Are you part of a Nationalist group IRL?

submitted by VraiBleuScots Protestant, Ulster Loyalist from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

If a nationalist leader ever took power, I always imagined these groups would get purged.

Based on what precedent? Nationalists have had 2 revolutions, neither of them involved genociding other nationalists. They didn't even genocide the previous rule caste, nor their political opponents. This is just schizoposting.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Just look at how the far-right treats each other. I think it's inevitable that there will come backstabbing and betrayal until only one dominant party remains.

By the way, I say the same about the far-left too. When the Soviets took over, there was ideological division between Stalin & Trotsky and ironically, it was the more radical of the two who got exiled (Trotsky wanted global communism, whereas Stalin wanted to focus on his own country first).

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

This is stupid. Nationalists will work together, because nation is above all else. Infighting is jewish

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

This is stupid. Nationalists will work together, because nation is above all else. Infighting is jewish

So you think Claus von Stauffenberg was a Jew? Or the other July 20th conspirators?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20_July_plot

I stand by point. I don't expect perfect harmony. There will always be some kind of purity test that both the far-right and far-left want to attain.

Edit: However, I think there's a better solution. Installing a monarch would remedy this issue. It's why on the other side of the globe, Imperial Japan was able to hold out much longer since the King WAS seen as the nation.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

They weren't nationalists, they were reactionaries pursuing their class interest

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

What is your proof of this?

Stauffenberg's last words before his execution was literally "Long live our sacred Germany", and before that, he was a veteran who participated in many opening battles. They were like Conservative Boomers. Supported the same ideas but "just don't go too far with it, guys".

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You just ended your sentence by agreeing with me lol

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So then why did you deny they were Nationalists? There's no contradiction when it came to tolerating other Nazis.

I followed this up with the Imperial Japan example. Practically all Japanese had supported the government/war effort till the very end. It was only when the Emperor had agreed to surrender, was there an attempt to arrest him. But it failed.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Stauffenberg and his ilk, led by rebellious generals, had an eye increasingly to their profession, as Goering and Himmler later did. They were principally bureaucratic-minded people, no different from the inept policy makers running our affairs. It wasn't on behalf of Germany that they revolted. Whereas Georg Elser was a man of character remaining true to his principles, which is also apparent in his features. He saw himself as a modern-day Herostratus. Hence, he received special treatment in the concentration camp and wasn't promptly executed.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I would describe them as opportunists rather than reactionaries. I don't think their actions were in the interests of the German aristocracy either.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Whose interest was it for? I was under the impression it was a bunch of military guys and aristocrats collaborating, which is intuitive that they'd want to build a state for their interests.

I don't know specific details of this stuff though, I don't find it interesting at all, so maybe I'm wrong. Either way these people trying to sabotage the war effort, overthrow Hitler etc can't be considered to be nationalists imo.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The perpetrators were military men and aristocrats, but I don't think they were specifically aiming at the restoration of an aristocratic or monarchic regime. My understanding is that it was just a power grab and an extremely naive attempt at negotiated surrender. I would call them foolish opportunists, if anything.