should accept ‘terms’ – and Putin be allowed to walk away with a fifth of the country, having laid waste to cities with clear evidence of war crimes – can be viewed in the same way. Imagine, if the Allies had sued for peace in 1943, and agreed Hitler should be allowed to keep what he had conquered to 'stop the killing'. Plus, Ukrainians will never accept to surrender and it is they who have the agency in this war; they decide. This is no proxy war, with NATO and the Soviets pitched against each other behind the scenes in the remote tropics as happened during the Cold War or as is currently happening in Yemen, where different Middle East factions fund the fighting done by others. This is a real war. Russia really invaded Ukraine and it really has bombed real civilians, real hospitals and real infrastructure. Between a third to half a million people have already been killed or maimed, in just 12 months. There is nothing proxy about it for either side. To return to the evidence, three months before the invasion, one of Putin’s longest-standing and closest advisers, Vladislav Surkov, former deputy prime minister, dark celebrity, sometime playwright and novelist, wrote a bizarre article which he published in an online current affairs magazine. It was strange commentary on the second law of thermodynamics, as it applies to nation states. Essentially, Surkov, who has no current official role, used Physics to claim countries have to deal with internal ‘tensions’ through external ‘expansion’, like a gas escaping a closed chamber – ie through war. In doing so, they would transfer internal entropy – disorder and chaos - beyond the nation’s borders. It seemed at the time to be mad ramblings. He repeated this, though, just nine days before the invasion in a further article, talking about how it was necessary to expand outwards, 'For Russia, constant expansion is not just one of the ideas, but the true existential of our historical existence. Russia will expand not because it is good, and not because it is bad, but because it is physics.' Now, the ‘fog of war’ has actually made clear these comments were writing on the wall. Another clear indication of intent came from Putin himself, all the way back in 2016. When presenting a national prize for Geography [he is Chairman of the Russian Geographical Society], he asked one of the youngest award winners to say where Russia’s borders end. The young boy began to answer, when Putin interrupted him with a smile and said, ‘Russia’s borders never end.’ The audience was uncertain whether to laugh or applaud. It was safest to do the latter. A third piece of evidence I have seen is a Russian post-invasion plan – Action plan: to create a system of control over economic and political processes in Ukraine – setting out a rough five page-long sketch of how it was going to happen. The strangest thing about the plan is how insubstantial and very basic it was. Both the Kremlin’s political and military plans have been proved horribly wrong, of course, since the invasion did not go according to plan and now something over 90% of the Russian army is in Ukraine. What is strange, though, is that it is all about controlling the territory and very little about assets. The invasion was not about seizing valuable resources or material gains. There are none left when the Russians reach them. It is more about ephemeral prestige, power, control, even more than a land grab. You do not bomb the largest steel mills to smithereens in order to obtain them. Some claim Russia was goaded into acting by the threat of NATO expansion. But Putin himself said in 2004 that 'Russia has no concerns about the expansion of NATO from the standpoint of ensuring security'. Russia, after all, has a massive nuclear arsenal and has no reason to fear any adversary. What is the purpose of nuclear weapons then? In addition, several countries bordering Russia, including Finland and the Baltic States are already entering the alliance, with not a murmur from Moscow. Plus, with modern hi-tech weapons, no country needs actually to border another, for there to be a threat – as Britain has discovered from the threats of Russian TV pundits, who delight in telling us how London could be wiped out in ten minutes. So where does the war go from here? History tells us, you cannot appease a dictator. History also tells us Russia will not abide by an agreement. In 1994, Ukraine handed over its – third largest – nuclear weapons arsenal to Russia (as a long-term nuclear power) in exchange for security assurances from the US, the UK and…er Russia. Fake pacifists who call for Ukraine to sue for peace, or ‘come to terms’ with Russia, are in effect aiding and abetting the criminal invasion of a sovereign nation and suggesting war criminals go unpunished. But, even were that to happen, there would be no reason for Russia to obey any conditions laid down in a deal and the evidence suggests quite the opposite. After all, who will be there to force the Kremlin to live up to the letter of the law? The war can end in two ways. Western weapons can allow Ukraine to threaten Russia’s continuing war effort to such an extent that Putin is replaced as the leader – effectively a coup. The alternative would be for Putin to declare ‘victory’ now, as it is, and step down quietly, leaving a new administration to negotiate peace. source; https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2023-02-21-expert-comment-no-proxy-war-russia-really-invaded-ukraine It is amazing how stupid and wrong the history was in this. Hitler obtained sudenteland without any conflict, actually. He invaded poland because poland has occupied danzig. And he invaded france because France declared war on Germany. When a country declares war on you, then you don't need an 'excuse' to invade their country. And when Germany conquered France, he did not make it part of germany...he set up Vichy france...because he had zero interest in ruling over French people

Well that assertion just means you don't understand fascism

Interesting taxonomy. So would you also say fascism is a kind of national socialist GERMAN worker's party?

You understood my point exactly as well as I expected you to

Insofar as they accent a collective identity they are fascist. But political fascism would involve using a collective identity title to overcome class conflict. Blm instead seems to use identity in an apolitical way. Just gritting to make the leaders rich.that is not fascist and indeed not political

This is exactly the sort if point I would expect you to make. I certainly didn't think you would be capable of answering my question.

If blm seized control of the usa, and required the state to facilitate negotiations between workers and capital, it would count as a fascist organization. it also would probably remove citizenship of all white people, because white people would be perceived as a security threat to the welfare of black people. So sure, that would be fascism. It would also be pretty close to the German national socialist version of fascism, because the national identity it fosters is racial. That might help explain why there was an alliance between the American nazi party under Rockwell and the nation of Islam...they had compatible goals.

Disagree. The future does not want people who are this genetically vulnerable to brainwashing, and it is progress for them to exit the gene pool.

I see you are still retarded

Well blm isn't a country

You were responding to a yes or no question but didn't say yes or no.

Why don't you explain to the class how Martin heideggar (a 'nazi' philisopher) refuted the concept of Cartesian existence..and how that might relate to fascism as a concept? Chatgpt won't help you because it is programmed to niot understand fascism. But if you read books about fascism you should be able to do this easily. And while you are at it...why don't you offer some speculation on why exactly chatgpt is programmed to not understand fascism?

No, anyone who reads actual books and stuff. Not comic books

Well I'm just repeating what any other educated person would say

Wrong. Why would a severely retarded person like yourself think you can tell me anything? Fascism in general focuses on having a strong collective identity to advance social cohesion and altruism. National socialism focuses more on race as the source of national identity. Other forms of fascism may not focus so much on race. Integralism, for example, tries to use religion as a national identity. All forms of fascism involve a strong sense of belonging, which the Italian and German and Spanish versions all share...German was more specifically racial, so it was a subset.

Nobody except me knows enough about fascism to be sarcastic about it.

No

National socialism can be considered a subset of fascism. There are other forms of fascism different from both Italy and germany.

Dude I'm not the one making claims. You made claims about what is written in the doctrine of fascism which is absurd and wrong and I simply called you out on it. You obviously never read the doctrine of fascism. Now in general fascism is a revolutionary movement. And all revolutionary movements wind up having to kill some people. Monarchies were killed in the American revolution. Does that mean the founding fathers was in favor of nationalized unions? Any revolutionary requires dictatorship. That is because the establishment like the status quo...since of course it is good for them...since duh, it made them the elite. So opposing the status quo requires organization, and a bunch of people cannot simultaneously self organize into radical change.