#Protestant opposition to the Third Reich | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

eli-kittim · 3 years

Text

The Great Reset: The Coming of the Fourth Reich

By Psychologist & Author Eli Kittim

Globalists Use Nazi-like Tactics to Control the Masses Via Propaganda & Censorship

Isn’t it strange that on the 100th anniversary of the Nazi party’s founding the Fourth Industrial Revolution was set in motion? The Nazi party was founded on 24 February, 1920. As if to celebrate its anniversary, 100 years almost to the day since its founding, a global pandemic was unleashed, which was declared “a global health emergency” by the WHO on January 30, 2020, and “a global pandemic” on March 11th of the same year. You might say, what? I don’t see the connection with Nazi Germany. Be patient; you will!

Is it a coincidence that everyone who's anyone is in on it? From important heads of state, to the fake news media, to Big Pharma, to the global social networking Big Tech giants like Twitter, Facebook, and Google, everyone is not only in on it but carefully controlling and censoring the exchange of information so as to exclusively promote their agenda, while silencing the opposition. It’s essentially a globalist totalitarian ideology which does not tolerate any alternative points of view. Any alternative viewpoint is labeled as “misinformation,” and is therefore considered as a “false claim,” which is then banned or eliminated. That’s precisely why Twitter and Facebook suspended Donald Trump’s account: his agenda contradicted theirs. Any one who has recently watched any TV news-channel or social media platform will have noticed the nonstop commercials——which either employ scaremongering tactics or a barrage of pop-up ads——that are desperately trying to persuade the public to get vaccinated, even offering incentives for research participation (such as $100). As a rule, these Big Tech social media giants are invariably censoring, libeling, discrediting, or downplaying the legitimate scientific claims of credible virologists and doctors, belittling and ridiculing their work, while also dangerously curtailing and restricting people’s freedoms that are guaranteed by the first amendment, to wit, the freedom of speech and of the press. In some extreme cases (e.g. on LinkedIn) users are given *commands* as to what to say, when to say it, and how to generally conduct themselves via a series of prompts, such as “say thank you,” or “congratulate so and so on his anniversary,” or “do this,” “do that,” and so on. As a psychologist, I see this as a form of mind control.

So, it turns out that this is not a free society after all. In fact, these are the exact same tactics that Nazis used to brainwash people into obeying their agenda. Josef Goebbels (the Minister of Propaganda), for example, controlled the media and the arts, feeding Germans with nonstop Nazi ideology while simultaneously censoring other information. That is precisely what’s happening today: mass control through propaganda and censorship!

By now, we know that many credible scientists, virologists, and doctors do not accept the data-manipulation and biased recommendations of government public health agencies, which are being dictated by the CDC, the WHO, and the globalists. These agencies themselves are sending mixed and contradictory messages. On the one hand, they are rigorously promoting vaccinations and emphasizing how safe they are. Yet, on the other hand, they themselves admit on their own websites the risks, side effects, and potential harm that these experimental vaccines pose to humanity: deaths, blood-clots, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, facial swelling & paralysis, myocarditis, severe anaphylaxis, and other medical concerns and complications that have put a halt to some vaccines, at least for a time. And even virology expert, Geert Vanden Bossche, PhD, who has previously worked with the B. & M. Gates Foundation and GAVI, and Michael Yeadon, former vice president and chief scientist at drugs giant Pfizer Inc., are both saying that healthy people shouldn’t be coerced into taking “experimental” vaccines. Especially since 99.9% of the population in the US survives COVID. So, the initial social media criticism——excoriating these credible scientists as conspiracy theorists——no longer works! These forced genetic-altering vaccines that maximize Big Tech/Big Pharma profitability, but which show little regard for human health, are reminiscent of the coerced & unethical genetic research “experiments” that were performed at the Auschwitz death camps by Dr. Josef Mengele, the infamous Nazi doctor❗️

That’s precisely what’s happening today: mass control through propaganda and censorship! The First Reich was the Holy Roman Empire. The Second Reich was the German Empire. The Third Reich was Nazi Germany. Wiki characterizes the Fourth Reich as follows:

The Fourth Reich … is a hypothetical future

Nazi Reich that is the successor to Adolf

Hitler’s Third Reich (1933–1945). The term

has also been used to refer to possible

resurgence of Nazi ideas.

6️⃣6️⃣6️⃣

The Mark of the Beast

This scenario has already been prophesied in the Book of Revelation, chapter 13 verses 16-17 (KJV), in which a charismatic world leader will dominate the world, at the end of days, under a one-world government, and will not allow people to buy or sell, or hold a job, if they don’t have the χάραγμα (mark), which can be translated as a notch, slit, or cut:

he causeth all, both small and great, rich

and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark

in their right hand, . . . And that no man

might buy or sell, save he that had the

mark.

What, then, is the Fourth Reich? It’s the fourth industrial Revolution that commenced on the 100th anniversary of the Nazi party! Coincidence? I think not! It’s a plan by the new global elite to take over the world by coercive measures, just as Hitler did in Nazi Germany. During the lockdowns, the mass media deliberately doctored images and reported false information in order to instill fear and influence public opinion. Case in point, according to Fox News:

CBS News admits 'mistake' after airing

footage of overcrowded Italian hospital in

report about NYC.

Due to extreme censorship & coercion, the mass exodus from social networking giants like Twitter & Facebook is a testament to their growing unpopularity and the public’s discontent.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution: The New World Order

In the long run, it’s not even about the vaccines. The forced vaccines are only a part of it. They are a means to an end. They are the first phase of fear and disinformation in order to control & manipulate the masses. But the end is something entirely different. So, what’s it all about? It’s all about the “the great reset”: the 4th industrial revolution❗️ Klaus Schwab, the *German* founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF), admits that “the fourth industrial revolution will impact our lives completely.” It will not only change our currencies, our economies, our cities, how we live and communicate with each other, but it will also radically change our identity through nanotechnology, biology, and so on. This is all anticipated in his book “COVID-19: The Great Reset.”

See the YouTube video “What is the Fourth Industrial Revolution?”: https://youtu.be/7xUk1F7dyvI

youtube

But this movement needs coercion, restriction, and manipulation of the masses in order to work. This is serious business, and it’s quite frightening❗️We’re talking about a global dictatorship that has been in the making since the founding of the Federal Reserve in the early part of the 20th century. It has been affectionately called by Henry Kissinger, George H. W. Bush, Barack Obama, & Gordon Brown, among others, as “the new world order.” It’s not a conspiracy theory since many US presidents, British prime ministers, and high level officials have explicitly referred to it as an ideal future government that they are all working towards. This is no longer a conspiracy theory since this totalitarian world government——which has now reared its ugly head by censoring the masses through social media-driven panic, fake news, government lockdowns, and forced mask and passport mandates——is emerging before our very eyes. According to Wikipedia, an approximation of the phrase “new world order” is inscribed in Latin on the reverse side of the Great Seal as well as on the back of the US one-dollar bill:

The Latin phrase ‘novus ordo seclorum’,

appearing on the reverse side of the Great

Seal since 1782 and on the back of the U.S.

one-dollar bill since 1935, translates to

‘New Order of the Ages’ …. this is an allusion

to the ‘New World Order.’

Since the Great Reset was unveiled by the World Economic Forum & the UK’s Prince Charles, and is also embraced by the UN Secretary General, António Guterres, it’s no longer deemed as a conspiracy theory. Klaus Schwab, the founder of the WEF, has said repeatedly that capitalism has failed and has used Marxist terminology to instill his ideas. This is a socialist agenda (dare I say Red fascist?) in which we keep hearing the phrase, “you will own nothing, and you will be happy.” The high profile Davos regulars, such as Angela Merkel and Bill Gates, as well as the rest of the attendees, like the heads of Russia, Japan, Spain, Greece, Israel, Singapore, France, and so on, all know what is going on and exactly where we are headed. This reset has not caught anyone by surprise. But this form of communism, when enforced by a totalitarian government, ultimately becomes fascism❗️

The protests in France, Italy, and around the world, demonstrate that people are beginning to wake up. They realize that they’ve been lied to by politicians, government agencies, health agencies, the CDC, the WHO, and by the fake news media. Using critical thinking, they’re not buying the lies anymore. If you’re looking for “truth,” you’re not going to find it listening to Anthony Fauci or Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. Hence why the protests and the riots around the world have become more widespread. For years, left-wing totalitarian globalists have been infiltrating our education system, and especially academia, instilling a sense of hatred for our founding fathers, while inculcating anti-patriotism and applauding those who burn our flags or who disrespect our country in international sports events by turning their backs on the national anthem, and the like. They have divided our country with Marxist rhetoric, critical race theory, BLM, & the anti-statue movement, literally removing our greatest heroes from sight❗️

The Globalist Goal is to Abolish Personal Rights, Religion, Race, Ethnicity, Country, & National Identity

This is a well-planned maneuver that was conceived a long time ago to supposedly end all ethnic and racial heritage, to eliminate national identity, history and culture, to remove flags & national governments, to create a cashless society, to merge humans with machines (transhumanism), and so on and so forth. Mikhail Gorbachev had written about some of these themes a while back. The Vatican has also issued statements that demonstrate a sense of allegiance with this globalist movement. Most importantly, the global elite want to severely restrict the practice of religion, as in Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and China, or to abolish it altogether, as Iceland tried to do when it passed legislation banning American televangelists. And they are all reiterating the exact same narrative, from prince Charles to George Soros. So, the global elite knew what was coming. There’s only one problem: they never told the people❗️

Now that I have your attention, Klaus Schwab wrote a book called “The Fourth Industrial Revolution,” in which he describes an age:

[of] technological revolution … that is

blurring the lines between the physical,

digital, and biological spheres.

The First Industrial Revolution started in Great Britain c. 1760. The second industrial revolution (mass production) took place in the late 1800s. The third industrial revolution (the digital revolution) happened in the second half of the 20th century (semiconductors/personal computers). The fourth industrial revolution is characterized by the notion of humans merging with technology and artificial intelligence. This is reminiscent of Ray Kurzweil’s technological singularity. If this is the case, innovators, investors, and shareholders——like Silicon Valley, Big Tech, & Big Pharma——will largely benefit from this endeavor. To this end, the COVID-19 pandemic was manufactured so as to begin the process of transhumanism and global economic & political control.

This war on society can be viewed as World War III. We are at war with those who want to abolish our freedoms and liberties, our rights to free speech and privacy, our rights to ownership, our rights to choose our political and economic systems, etc. Our bodies do not belong to the government. They belong to us. Ultimately, we have the right to make the choice of whether or not to stick a needle in our arm, without fear, threat of imprisonment, or legal ramifications. According to the Nuremberg Code of Ethics, there can be no form of coercion in human experimentation. Moreover, a mandatory vaccine with surveillance capability (nanotechnology) constitutes a violation of the 4th Amendment, namely, the right to a person’s privacy. The Great Reset will create a dystopian society where another Hitler (which the Bible calls “Antichrist”) will rise to power (cf. Rev. 13.16-17). The New World Order will control every aspect of life through artificial intelligence à la George Orwell’s 1984! The 2nd phase will probably involve military control of cities. In fact, some cities have already invoked martial law. The following abridged message was sent to me via Goodreads by a friend named James Morcan, who lives in Sydney, Australia:

Here in the biggest city in Australia we have

martial law masquerading as medical law …

with the army out on daily patrol on the streets

monitoring citizens to ensure everyone “follows

zee rules”… plus helicopters and drones

constantly flying overhead for the same purpose.

Masks are now mandatory everywhere, even if

you’re outside miles from anyone in public

parks. Citizens have to digitally sign-in everywhere

and many are being tracked 24/7 Chinese

communism-style. All forms of protesting in

public is now illegal here. … Whenever prisoners, I

mean citizens (sorry, my mistake), are briefly

allowed outside their homes they cannot go more

than 5 miles away and cannot see friends or

family…Sydney has been in this position for

months and it may continue until Christmas, and

neighbouring Melbourne has been locked down

for 8 of the last 12 months…Those who wish to

remain unvaccinated are also being stigmatized,

marginalized and are being punished by losing

their jobs, travel opportunities, and ability to

socialize. All that’s lacking is a Star of David-style

badge so everyone can identify the unvaccinated

in public. … At some point we all have to be honest

I think and consider that if it looks and feels like a

tyrannical, dystopian society, then it probably is...

James

See the YouTube video “Dangerous Marxist Leaders Call for the ‘Great Reset’ to Destroy Capitalism”: https://youtu.be/Se9rkxUK8zU

youtube

26 notes · View notes

kimp772 · 3 years

Text

The Charismatic Politician: Jörg Haider

Wikimedia Commons

Jörg Haider was an Austrian politician and served as the leader of the far-right Freedom Party of Austria from 1986-2000 and Alliance for the Future of Austria (2005–08) and as governor of the Carinthia (1989–91; 1999–2008).

Early Life

Haider was born in Upper Austria, the son of a shoemaker, to parents who were both active Nazis. Both had been more than nominal members of the Nazi party – his father served as a lieutenant in the Wehrmacht in the Second World War. ( INDEPENDENT Company UK, 2011). Jörg Haider did well in school and attracted attention from nationalist organizations. He was drafted into the Austrian Army and after his service went to the University of Vienna to pursue a degree in law in 1973-1974.

Rising Political Career

He became chairman of the youth organization of the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) as a college student quickly rising through the ranks. The Freedom Party of Austria at this time was a mixture of political currents opposing the two main political parties, the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) and the Socialist or later Social Democratic Party (SPÖ). Both of these parties had dominated the field and state levels. Haider rising through the ranks was elected secretary of the party in Kärnten (Carinthia). An already established member and manager of the FPÖ affairs in Carinthia. In 1979, at age 29, he was elected to the national parliament. (Britannica, 2021). Becoming more aggressive in policy and rhetoric Haider critiqued FPÖ leadership more vocally. The Freedom Party of Austria at the time was a minor political movement and not winning many votes from the people. In 1986, Jörg Haider defeated the more liberal FPÖ leader Norbert Steger to become the leader of the party.

The Amassing of Power and the Freedom Party of Austria

From the fast start to Jörg Haider’s political career anybody could tell that there was something special about him. He positioned himself as a charismatic leader transforming the party adding a more popular appeal. Following state elections in 1989, however, the FPÖ finished second to the SPÖ and formed a coalition with the ÖVP, enabling Haider’s election as governor of Carinthia. (Britannica, 2021). Now amassing power as the leader of the FPÖ and governor of Carinthia, Jörg Haider unleashed his political agenda. In the national parliament, he attacked Austria’s encrusted political structures and became stronger with every year in opposition, collecting protest votes from the working class. (Politico, 2008). He also opposed Austria’s bid to enter the European Union and vehemently denounced immigration into the country. However, in June 1991 during a heated debate in regional parliament about unemployment benefits where he praised, "In the Third Reich they had an 'orderly' employment policy."(The New York Times, 2000). After these remarks, the coalition was dissolved and Haider was forced to resign as governor. Nevertheless, Haider’s bold words about immigration and even hints of Nazism struck a chord with Austrians. The Freedom Party of Austria was increasing in strength on all political and governmental levels all thanks to the polarizing popularity of Haider. He was subsequently re-elected to the governor of Carinthia in 1999, showing that the FPÖ held a larger portion of the votes in parliament. Haider’s support in Carinthia did not diminish and he held that position until his death.

The Populist Appeal

Haider took the Freedom Party of Austria and metamorphosed it into one of the most successful populist far-right parties to exist. His charisma for the work and the people of Austria turned him into a cult leader. An academic journal from the University of Vienna described his political style as, “The image Haider propagated of himself contained ideological overtones, positioning himself as a ‘true representative of the people’s innermost needs and will”. (The University of Vienna, pg.145). This quote encapsulates one of the core foundations of populism appealing to “the people” and against “the corrupt elites”. This directly relates to Mudde and Kaltwasser’s definition of populism as, “More concretely, we define populism as a thin-centered ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogenous and antagonistic camps, “the pure people” versus “the corrupt elite”, and which argues that politics should be an expression of the general will of the people”. (Mudde and Kaltwasser, 2017, pg.6). In persuasive argumentation and propagated speeches through the FPÖ and Austrian politics, Jörg Haider used populist ideas to his advantage. A direct example of how Haider accomplished this would be, “..., used a populist strategy of us vs. them, focused on public corruption and political influence-peddling inherent in the Proporz system, accusing the traditional coalition of social democrats and conservatives of moral bankruptcy and misusing tax money.”(The Brookings Institution, 2019). Another way Haider utilized populist principle was the exclusion of “the ethnic other”. In the Finchelstein reading this principle was characterized as, “Populists push nationalists proposals intended to exclude the other and to integrate followers, while remaining deeply suspicious of difference”. (Finchelstein Introduction, 2017, pg.30). This quotation represents the framework put forth by Finchelstein and confirms Haider’s utilization of it. He even went as far to state that, “the societal foundations of Islam are diametrically opposed to our Western values”. (The Brookings Institution, 2019). Jörg Haider transformed the Freedom Party of Austria into an energetic and polarizing far-right party mobilizing young followers and changing the landscape of politics in Austria.

A Virtuoso of Media

Haider had a flare for the dramatic and operated the media to his will. He was often in the news and the center of controversy because of his remarks that were in support of Nazi policy. The way he puppeteered the media was one of great acclaim. Unexpected moves, polarizing public opinion, and personal attacks against his critics grabbed the media’s attention. By portraying himself as the only politician to go up against the empty promises of the mainstream parties. Examples of this kind of virtuoso of the mass media included, “Haider was at his best when he had just orchestrated a scandal, often with fierce personal attacks on renowned public figures. When public disapproval escalated, he would call for a press conference, where journalists and the public expected him to apologize or at least justify his behavior. However, Haider used his rhetorical ability and the self-manufactured attention to reframe the debate and propel his political messages.” (The University of Vienna, pg.147). Haider through his spectacular oration was often able to circumvent scandal and even further the FPÖ political agenda. Haider not only presented his opinions through press releases and news conferences but also television interviews which he often dueled the hosts on. He commanded natural authority and authenticity making even his opponents admire him. Haider had reached celebrity status through his charismatic and artful wielding of the mass media.

Conclusion

After his long storied and successful run as the leader of the Freedom Party of Austria, he left the party to form a new populist party called the Alliance for the Future of Austria (BZÖ) in 2005. The FPÖ leadership was transferred to another charismatic leader named Heinz-Christian Strache who took the party to an even more radical position. However, on Oct. 11, 2008, Haider died from injuries sustained in a car accident.

2 notes · View notes

warsofasoiaf · 4 years

Text

Austria-Hungary and the European War - A Hearts of Iron IV AAR

Austria-Hungary today is one of the principal powers of Europe, a highly-industrialized, prosperous and modern country. The krone is considered a major reserve currency, the University of Vienna is held in similar esteem to Cambridge or Harvard, and the Two Crowns are as recognizable as the Union Jack or the 51-starred American flag. Tourists regularly flock to Venice, political summits are regularly held at Budapest, and Austro-Hungarian goods are sold across the world. Yet the meteoric rise of Austria-Hungary was mired in controversy particularly for its role in the Balkan Crisis and the short-lived Hungarian-Yugoslavian war of aggression, and it was only the struggle against the Axis powers that united the western and eastern halves of Europe into a single whole.

Refoundation

The Kingdom of Hungary was in a precarious position in 1936. Dismembered by the Treaty of Trianon after the Great War, Hungary had seen a succession of ministers promising to restore the prestige of the diminished state from the short-lived Hungarian Soviet Republic to the ardently pro-Nazi Gyula Gömbös. With the failures of both the fascist and communist movements on full display, the Regent Admiral Miklos Horthy elected to work with the monarchist parties, approving their motion for stricter budgetary controls and supporting their call for a restoration of the Hungarian monarchy, giving a famous speech on 8 October 1936 that “a regent is a steward, not a king.” The debate raged as to who would be invited to wear the crown of Saint Stephen, with Frederich Franz of Mecklenburg-Schwerin and Carl Wilhelm of Sondermanland both suggested as candidates. The former with the nationalist Unity Party and encouraged by pro-German elements along with Adolf Hitler, the latter was championed by the liberal parties in the hopes that he would introduce a monarchy modeled upon the Swedish constitutional system. However, the monarchist voices were the most powerful, and they selected as their candidate Otto von Habsburg, to restore the previous prestige that the country enjoyed under Habsburg leadership. At his coronation ceremony on 16 December, 1936, Otto von Habsburg swore to restore the kingdom to prominence, and return the provinces lost in the war. This caused an uproar within the European diplomatic community, with President Edvard Benes of Czechoslovakia and Prime Minister Leon Blum of France providing the strongest voice against the move. When pressed to reaffirm France’s eastern commitments established in the wake of the Great War, Blum was noncommittal, domestic commitments and the weakness of his Popular Front government in the wake of rising violence between the French Communist Party and the nationalist Leagues.

Yet despite the rhetoric, King Otto I took an unexpected policy direction. His first cabinet was dominated by industrial policy, looking to revitalize a decaying industrial structure by importing ideas from the more industrialized nations, particularly the United States, who benefitted from a large trade deal for U.S. Steel. Keenly aware of the limited natural resources, King Otto commissioned an institute to innovate synthetic materials, primarily Buna rubber and oil from coal liquefaction plants, bringing in ideas developed in Germany and the United Kingdom. Even more surprising, Otto convened the Danubian Railroad Summit, inviting Austria and Czechoslovakia to unite their railroad networks, which had suffered since the break-up of the old Austro-Hungarian empire. This move particularly impressed the Austrian people, which sparked pro-Hungarian demonstrations which sometimes descended into violence with pro-German groups who wanted to unite Austria with Germany into one Germanic nation. The pro-Hungarian movement owed much of its support to Otto von Habsburg himself, who had spent much of his time in exile writing on Austrian affairs and made a name for himself as a fierce critic of nationalist policies. While monarchist and Catholic voices were among the most loyal of his supporters, he also enjoyed the support of Austria’s Jewish population, largely concentrated within Vienna, as they had hoped that a government led by Otto could stand up to the Third Reich and a large majority of the middle classes who wanted similar industrial policies to help revitalize Austria’s economy. Even stranger, his fierce opposition to Nazi Germany earned him the support of anti-monarchist groups, most notable among them being the social democrats.

Upon learning of the pro-Hungarian demonstrations, Otto suggested to Kurt Schuschnigg to hold a referendum on reunification with Hungary and the restoration of the Dual Monarchy. With the threat of forcible German annexation on the horizon, Austria agreed to hold the referendum provided that Austria would be seen as an equal, and not merely a junior partner. The date of the vote was scheduled for 15 July 1937, a hot summer day. The referendum was fiercely protested by local communist groups, who boycotted the election and accused the Austrian government of manipulation by foreign powers. Otto encouraged participation by funding street parties for pro-Hungarian political groups, and the results were even better than Otto could have predicted: a landslide victory for unification. The Austrian government announced the results on 16 July, and formed itself into a provincial government under the overlordship of the Hungarian monarchy. Otto assumed the title of Emperor of Austria on 22 September, and proclaimed that the Austria-Hungary of old was reborn, and that he would not rest until all of the former Habsburg territories were brought under one banner.

The Balkans Aflame

Almost immediately, this brought a crisis to the Balkan region, with both Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia expressing concern about Austro-Hungarian ambitions in Eastern Europe, as both provinces were formed in the collapse of the previous Empire and King Otto’s rhetoric on reclaiming lost territory meant he might be thinking of annexing their territories. Indeed, King Otto embarked on lengthy negotiations with Edvard Benes, discussing the return of Czechoslovakia into the Austria-Hungary as the province of Bohemia. The young democracy had a long struggle with balancing the monarchist and republican voices within the country and the fear of Germany demanding the Sudetenland in its goal to establish a pan-German state. Surprisingly, Otto von Habsburg offered a surprising amount of compromise, promising to respect the Czech parliament as well as the language privileges enjoyed by the region during the time of the previous Austro-Hungarian Empire. Noting the political tension between Czechs and Slovaks, Otto offered to continue Benes’s plan of shared industrial growth in order to relax ethnic tensions, a prime example of Otto’s vision of an Austria-Hungary that was a cosmopolitan, poly-ethnic nation. On 1 December 1937, Benes accepted the offered terms of Austro-Hungarian overlordship, and Otto was acclaimed as King of Bohemia. His speech following his accession was careful, stating his respect for “the young parliament and its enthusaiastic supporters,” as an olive branch to the liberal, anti-monarchist factions who opposed the move. Yugoslavia lodged diplomatic protests, stating that the control of the Czechoslovakian army violated the 35,000 man limit on the Hungarian army as stipulated in the Treaty of Trianon. Otto disagreed, noting that the army was trained in Czechoslovakia before its annexation into Austria-Hungary. Benito Mussolini agreed with Hungary’s claims, and French and British did not comment directly, stating that their primary goal has always been the preservation of peace in the region.

With Bohemia within its borders, Austria-Hungary set its sights on the territories awarded to Romania in the aftermath of the Great War. Transylvania, or Siebenbürgen as the Hungarians named it had a large segment of ethnic Hungarians. Romania, ruled by King Carol II under royal dictatorship, refused the gesture out of hand; Hungarian aggression had caused the Great War and the territory was lawfully transferred to Romania as part of war reparations. Upon hearing his refusal, King Otto retaliated by stating that the treaty went against its stated objective of national self-determination and that the Romanians had violated the treaty due to its land confiscation and anti-Semitic policies. Both Otto and Carol moved their armies to the border, neither wishing to back down in a crisis. The news media of the day was alight with articles fearing another Great War that could start at any time, the Balkans lit aflame yet again.

Wishing to avoid a war, Otto suggested impartial mediation through diplomatic back-channels. With Germany hostile, and France already invested in the conflict with its post-war foreign policy guarantees but unwilling to enforce them, the United Kingdom and Italy were named as possible mediators. This move has been considered a foreign policy masterstroke by Austria-Hungary. By being the one to suggest mediation, it engendered goodwill toward France, Italy, and Great Britain. Neville Chamberlain, the United Kingdom Prime Minister, debated a compromise by returning North Transylvania to Hungary within his own Tory cabinet. Italy however, preferred a strong Hungary ever since coming to diplomatic blows with Germany regarding Austria, and recommended that the territory be ceded to Austria-Hungary. The Italian offer reached the Romanian government first, and believing that they would be facing the Italian and Austro-Hungarian armies combined, ceded the territories without a fight. Chamberlain, upon learning of the compromise, believed it to be a Romanian capitulation, and never sent his proposal.

Otto turned his attention to Yugoslavia, which had been struggling with rising separatist movements among the Croats, Macedonians, and Slovenes. Yugoslavia had vociferously protested Austro-Hungarian actions in the region, but found limited support from France and Britain, particularly after Yugoslavia announced claims on Bulgarian lands in the interests of establishing a “South Slav Union” and started quietly sacking officers who opposed German interest in the Balkans. Having already been disillusioned by the failure of the British and French to prevent the re-militarization of the Rhineland, Prince Paul believed that only alignment with Germany would save Yugoslavia from being annexed by Austria-Hungary. The Jewish populations in Macedonia, Thrace, and Dobrudja were particularly anxious about the direction that Yugoslavia was taking. Citing the need to protect Bulgarian lands from Yugoslavian aggression and the need to return the favor for their assistance in the Great War, Otto declared war on Yugoslavia. Thanks in large part to the highly modernized forces produced by the Czechs and the Skoda Works, the Austro-Hungarians were quickly able to penetrate the Yugoslavian defensive perimeter on their shared border. Austrian forces swept into Slovenia, encircling and destroying isolated units. Belgrade fell in less than thirty days, and the Yugoslavian government was forced to evacuate to Skopje. Even a last minute, desperate defense in the southern theater did little to stop the advancing Austro-Hungarian troops. In less than four months, the Yugoslavian government capitulated completely.

While there were several high-profile diplomatic protests from the League of Nations, most media at the time reported great relief that the conflict was a small, contained struggle that did not erupt into a global war. Sanctions were imposed on Austria-Hungary, but these were of limited effect, as the war had ended before major actions could be agreed upon. The United States, citing the Neutrality Act, traded with neither Austria-Hungary nor Yugoslavia, France had withdrawn its guarantee of independence, and Germany declined to help Yugoslavia, unwilling to help a Slavic power. On 24 February, 1939, King Otto, having secured the territory he had lost, proclaimed the restoration and reintegration of the Dual Monarchy, and the rebirth of Austria-Hungary.

The Sudeten Crisis

Elsewhere in Europe, the great powers were slowly aligning against one another. In 1936, an attempted coup by the Spanish Army had failed and had erupted into a massive civil war. Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler quickly sent support to the armies of Nationalist Spain, providing weapons, fuel, and volunteers to assist. Republican Spain had a much harder time finding international support, with only the Soviet Union sending material shipments, while French Prime Minister Leon Blum chaired a Non-Intervention Committee with the United Kingdom, the formation of which led to renewing the Great War-era alliance between the two countries. King Otto joined the Non-Intervention Committee, considering the Spanish Civil War to be a domestic Spanish matter and that the Habsburgs had not been in Spain for over two centuries. During the Civil War, an anarchist rift formed in the Republican faction, with the Regional Defense Council of Aragon refusing to obey Manuel Azaña and starting their own rebellion. The Nationalists, however, were unable to take advantage of this, as they suffered their own coalition fracture between Emilio Mola of the Spanish Directory and Manuel Fel Conde of the Carlist faction. The two factions were driven by irreconcilable divisions over the direction of post-war Spain. In desperation as 1938 began, Azaña accepted Stalin’s offer of expanded Soviet aid. Otto’s refusal to intervene caused a diplomatic rift between Austria-Hungary and Italy, who had expected support in exchange for mediating the Transylvania conflict in Otto’s favor. The Republicans eventually won the civil war on 12 November 1938, and Stalin installed Gabriel Acuna, a retired military officer and ardent Stalinist, as President of Spain, who immediately suspended elections and fired all non-Communist ministers, and instituted emergency laws to allow him to dissolve the Chamber of Deputies in favor of regional Soviets and establish a one-party state. Manuel Azaña, despondent over the death of Spanish democracy, never recovered, and died of illness shortly after the war’s conclusion in exile in France.

The loss of such a state to communism caused Germany and Italy to mend their diplomatic fences. In a famous speech, Mussolini declared: “France, Britain, and Austria-Hungary are unwilling to face the Bolshevik menace.” and signed the Pact of Steel, a treaty of cooperation with the German Reich. Shortly thereafter, the two announced a military alliance. Italy began to court Bulgaria as another possible member of this “Berlin-Rome axis,” Afterward, Italy demanded that Albania’s King Zog cede the country to be ruled in a personal union under Victor Emmanuel III, and Greece received a similar demand from Hitler in June 1939. King Zog of Albania submitted to Italian demands, stating that Albania did not have the manpower to resist Italian invasion and that he would not murder his citizens for pride. Greek Prime Minister Ioannis Metaxas defied the demands, and Germany declared war on 15 June 1939. The invasion of Greece was quickly condemned by United Kingdom Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who issued an ultimatum: leave Greece immediately or face war. When Hitler refused, the United Kingdom declared war, joined by France and the various Dominions. This was too late for Greece, which could not receive reinforcements and was forced to capitulate. The failure of the Allies to protect Greece led to a vote of no confidence in Neville Chamberlain, who was replaced by his deputy, Winston Churchill. At Stuttgart, Hitler made a grand show of turning over control of Greece to his alliance partner Mussolini. Diplomatic historians have theorized that this overture was directed at governments which were not part of the Allies, in the hopes of causing them to join the Axis powers and becoming a part of the new European order to receive similar boons of territory.

This development caused a crisis within the Austro-Hungarian cabinet. With Greece and Albania administered through Italian puppet governments, the south flank of the nation was exposed, and if Bulgaria joined the Axis powers, they would be almost completely surrounded. Austria-Hungary’s relationship with the United Kingdom had been frosty ever since the war in Yugoslavia. Several councilors suggested rapprochement with the Axis powers, or attempting to split Mussolini and Hitler to break up the Axis and align with Italy against Germany. The left suggested approaching Stalin for a defensive pact. In a defiant response to the Greek and Albanian submission, Austria-Hungary declared that the countries of eastern Europe were free and independent powers, offering independence guarantees to Romania and Poland to protect them from Axis expansionism, much to the surprise of King Carol II. Hitler began to fund pro-fascist political groups and parties within Austria-Hungary, using nationalist sentiment against the poly-ethnic nation and promoting rhetoric that Otto’s policies were causing ruination of the region, that he must be deposed and Admiral Horthy must be returned to shepherd the government, in the hopes that the 1940 elections would cause domestic unrest and Austro-Hungary distracted by concerns at home. Wehrmacht officers suggested that Hitler thought little of the Austro-Hungarian military, confident that it was full of “weak and backwards races that would crumble against German armor,” and that he wanted to maintain focus on his war with France and the United Kingdom. German groups in Austria were their prime target, but Hitler also targeted Slovaks in eastern Bohemia in an attempt to stir up the divisions that had been present in Czechoslovakia. This effort caused a rise in nativist parties in the north and south of Austria-Hungary. King Otto retaliated with a large-scale crackdown on fascist groups, typically under a flimsy excuse of violating public safety laws, but fascist sentiment grew.

Almost a year after the February Proclamation, Germany, citing the principle of ethnic self-determination and a German state for the German people, demanded that the Sudetenland be ceded to Germany. Konrad Heinlein, leader of the Sudeten German Party and a Great War combat veteran, campaigned publicly for the cession of the territory. King Otto proclaimed Konrad a traitor to the Empire, to which Heinlein responded “You lived in comfort for your nation, I lived in a prison. Which of us has given more?” Street violence followed between the Legitimist monarchist party and the Sudeten German Party, and the First Royal Army Group was positioned along the border from Tyrol to the eastern Sudeten, the Second on the border near South Tyrol, and the Third sent to Macedonia on the border with the Albania and Greece. As the deadline for the German ultimatum drew near, King Otto remained defiant, proclaiming to the emergency session of the joint National Assembly “The Germans may have their war if they dare..The Czech people gave me their trust, and I give it to every man on the border down to the lowliest private. I nor any of the citizens of this reborn nation shall sacrifice this great enterprise.” When the deadline expired, Germany issued a formal declaration of war with Italy following less than four hours later. Austria-Hungary was now at war.

Opening Gambit - The Invasion at Zara, The Greek Campaign, and a War on Two Fronts

While the Wehrmacht had hoped to push into Austria-Hungary from the north, early attempts were repulsed by the extensive fortification network in the Sudetenland and the Austrian mountains. The heavy fortifications and powerful Austro-Hungarian artillery left the theater in a precarious stalemate, neither side able to break through enemy fixed positions. The initial moves from Austria-Hungary had better luck, with the Austro-Hungarian Fifth Army pushing south, deep into enemy territory in Italian-occupied Greece. Initial records from the battle had cited the brilliance of the commander, General Lajos Verees, but later analysis of the war had shown a lack of coordination between Hitler and Mussolini on the war plans for Austria-Hungary. Mussolini’s army had been organizing the annexation and administration of the new Greek holdings, the sudden increase in territory had forced Mussolini to assign many of his forces in that region to garrisons and coordination with the new puppet government while the majority of his trained forces were stationed on the French-Italian border. Several divisions had not even shown up, delayed in transit as Mussolini had to organize an Albanian and Greek regional government. The Italians that had been mobilized had made a valiant showing, but ultimately were forced to cede territory as garrison forces were scrambled at fallback positions and artillery was airlifted to provide firepower for the reeling army.

Hitler had originally intended to reinforce Italian holdings in Greece, but Admiral Karl Donitz suggested a bolder push, to reinforce Italian holdings at Zara and push into Austro-Hungarian territory, hoping to spark a panic. The Austro-Hungarian navy was barely functional, as the shipyards on the Dalmatian coast had only recently been acquired, and intelligence suggested that the Austro-Hungarian only had a few destroyers and submarines staffed with barely trained naval forces. Hitler gave his approval, and the Kriegsmarine launched Operation Blue Serpent. The results were astounding, the combined Italian and German naval force was able to overwhelm the patchwork Austro-Hungarian Navy and force a landing at Zara. From there, Axis forces overran Split and Rijeka in Dalmatia before a relief force under Austro-Hungarian general Fritz Lipfert was able to form a battle line in Bosnia. The loss of vital industrial facilities severely hampered Austro-Hungarian war production. President Franklin Roosevelt’s proposal to extend the Lend-Lease Act to Austria-Hungary met with resistance even from his own party, but an impassioned speech by Harry Hopkins was able to secure the passage of the bill, and Austria-Hungary was able to manage the supply shortfall. In public recognition of the material support, King Otto commissioned a statue of an American factory worker entitled: “The Hands of Freedom.”

In a surprising and stunning move, Romania elected to send volunteer detachments in support of Austria-Hungary, which constituted themselves under Lipfert’s command as the Foreign Corps. This was done at the behest of the new king Michael. Carol II, who had long irritated his government with his wild, hedonistic lifestyle, had been deposed in a bloodless coup by his son, and declaring the need to stand against Axis oppression, sent volunteer forces to fight with the Austro-Hungarians. The Foreign Corps and the Austro-Hungarian Sixth Army set up their headquarters in Ljubjlana. Michael I also offered to mediate dialogue between Otto von Habsburg and Winston Churchill. The Copenhagen Conference was productive, with Austria-Hungary and Romania both welcomed into the Allies.

Hitler was reportedly furious. Coordination between the Austro-Hungarians and the British meant that he was facing a war on two fronts. Historians speculate on Hitler’s expectations, whether he had anticipated a greater result from Konrad Heinlein, that Otto von Habsburg would cede the Sudetenland rather than risk being encircled by the Axis, that previous bad blood between Austria-Hungary and the United Kingdom regarding Yugoslavia, or that Austria-Hungary would sue for peace following the successful landings at Zara. There are no surviving written records of the strategic objectives, but military historians consider this to have been one of the greatest strategic mistakes of the 20th century.

The Push Through Italy

With Greece re-captured and under Austro-Hungarian control, the Allied War Council met in London to discuss war strategy. Of the two Axis Powers, Germany possessed the more accomplished and capable army. France wanted to push into Italy, removing the weaker power before bringing all forces to bear on Germany. Austria-Hungary, by contrast, wanted reinforcements in Eastern Europe, to liberate Dalmatia before striking at Germany to the north. Italy, Marshall Luza, leader of the Austro-Hungarian Second Army Group, believed that the Italians were contained, argued: “If we should break the German back, Mussolini will surrender and the war will be over before autumn.” The United Kingdom agreed with France, stating that if Northern Italy were cleared, France could reinforce the battle lines in Dalmatia, while the Royal Navy could keep the Adriatic clear and prevent any reinforcements to the Axis lines. With any luck, once the Axis expedition was cut off from supply shipments from the mainland, they would surrender en masse before starvation began to bite. As an acknowledgement that Austria-Hungary had some of its territory occupied, Great Britain and France agreed to detach several divisions to help hold the battle lines in Austria-Hungary, setting up an expeditionary corps headquartered in Banja Luka.

In March 1940, the Italian campaign was kicked off in earnest. Austria Hungary ordered a push from the Second Army Group toward Venice, while France ordered a major assault toward Genoa and Milan, while sending a destroyer group to secure the Corsica-Sardinia strait and support an amphibious assault on the small Italian island. The United Kingdom prepared a naval invasion from Egypt, hoping to strike Sicily once Mussolini had sent his forces northward. By April, French forces had taken Milan, but Genoa had been reinforced by a large number of infantry and armor divisions, Mussolini’s elite. Genoa was taken, but it was hard fought. Austria-Hungary had better luck, pushing through Venice and beginning the push along the Adriatic Coast. The Second Army Group experiencing a stunning breakthrough, with Italian forces falling back to Florence and establishing a fighting position in the hilly terrain outside the city. Austro-Hungarian and French troops, along with detached British divisions, met at Bologna, and theater commanders agreed to exploit the Austro-Hungarian breakthrough, bypassing the fortified Italian fighting positions in Florence. May saw further Italian retreats as the Allied forces pushed into Ancona and the successful launch of the British invasion of Sicily and the fall of Palermo, which became the main naval staging yard for further Mediterranean operations. The Royal Navy successfully contested the Mediterranean, and by the end of May Italian ships found it incredibly difficult to leave port either in the west or the east.

Operations continued into June, although hot weather slowed the tempo. Dogged resistance in the hills of Florence had failed to dislodge the Italian positions, and Allied war planners feared a stalemate that would permit the German army to redouble production efforts, push south from Germany, and possibly threaten the war effort. British efforts to push from Sicily to the Italian mainland had similarly stalled. Bohemian Marshal Luza of the Second Army Group, always an aggressive commander, suggested pushing toward Rome instead, charging Richard Tesařík with the task. Tesařík’s idea was called Operation Saber, better known as the Corneo Needle, where an infantry force would push southeast from Ancona while the spearhead of light tanks and motorized infantry would push through the center of the Italian peninsula. The Italian field officer took the bait, dispatching a relief force from Anzio to support the defense of the east. Followed closely by French infantry, Tesařík’s forces began shelling Rome to the surprise of the Italian defenders. On 28 June, 1940, Rome fell to the advancing Allies. Disheartened, the Italians pulled further south, but the isolated Florentine hill forces were unable to regroup, digging in. The dogged Italian defenders fought for two months, during which the famous war memoir “Colline Rossa” was written. As the Italian Army began to crumble, King Victor Emmanuel seized control of the Italian Parliament, arrested Mussolini, and sought an armistice. On 27 August 1940, Italy surrendered to a joint Allied delegation. Hardline Fascist holdouts persisted, moving their provisional government to Crete, but the British Navy bottled them on their island, and they played no part in the remainder of the war.

Hitler’s Gamble, the German Lemon Squeeze, and the Postwar Order

With Italy lost, Hitler faced a losing war. Strategists within the Nazi council debated, with many suggesting making a peace overture, but Hitler refused to consider it. Instead, he embarked upon a daring gamble, a westward push through the Low Countries, bypassing the Maginot Line and threatening Paris. The prevailing theory among military historians is that Hitler hoped a display of strength would force a general ceasefire before the Allied armies could march north from Italy to threaten Germany. A few days before the Italian Army surrendered, Hitler attacked Belgium and the Netherlands. However, British cryptologists at GCHQ led by Alan Turing had uncovered the plans. Belgian and Dutch defenders had fortified their positions, reinforced by the British Army, and had been able to repulse Hitler’s plan. Disgusted by the German actions, the United Mexican States, under President Lázaro Cárdenas, joined the Allies, and sent a small expeditionary force to supplement the Low Countries defense.

The Austro-Hungarian army, having secured Italy, began the slow march north to the central European mountains, spilling over the Austrian border and pushing slowly toward Munich. British and Dutch forces advanced from Frisia while French forces began to emerge from their Maginot defenses and attacked southwestern Germany. Hitler’s force, spread out, were significantly outnumbered, and began to take heavy losses.

The Allies developed their plan as a broad pincer movement, for an aggressive attack moving both north and east, not stopping until they had received an unconditional surrender. General Bernard Montgomery had caused a slight diplomatic row when he wagered with Austro-Hungarian general Géza Lakatos that the British could take Berlin before the Austro-Hungarian even got there, to which he was privately censured by Churchill for antagonizing his coalition partner.

As September came, Austria-Hungary took Munich, where the First and Second Army Groups split, with the First marching north while the Second marched west to press German divisions stationed between the French and Austro-Hungarian lines together. It was here that the combined Allied offensive received the nickname “Lemon Squeeze.” In discussion with French reporters, an unknown sergeant said “Of course we’re going until we see the French on the other side! When you squeeze a lemon, you do not stop until there is nothing left but the rind!” By November 30, the Austro-Hungarian army proved the unknown sergeant correct, as they had closed the fronts save for a holdout force of 20 German divisions near the Swiss border. At a joint session of air command, British bombers volunteered to begin all-out strategic bombing including hard-to-fly night bombing raids, where the smaller Austro-Hungarian bombers would cover tactical bombing and free up the larger British planes for more important missions.

The Belgian-British-Dutch-French breakout in the west accomplished the most success in the German theater, sweeping through northern Germany, while the Austro-Hungarian northward attack had only reached Leipzig. General Lakatos, angered that Montgomery might win his bet, ordered a redoubled effort, and detached line troops to march across the Belgian front to Magedburg, and then to march east to attack Berlin. Three days after Christmas, Austro-Hungarian forces radioed to the joint Allied command outside Berlin that they were joining the assault, much to Montgomery’s chagrin. With 43 divisions outside the gates and Hitler out of communication, the fall of the German Reich came swiftly. On the fourth of January, 1941, Hitler’s body was found within his improvised command bunker, dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound, and the German Reich formally surrendered.

While the war was devastating, the casualty count was much smaller than the Great War, with slightly over 3 million military casualties total, although this was only an 11-month conflict. At the Peace of Konigsberg, the Allied Powers set out their aims for post-war Europe. Greece was liberated and founded as the Hellenic Republic of Greece. Occupied Lithuiana was similarly reorganized, with Memel being returned. Austria-Hungary wanted to reinstate Victor Emmanuel as King of Italy and the territorial concessions of Venice, Istra, and South Tyrol, while the United Kingdom favored Ferrucio Parri and re-established borders. A compromise was hastily made, permitting the territorial concessions, but establishing Italy as a constitutional monarchy, with Victor Emmanuel having little political power. Germany was reorganized as a republic, with Konrad Adenaur becoming the first Chancellor of a newly democratic Germany. Austria-Hungary returned Albania to King Zog with much fanfare, a victory procession into his country. In less than a year, the threat of fascism was lifted from Europe, though tensions still ran high. Joseph Stalin eyed Polish territories and Bessarabia with hungry eyes, and the United Kingdom has taken a firm stand against the brutal oppression happening in Spain. Japan continues to threaten China in the Pacific, and both the United States and the United Mexican States worry about Venezuelan aggression in South America. War may come again, and the world may not be so lucky next time.

The Dual Monarchy Today in 1941

The Austro-Hungarian military is a modern and sophisticated fighting force. While not as large as the French or Red Army, the Habsburg army is a well-funded and well-equipped force with modern infantry, artillery, and armor divisions. Austro-Hungarian warfare is dominated by firepower theory, stressing a mobile defense, artillery barrages called in by forward observation units from advanced firebases, and an integrated support structure. This last notion is particularly important, as Austria-Hungary is famous for its support corps, among the most highly trained individuals in the military profession today. Austria-Hungary developed an extensive military engineering corps capable of breaching obstacles and building field fortifications to both protect its own and bypass the defenses of the enemy. The Royal Patrol School develops skilled reconnaissance squads, with its infamous “High and Low” course on mountain and forest recon being internationally notorious for its difficulty. An early adopter of military radio, the Royal Signal Corps helped to pioneer backpack-sized signals equipment and field telephones. Armor corps have dedicated maintenance divisions to keep tanks in repair, as early conflicts with Yugoslavia were littered with broken-down tanks causing delays in military timetables. Most highly prized, however, are the logistics and hospital corps, when one British general said: “If I get hurt, please let me be picked up by the Habsburgs!” These two were of special interest to King Otto, and he invested a great deal of capital into developing field surgery equipment and a highly educated logistics staff, recalling the grueling conditions suffered by Austro-Hungarian troops during the Great War. Austro-Hungarian military thinkers have emphasized the need for dedicated supply in both men and materiel, with logistics study mandatory in all officer academies. These developments came as a result of an extensive motorization program, with Otto von Habsburg famously declaring: “A modern war is a truck war,” and permitting the motorized and mechanized infantry divisions to name themselves the Hussar Corps, distinct from the Royal Hussars, a primarily ceremonial unit present at most Austro-Hungarian state functions.

Austria-Hungary also fields a small special forces program. Of particular note are the Royal Mountain Corps, based off the Alpini program in Italy. The Corps, often nicknamed the Skyscrapers or the Hold-Your-Breath Squad, often provide training and consultation to other nations on developing and maintaining a trained mountain warfare program, and inter-Allied drills on mountain warfare are often conducted in Austro-Hungarian territory. The Danubian Marine Corps primarily trains in river and marsh warfare, specializing in high-speed bridging operations.

On the sea, the Austro-Hungarian navy is not a true blue water navy. As much of the earlier Austro-Hungarian navy was disbanded, Austria-Hungary had little in the way of development with its navy, and naval warfare was often seen as a distant third priority compared to land and air warfare, much to Austro-Hungarian chagrin when the Axis were able to land forces in Zara. His Majesty’s Navy primarily acts as a coastal and Mediterranean force, primarily destroyers and cruisers and a small but well-established submarine force. King Otto, however, is looking to modernize the navy with a focus on aircraft carriers with destroyers acting as escort and heavy cruisers providing firepower from naval guns.

In the air, Austria-Hungary boasts a well-trained and well-equipped air force. The Austro-Hungarian Air Force’s most famous planes are its RMI-8 X/V and it’s RMI-16. The former is a heavy fighter, primarily an air superiority and bomber escort, a large, twin-engine heavy fighter, while the latter is a streamlined medium bomber. The Austro-Hungarian Air Force is a relatively small service, with an operational doctrine toward flexibility. Bomber pilots are expected to be able to perform at both strategic bombing and close air support missions. Drop-out rates for its Bomb School are high due to the intense demands of the course, but the pilots who successfully complete them are among the most decorated and talented members of the Austro-Hungarian armed forces.

Imgur Links for Full-Size, images are in the same order that they are in the AAR

Austria Hungary country map

Otto Assumes the Hungarian Crown

Austria Agrees to Unite with Hungary

Restoration of Austria-Hungary

Before the War Begins

The Italian Push

The German Lemon Squeeze

The Battle of Berlin

War Score and Participation

-SLAL

#hearts of iron 4 #hearts of iron iv #creative

33 notes · View notes

rabbishlomonachman · 3 years

Video

youtube

The clock is fast approaching the zero hour. Its not surprising in times like these to hear revisionist claims that anti-Semitism refers to prejudice against all Semitic people, i.e. the false claim that opposition to the Ummah and Deen of Islam is also "anti-Semitic." This is just another attempt to undercut and devalue the significance of Jew-Hatred (judenhass) and produce sympathy and support for those seeking the destruction of the nation of Israel and the genocide of the Jewish people worldwide. Alas, some things never change. This reworking of our language is based in a lie. "Anti-Semitism" means "anti-Jewish." Period. That is what it was coined to mean and what it always has meant. Many words do not mean what they literally mean when broken down. For instance have you ever seen a "white person?" Is a cowboy really half cow half boy? Is a hamburger a ham sandwich? Are homophobes people who fear sameness? No, words must be understood in their context and common usage. The term "anti-Semitic," anti-Semite," "anti-Semitism" etc. was coined to refer to those who are anti-Jewish. As even Wikipedia says: Usage: .... Anti-Semitism refers specifically to prejudice against Jews alone and in general, despite the fact that there are other speakers of Semitic languages (e.g. Arabs, Ethiopians, or Assyrians) and that not all Jews speak a Semitic language. The term came into wide use in the mid to late 1800's and always signified the Jews only. Consider: The "League of Anti-Semites" ("Antisemiten-Liga") was the first German organization committed specifically to combating the alleged threat to Germany and German culture posed by "the Jews" and their influence. This group advocated for the forced removal of all Jews from all German lands. Through their efforts the hateful term entered into common usage. Anti-Semitism is today as it has been since the term was first coined: it is Judenhass (i.e. Jew-hatred), the drive to make the world Judenfrei (free of Jews). Sadly, historically some of the strongest advocates of Judenhass have been the Christian Church (both Catholic and Protestant: Martin Luther's book On Jews and their Lies is a prime example). Even today when more Christians than ever are standing with Israel there are entire Christian denominations committed to Judenhass and actively supporting the terrorists who are seeking to genocide the Jewish people (many in the name of "peace!"). Even among those Christians who support Israel there is generally the belief that Jews must abandon Judaism and become Christians to avoid eternal damnation. With friends like this... "Replacement theology" is a common and veiled form of Judenhass. Muslim Arabs (who are also Semites) were considered strong allies of the Germans in their struggle to genocide the Jewish people. "Antisemiten" is nothing but Judenhass (Jew-hatred) with the goal of Juden-frei (the goal of making the world Jew-free). For this reason the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was a staunch Nazi supporter and leader in the Judenfrei plans of the Third German Reich. Today history is repeating. Consider the message of this video:

ALL who stand with the enemies of Israel are following in the footsteps of Hitler and the Nazis. Its simply a fact. Choose ye this day whom you will serve (Joshua 24:15).

When western governments and industries prefer cheap oil to long term allies like Israel, when they abandon civilized people like the Israelis to barbarians, or when they support slave labor in places like China, surely such nations are sealing their own fates. HaShem will bless those who bless Israel and who work for the betterment of the world but He will not support those with power who fail to act justly and with mercy. The Nazis made seemingly reasonable claims to defend their Judenhass policies and the modern Jew haters and their Muslim comrades are doing the same today. Nothing really changes. People have always hated the Jews and sought their destruction.

#jew hatred #antizionism #zionism

2 notes · View notes

jewish-privilege · 5 years

Link

The Holocaust was suddenly in the center of U.S. political discourse early this week. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., referred to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) detention centers as concentration camps on social media, which provoked a backlash from conservatives and then a flood of support from progressives. And #Kristallnacht trended on Twitter on Monday night after President Donald Trump tweeted that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will soon step up its work "removing the millions" of undocumented immigrants, seemingly signaling an escalation of his administration's tactics aimed at migrants.

Are these analogies just? Is it really reasonable to compare what's happening with immigrants under Trump to the Third Reich? Or should the Holocaust be off-limits for comparisons to today's events?

If done with caution, those analogies can be useful. Looking at Holocaust history - thoughtfully, carefully - can help us to see the parallels between then and now. It can also help us to understand when those parallels are not apt, and what that does and doesn't mean about news as it breaks. Of course, analogies are imperfect, and every situation has its own nuances and context, but looking at monstrous events of the past can help us understand where we are in ways that can be difficult to see in the day-to-day.

Some who criticize drawing parallels between the United States today and Germany of the 1930s suggest that doing so demeans the memories of the Jews, political dissidents, LGBT, disabled and Romani people and others targeted by the Nazis - that not every instance of oppression is genocide, and using this kind of language diminishes the suffering under Hitler.

But the Holocaust didn't begin with gas chambers, and it's not business as usual in America right now. We already know that the path to atrocity can be a process, and that the Holocaust began with dehumanizing propaganda, with discriminatory laws, with roundups and deportations, and with internment. Those things are happening in our country today, and they're known as some of the stages of genocide first articulated by Genocide Watch in 1996.

Having a historical reference point can help us understand our own moral obligations in this story and to make sense of it as it unfolds. Whether it has or ever will reach the stage of ultimate atrocity is not the question. What we should be asking is how articulating parallels can help us to see where we are, with clarity, now.

Is CBP running concentration camps? Several recent articles have made the case that they are, using a definition from Andrea Pitzer, author of "One Long Night: A Global History of Concentration Camps": "mass detention of civilians without trial."

But it is important to note that Nazi concentration camps - which, in Germany, began in 1933 - and the Holocaust's death (or "extermination") camps, which began in 1941, are not the same thing, though they're often conflated in American discourse. And what we currently know of the CBP camps does not include many of the hallmarks often associated with Nazi camps - forced labor, for example, or the detention of U.S. citizens. But it's also true that the earliest camps - known as "wild camps" - were makeshift centers that did not have the infrastructure of later state camps.

Concentration camps have a history beyond just the Nazis, too. Pitzer's definition also puts CBP centers in the context of other such camps in France, South Africa, Cuba, the Soviet Union and, of course, here in the United States during World War II, targeting Japanese Americans. (Those who quibble that "internment camps" are not "concentration camps" might note that both President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harold Ickes, his secretary of the interior, referred to U.S. camps as the latter.)

And the Holocaust isn't the only analogy that can or should be in play now; it's a chaotic, complicated time, and we need a lot of lenses to make sense of it. As the writer Kelly Hayes argues, "The U.S. doesn't need foreign models for manufactured conditions that dehumanize and bring about premature death. From slavery to death marches, Native reservations and the prison system, this is all very American."

Still, Tornillo doesn't have to be Auschwitz - a death camp - for it to be a concentration camp. Analogies don't have to be perfect to be instructive. Here, they help us to see how grave and urgent the situation is.

Most of the time, we only start making references to the Holocaust when a conflict has already escalated to full-on genocide - Rwanda, Kosovo, Darfur, the recent massacre of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar. But now we're not reacting as we watch authoritarianism escalate halfway around the world, but rather feeling the water heat up while we're sitting in the pot.

That still doesn't mean that every analogy is equally fitting. Was "the next Kristallnacht" really announced on Twitter? Probably not. Among other things, reporting this week indicates that it's unlikely that operations as large-scale as Trump suggested are ready to launch in the coming weeks, or that ICE has the staff or budget to carry out what he indicated.

But even if we - God willing - never get anywhere near the later states of genocide, never reach the monstrosity of the Third Reich, these analogies can and should serve as our moral compass. We have long asked the question about why good Germans didn't intervene earlier, when it was "just" about discriminatory laws, detention, boycotts. Before things got murderous.

Now we have to ask ourselves: Why aren't we?

There was massive public outcry against the Department of Homeland Security's family separation policy last summer, but the policy has nonetheless continued. There have been some protests against the detention camps, but they haven't been loud or sustained.

We know that some Border Patrol agents refer to immigrants as "tonks" - defined in court documents as "the sound heard when a 'wetback' is hit over the head with a flashlight," and "that it is part of the [Tuscon Border Patrol's] agency's culture." We know immigrants are being held in "dog pounds" and "freezers," that detainees are being held in facilities meant for one-fifth the number of people, in soiled clothing and with limited access to showers. We know that at least 24 people have died in ICE custody under Trump so far, and at least six children under the care of other agencies have died since September. We know that ICE has quietly stopped updating its official "List of Deaths in ICE Custody" page, and we know of at least one child death that wasn't reported to the public at the time it happened.

Every situation is different. But thinking about the Holocaust now can remind us of the urgency of this situation, fuel us to protest, to donate money to organizations on the front lines, to call our members of Congress and demand they slash the budget for ICE and CBP, to center this as the human rights emergency that it is.

Recalling the terrible lessons of the Holocaust does not disgrace the memory of that atrocity, does not harm the victims of it decades later. Quite the opposite: One of the best ways to honor the memories of those murdered by the Nazis is to take profoundly to heart the Jewish community's long-held mantra: Never again.

Many survivors know the analogy is apt. Never again means never again. And never again also means now.

#don't use me as your token jew

431 notes · View notes

imagitory · 4 years

Text

*exhales heavily*

Okay...I don’t usually go off the deep end in political essays that often. If it’s a quick thing like “f**k Neo-Nazis,” then sure, fine, that’s easy. I don’t have to explain why Neo-Nazis -- especially the cowardly ones that try to label themselves as the “alt-right” in a vain attempt to seem more acceptable to modern society -- can go screw themselves. Everyone already knows they’re awful -- or at least, everyone should already know they’re awful. If you’re the sort of person that wants to try to “teach” me about how the alt-right are not Neo-Nazis, then this post isn’t for you, so kindly don’t interact and keep scrolling.

This post is instead for my Democratic followers, whether you support Bernie, Biden, Warren, whatever. Please feel free to skip over it, though, my dear followers -- I know this whole political season has been very draining, and I have a lot more positive posts on my blog that you can consult instead. If you do want to read my thoughts, though, here’s a cut.

Hi, guys. How’s it going? We really dodged a bullet with Bloomberg dropping out of the race, didn’t we? At least now no one should be able to say Democrats and Republicans are alike, right? The Democrats kicked their racist, sexist, obnoxious, out-of-touch billionaire accused of multiple sexual assaults to the curb, while the Republicans made theirs president.

On that note, though...we still have the Republican version of Michael Bloomberg -- the one and only Donald Trump -- in office. We all remember how he got there...Hillary won the popular vote, but thanks to the ridiculously outdated electoral college rules and Russian interference, the electoral votes went Trump’s way. We could conjure up multiple reasons for Hillary’s loss, but at least in my opinion, I would say we learned a few lessons from the 2016 election that I think we should keep in mind. (Alongside making sure Russians butt the hell out of our elections and fact-checking all the rampant misinformation from our media outlets.)

1) We Democrats have more things in common than we might think, sometimes.

Clinton was infinitely closer to Bernie, politics-wise, than Bernie was to Trump or Gary Johnson. Yet there were those who were so upset about Hillary’s nomination and the role Democratic Party officials had in coaxing delegates to support her that they protest-voted against Hillary, even if that vote wasn’t in their best interest. We don’t have a system that lets us rank who we want for office from most to least, so sometimes we have to accept a bird in the hand rather than reach for two in the bush. You might feel good about voting your conscience in the short term, but you probably won’t when it results in your vote being a drop in the bucket that doesn’t prevent someone like Donald Trump from winning. We’ve already seen this happen not just in the Trump-Clinton election of 2016, but in the Bush-Gore election of 2000.

2) Despite that first point, if we want unity, our Democratic candidate must be aware of how diverse our party is.

Even if we do end up having to settle for a less liberal candidate in order to win an election, that candidate MUST acknowledge that we are not like the Republican Party. We will not march lock-step with people we don’t agree with just because they’re in our party or we agree with some things, and we will certainly not be satisfied with simple pacifism. The Republican Party has been tilting farther and farther to the right over the last three decades, to the point that their policies now involve mass internment of Mexican immigrants and family separation, directly paralleling plans carried out by the THIRD EFFIN’ REICH. We cannot keep begging for civility and peace and trying to reach a compromise -- you cannot compromise with this kind of extremism without sacrificing all of your principles, because those kinds of people do not make concessions.

I remain convinced even after four years that Hillary should’ve chosen Bernie to be her running mate -- if she had, the rift between the centrist and more liberal branches of the Democratic Party might have been healed enough that we could’ve looked at our ticket with excitement and hope, as we had for Obama and Biden back in 2008. Instead Hillary chose Tim Kaine, an inoffensive centrist Democrat who added absolutely nothing to her presidential bid. He couldn’t even help Hillary out by boosting the campaign with youthful energy or natural charm -- Bernie would’ve both boosted morale among younger and/or more liberal voters and lit a fire under those who were anxious about what a Trump presidency could lead to. The same could’ve been true if Bernie had been chosen to be president -- if he’d chosen Hillary, she could’ve better appealed to moderate voters intimidated by the thought of voting for a Democratic Socialist and run on her international experience as Secretary of State.

3) In order to make any difference at all, we must vote, and we must win.

I’m the first person to acknowledge that I hate voting against my convictions. If the Democrats had chosen Michael Bloomberg, I would’ve probably been ready for whole-scale revolution, right then and there. But let’s be frank here -- in 2016, we got complacent. We assumed that Trump would lose. We assumed that America wouldn’t choose racism, or Islamaphobia, or sexism, or Nazism. BUT WE DID. In the end, our country -- like many other countries before us were -- is more afraid of the promise of social change than we are of the threat of fascism. Yes, I called Trump’s vision of the country fascism, and I stand by it. Fascism is defined as far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial authority, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy and often supplemented with government-sanctioned racism -- and yeah, given that Trump clearly wants to do whatever he wants whenever he wants without facing any consequences for his actions, persecute any so-called “enemies,” make money for himself while in office (even using his office and political power to achieve that end), and scapegoat minorities, I think my point is made. And so I will state it again -- America is more afraid of the future and the progress that could come with it than it is of the cruelty, bigotry, and tyranny of our past. It’s an absolute tragedy, but it’s true. Americans were absolutely terrified of Obamacare until it actually became law and people saw how cool it was, not to be booted off your care for preexisting conditions and stuff. Once that happened, Americans were ready to bite off the hand of any Republican who made any move toward repealing it. If it’s something we’ve never done before, it’s beaten back like the plague, but once it’s something we’ve become accustomed to, you can tear it from our cold, dead hands.

In the 1930′s, Germany had a choice between three political parties -- the Communists, the Democratic Socialists, and the Nazis -- and in the end, the reason the Nazis got power was because the Communists and the Socialists could not band together to stop that greater threat. The Nazis were able to paint a pretty picture to the German people of returning their country to its supposedly long lost, mythic greatness, and they won power, even if they were still not the majority when Hitler got into office. And as soon as the Nazis got power, they never let it go and went out of their way to destroy both Communists and Socialists, just like they did with Jewish people, the Romani, and the rest. We are at such a crossroads now. I am deathly afraid that the Republicans will try to find some way to keep power even if Trump were to lose, but we cannot let that happen. We must stand together, strong and united.

The more liberal of us must acknowledge that radical change cannot be put into place quickly. Our system is broken and falling apart thanks to the Republicans’ on-going sabotage, and we cannot hope to remodel our house until our foundation is secure. Even the Republicans were not able to destroy our country in so many ways these last four years without dismantling a lot of other things first -- corrupting our elections with money thanks to the Citizens United ruling -- sparking two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that drained us of money and added to the backlog of veterans that have yet to receive their deserved financial support -- intimidating political officials away from substantive gun control legislation -- chipping away at abortion rights nation-wide -- stacking the courts, both local and Supreme, with unqualified, strongly right-leaning candidates -- gerrymandering districts like crazy so as to split Democratic-leaning areas and puff up Republican-leaning ones -- even spreading misinformation through shows on their own private so-called “News” network. It will take time to repair all of the damage the Republicans have wrought, but we must first win if we are even to have the chance to try.

On the flip side, the more centrist of us must acknowledge that we cannot go back to the way we were because the way we were was WRONG. We might have nostalgic visions of it being more civil and peaceful, but the tremors of war were still rippling under our feet. The Neo-Nazi rats that elected Trump were gathering under us, and we let them. We let them gain enough confidence to come out into the light in large numbers and we stood by, assuming that they wouldn’t succeed in their goals. We ignored the rampant spread of anti-immigrant rhetoric and Islamaphobia -- we downplayed the racism, the homophobia, and the sexism. Sometimes it was due to arrogance, and sometimes it was due to flat-out indifference, because those things didn’t directly affect us. We should know by now that that rosy view of our past was not how things were -- just as many of our Founding Fathers were still slave owners, and America interned our own citizens in camps during World War II, and the supposedly great Ronald Reagan turned a blind eye while thousands of Americans died of AIDS, our country saw the signs of racism, xenophobia, and ultranationalism coming out in full again and didn’t fight back. And now that racist, xenophobic ultranationalism is in control of the Oval Office. If we have any chance of stopping them, we can’t simply go backwards -- we must charge ahead. We can’t simply pretend like everything can go back to normal -- we must accept responsibility for what we’ve done and pursue justice in making things right. We must fight back against these far-right, tyrannical policies and we must pay restitution to those our country has hurt. I do not want the Mexican families we have destroyed to be treated the way our Japanese American brethren were after they were released from the internment camps in the 40′s -- dismissed and forgotten, with our flag figuratively slapping them in the face every time some stupid guy crowed his head off about America being the greatest country on earth. I may have hated Trump’s immigration policy -- I might not have voted for him -- but he still represents my country, and therefore me, to the rest of the world, and even if he’ll never apologize for a single damn thing that he’s done, I want my country to make things right.

Maybe once a Democrat -- even if it’s a centrist like Biden -- is in the White House again, we’ll have the chance for real change -- good change. We certainly won’t get it as long as we’re stuck on the outside looking in.

Now of course, even when this whole presidential thing is done, we can’t rest on our laurels. We must get out in force for local elections too -- we must take back the Senate and keep control of the House. We must pressure our lawmakers to get the money out of politics, and fix gerrymandering, and restore environmental protections, and hold corporations accountable, and tax the rich, and abolish the Electoral College, and put term limits on Congresspeople, and impeach Brett Kavanaugh, and fund dismantling the backlog on VA benefits, and cancel student loan debt, and implement universal health care, and pass gun control legislation, and do all the other things we need done.

I really hope that whichever candidate we end up with -- whether it’s Biden (*sighs begrudgingly*), Bernie (*smiles*), or Warren (*wiggles in glee*) -- that candidate will strongly consider choosing a Vice President who is either more centrist (if they’re more liberal) or more liberal (if they’re more centrist) and filling their Cabinet with those other ex-presidential hopefuls who still have something to offer. Kamala Harris was Attorney General of California -- why not have her become Attorney General of the United States next? How about Tom Steyer as Head of the EPA, or Cory Booker as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development?

Here’s the thing about us being more diverse in thought than the Republicans -- it means we have a great swath of very different members with very different skill sets, as well as the ability to learn, critique, rationalize, change, and improve. And if we are to defeat an institution like Trump’s that demands lock-step, mindless obedience and praise, it seems to me that’s something we should use to our advantage.

#excuse me politics coming through #personal #hopefully I won't get too many of my followers upset with this #feel free to ignore this if you're not in the mood for politics I get it #democrats #republicans #i just republiCAN’T #donald trump #joe biden #elizabeth warren #bernie sanders #opinion #oh boy here i go

7 notes · View notes

xtruss · 4 years

Text

Why White Supremacists and Hindu Nationalists are So Alike

White supremacy and Hindu nationalism have common roots going back to the 19th-century idea of the 'Aryan race'.

by Aadita Chaudhury, December 13, 2018

India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi hugs US President Donald Trump as they give joint statements in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, US, June 26, 2017

Over the last few years, especially after Donald Trump's victory in the 2016 US presidential election, we have been witnessing the normalisation, and rise, of a white-supremacist, ultranationalist brand of right-wing politics across Europe and the United States. While the shift towards extreme right alarmed many across the world, far-right ideologues of the Trumpian era swiftly found support in a seemingly unlikely place: India.

Many members of the so-called "alt-right" - a loosely knit coalition of populists, white supremacists, white nationalists and neo-Nazis - turned to India to find historic and current justifications for their racist, xenophobic and divisive views. Using a specific, "white nationalist" brand of Orientalism, they projected their fantasies about a racially pure society onto the Indian culture and in response received a warm welcome from Hindu fundamentalists in India.

While an alliance between the Hindu far right and the Western alt-right may appear confounding on the surface, it actually has a long history, going all the way back to the construction of the Aryan race identity, one of the ideological roots of Nazism, in the early 20th century.

In the 1930s, German nationalists embraced the 19th-century theory that Europeans and the original Sanskrit speakers of India who had built the highly developed Sanskrit civilisation - which white supremacists wanted to claim as their own - come from a common Indo-European, or Aryan, ancestor. They subsequently built their racist ideology on the assumed superiority of this "pure" race.

Savitri Devi (born Maximiani Portas), a French-Greek thinker and mysticist who later became a spiritual icon of Nazism, helped popularise the idea that all civilisation had its roots in this Aryan "master race" in India. She travelled to India in the early 1930s to "discover the source of the Aryan culture" and converted to Hinduism while there.

She quickly integrated herself into India's burgeoning Hindu nationalist movement by promoting theories that support privileged caste Hindus' superiority over Christians, Muslims and unprivileged caste Hindus in the country. In 1940, she married Asit Krishna Mukherji, a Hindu nationalist and Indian supporter of Nazism who had praised the Third Reich's commitment to ethnonationalism, seeing commonalities between the goals of the Hitler Youth and the youth movement of Hindu nationalism, Rashtriya Sevak Sangh (RSS).

Devi worked as a spy for the Axis forces in India throughout World War II and left the country after the defeat of Nazi Germany using a British-Indian passport. In the post-war period, she became an ardent Holocaust denier and was one of the founding members of the World Union of National Socialists, a conglomeration of neo-Nazi and far-right organisations from around the world.

Devi still has a strong influence over the Hindu nationalist movement in India. Her 1939 booklet titled A Warning to the Hindus, in which she cautions Indian nationalists to embrace their Hindu identity and guard the country against "non-Aryan" influences, such as Islam and Christianity, is still widely read and highly regarded among Hindu nationalists. Perhaps not surprisingly, recently Devi and her theories have also been rediscovered by right-wing ideologues in the West and she is now considered an alt-right icon.

However, the current connection between far-right groups in the West and Hindu nationalists is limited neither to Devi's teachings nor the old myth of the Aryan race.

Today, the two groups share a common goal in eroding the secular character of their respective states and a common "enemy" in Muslim minorities. This is why they often act in coordination and openly support each other.

In the US, the Republican Hindu Coalition, a group with strong links to the Hindu nationalist movement in India, has been rallying behind President Donald Trump's controversial immigration policies, like the Muslim ban and the border wall. Trump's campaign strategist and prominent alt-right figurehead Steve Bannon once called India's Hindu-nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi "the Reagan of India".

Meanwhile, in India, a far-right Hindu nationalist group named Hindu Sena (Army of Hindus), which has been linked to a series of inter-communal incidents in India, has been throwing parties to mark Trump's birthday. The group's founder even claimed that "Trump is the only person who can save mankind."

In Canada, far-right Islamophobic organisations such as Rise Canada, which claims to "defend Canadian values" and combat "radical Islam", are popular among Hindu-nationalists. The group's logo even features a red maple leaf rising out of a lotus flower, which is often associated with Hinduism.

In Britain, the National Hindu Council of Temples (NHCTUK), a Hindu charity, recently caused controversy by inviting far-right Hindu nationalist Tapan Ghosh to speak at the parliament. Ghosh has previously suggested the UN should "control the birth rate of Muslims" and said all Muslims are "Jihadis". During his visit to the UK, Ghosh also attended celebrations of Diwali, the Hindu festival of lights, with cabinet ministers Amber Rudd and Priti Patel, and met the former neo-Nazi leader Tommy Robinson.

On top of their shared Islamophobia and disdain for secular state structures, the destructive actions, protests and aggravations of Hindu nationalists and the Western far right are also very much alike.

In November, the government of the state of Uttar Pradesh, which is led by the nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), proposed to build a statue of the Hindu god Ram in Ayodhya, where the historic Babri Masjid was illegally demolished by Hindu nationalists in 1992. Only a month earlier, the same government pulled off a massive spectacle, having a helicopter drop off individuals dressed as Ram and Sita at the Babri Masjid site to mark the start of Diwali celebrations.

The sentiment behind these apparent attempts to intimidate Muslims and increase tensions between communities was in many ways similar to the far-right, white supremacist rally that shook Charlottesville in 2017. The neo-Nazis chanted "You will not replace us" as they marched through the streets of Charlottesville.

The far right in the US, Europe and Canada - emboldened by the electoral success of ultra-nationalist parties and individuals across the globe - aspire for a future in which secular protections are abandoned in favour of a system that favours the majority and protects the "white Christian identity" that they believe their nations were founded upon.

Likewise, Hindu nationalists in India, empowered by the BJP's landslide election victory in 2014, and inspired by European ethnonationalism and fascism, reject the constitutional secularism of the Indian state, propose that India is fundamentally a Hindu nation, and insist that minorities, especially Muslims and Christians, do not belong in a "Hindu country".

Ever since the start of the normalisation of far-right ideas in the West, a surge in racist, anti-Semitic and Islamophobic attacks was witnessed across the US and Europe.

The same happened in India after Hindutva officially became the governing ideology in the country. Over the past few years, countless Muslims, Christians and low-caste Hindus have been persecuted, assaulted and even killed for allegedly killing cows and many Muslims were targeted for allegedly participating in so-called "love jihad".

But despite all these similarities, there is major a difference between Hindu fundamentalism in India and far-right movements in the West: the liberal reaction to it.

While liberals and leftists quickly united against the rise of the far-right, they chose to largely ignore the rise of Hindu nationalism in the world's largest secular democracy. Especially after the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, the necessity of expanding the anti-fascist praxis to include all forms of racism, from anti-Semitism to Islamophobia, was emphasised by many. However, the opposition to Hindu nationalism has not yet been made part of the broader movement, despite the well-documented suffering of India's minorities under BJP's rule.

Instead, the idea that India is a "Hindu nation" is being accepted as a given by the majority of liberals. The fact that India's constitution defines the state as "secular" is being ignored, and Hindu nationalism is being presented as a benevolent movement despite ample evidence to the contrary.

White vegans in the West, for example, rejoiced over the decision by several Indian states to ban the consumption of beef, without bothering to understand what these laws would mean for Muslims and Dalits who had already been suffering at the hands of so-called "cow vigilantes". Animal rights and veganism advocate PETA has in fact gone further and berated vegetarians who consume milk in India for "supporting the beef industry", thus playing into the communal politics of food in India.

Hindu nationalism and white supremacy are the two sides of the same coin. For the global movement against racism, white-supremacy and fascism to succeed, anti-fascists across the world need to acknowledge and stand up to the Hind nationalism threat.

Hindus themselves, both in India and abroad, also need to take action and raise their voices against the abuses that are being committed in their names. One such organisation already exists for diaspora Hindus in North America: Sadhana. It is a coalition of progressive Hindus based in New York City, seeks to stop the use of Hindu thought for the purposes of misogyny, queerphobia, Islamophobia and white supremacy.

However, Hindu nationalism cannot be defeated by Hindus alone. People around the world who engage with and comment on the Indian culture on a regular basis, including sub-urban Yoga mums in the US and vegan activists in Europe, should educate themselves on the secular nature and diverse identities of India. They need to join the resistance against the oppression and abuse of the country's minorities and stop perpetuating the Hindu-nationalist myth that India is a "Hindu nation".

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance. Aadita Chaudhury is a PhD Candidate in Science & Technology Studies at York University, in Toronto, Canada.

8 notes · View notes

alistairlane · 5 years

Text

A Century of Strife

Since the dawn of civilization, men have driven others to war in order to service their own ends. Such an act betrays every noble virtue of any state of any kind. There is no honor or glory in that a person should stake their life in a conflict decided by that callous men are incapable of maintaining their affairs without sending others to war. For far too long has the world been governed by men who consider human life to be an expendable sacrifice. The regimens of Capital are concerned with business interests do not seriously care for the lives of soldiers. The various totalitarian dogmatists, in all likelihood, distrust their myrmidons. The sectarian fanatics are too fixated upon their obsessions to genuinely concern themselves with whether or not another may die so that they can maintain inane positions. Those who are in favor of war should have to go to it. Such is the lot of such a psychological disposition. The fear of violence is the condition that all of humanity seeks to liberate itself from. Why any person should choose to acquiesce to it is beyond me.

War lost its verve in 1914. The world could no longer accept that such cataclysms were let to occur when faced with the inescapable reality of them during the First World War. The incapacity to cope with such a calamity led to an escapist reaction amongst men who were unwilling to face up to what the horrors of war revealed about the human condition. Such a reaction laid the rudiments of the Third Reich. Never has a Pacifist, such as I, been so plagued by such an adversary. Fascism is war profiteering at its zenith. The Nazis were all but too perfect of an antagonist. Never has humanity seen such evidence of the existence of evil. It is easy to concede that the paroxysm of Fascism needed to be quelled. What is difficult is to come to terms with what that such a catastrophe as the Second World War has created the circumstances of our global situation today. To speculate upon what the world would be like had the war not taken place is an exercise in reverie. A Pacifist does not need to counter the begged question “What should we have done?” with alternative history. One need only ask, “What was it for?” The promise of a paradisiacal future was ephemeral. The Cold War began almost immediately after the Second World War ended. The Cold War was comprised, along with the absurd logic of nuclear deterrence, of a series of proxy wars and clandestine operations between the United States and the Soviet Union. The U.S. would arm, train, and, fund, a litany of Fascist terrorist cells and other nefarious malefactors, thereby resuming the alliance between American business and the far-Right that occurred before the Second World War, and, the Soviet Union would distribute weapons to any number of left-wing guerillas during this period of time. Both sides propped up totalitarian dictatorships in their respective quests for global domination. Arms were left all across the globe. The Cold War, while resulting in any number of armed conflicts, was largely psychological. War had transformed from being a vainglorious battle between the people of one nation against another to a somewhat ubiquitous campaign for the hearts and minds of all. The Soviet Union officially collapsed on the 26th of December in 1991. The celebration of freedom was, again, short-lived. The unrectified imperial haunts of the colonial era and the widespread distribution of weapons would result in the Rwandan Genocide and a series of civil wars in the Congo. The Cold War may not have approached the casualties incurred during the First or Second World War, but, left a considerable body count in its wake.

We now live in an era where war has become diffuse. Conflicts occur and are largely ignored by the general populace. War has become a state of affairs. The “War on Terror” is an indefinite project with no foreseeable conclusion. Such a conflict has no real enemies and is more or less an excuse to carry on war profiteering. It is the case that war plays a significant role in the American economy. Such wasteful expenditure could probably actually achieve the practical conditions of peace on Earth were it to be better purposed. Such a program would do far more to counter terrorism than all-pervasive surveillance and asymmetrical warfare. In its refusal to acknowledge that war is just simply undesirable, the globalized American state is becoming a latter-day totalitarian regime. Should they be let to occur, the next series of conflicts will take the form of vitiated civil wars against and betwixt Empire. While a number of revolutionaries may be keyed up in their anticipation of a spontaneous revolution, I fail be moved by the reckless form of suicide that consists of taking up arms against the United States of America. The U.S. is the most heavily armed nation in the world. The geopolitical bale of the nation will not be undone by violence. Only through the practical application of nonviolent resistance will the U.S. see a form of protest that is capable of putting its power in check.

War engenders devastation. The world has still yet to learn from a historical event that occurred over a century ago. A civilian populace can not concede to the destruction of their society. A soldier can not agree to sacrifice their life to an adulterated cause given the full breadth of their endeavor. All wars involve deceit. A populace does not agree to go to war, they are beguiled by the many distractions and falsehoods promulgated by the State. A soldier does not agree to stake their life in conflict without reservations, they are indoctrinated into a fabricated ideology propagated by their regimen. The pillage of war goes only to those who advance its cause. Those who conspire to wage war are the only parties who benefit from it. All forms of war involve profiteering. That a person should ask another to stake their life in a conflict that involves the killing of others for their own personal gain is inexpiable. Such popular manipulation betrays every form of trust known to man. War is unethical. The freedom from coercion is the primary right of all people at all times. It is demanded by that another exists. No person can agree to be subject to violence. Such terms comprise the basic tenets of the democratic project as a whole. War negates democracy. The world should not concede to cynical atrophy. The liberation of all of humanity demands an end to war. Such a demand is as possible as it is necessary.

The realization of peace on Earth is the reason for politics. A genuine politician strives to prevent wars at all possible times. The very process of politics exists due to a need to resolve conflicts. There is no question as to whether or not global peace is reasonable as it is ought to be precisely what is entrusted to political delegates. The purpose of politics is to prevent war. The seemingly inescapable pathology of those who see war as being inevitable has distorted the political project since its inception. Such hypocritical cynicism is espoused to dispirit populaces. Far too many elected leaders are in favor of waging wars as an appeal to nationalism is an effective means of silencing political opposition. Such circumstances should not be let to continue. Peace is not just possible; it is the necessary condition for democracy to occur.

1 note · View note

agentsumpf · 2 years

Quote

Anatomy of a Dictatorship Inside the GDR 1949-1989 By: Mary Fulbrook Founded on the ruins of Hitler’s defeated Third Reich, and lacking any intrinsic legitimacy, the German Democratic Republic nevertheless became the most stable and successful state in the Soviet bloc. Yet in the “gentle revolution” of 1989 it collapsed with startling speed. How can this extraordinary story of political stability followed by sudden implosion be explained? With the opening of the East German archives, it is at last possible to look inside the apparently impregnable dictatorship. Mary Fulbrook provides a compelling interpretation of structures of power and patterns of popular opinion within the GDR. This absorbing study explores the ways in which the tentacles of the all-pervading state captured East German society in the grip of Stasi, party, and mass organizations, and analyzes the emergence in the 1980s of oppositional cultures under the ambivalent shelter of a Protestant Church which had come to terms with the communist state. In combining careful archival research with broader theoretical and historical interpretation, Anatomy of a Dictatorship makes a major contribution to debates on recent German history and the character of contemporary Germany. https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Dictatorship-Inside-GDR-1949-1989/dp/0198207204

0 notes

annerase-blog · 3 years

Photo

Pastor Hans Asmussen In the time before the Vatican Council (1963-5) non- Catholic Christians were spoken of by the Holy Office of the Catholic Church as being ‘schismatics and heretics’.[1] Although the church had always wished to reconcile with the Orthodox after the East-West split of 1054, and to the Lutherans and Protestants at the time of the Reformation, the only way of achieving this at that time was for the other Christians to ‘return to Rome’. Rev Hans Asmussen, a German Lutheran Pastor, posed a question to then Archbishop Augustin Bea 1947 when Bea was Rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute. He said ‘Rome is always speaking of the need for the Protestants to ‘return ‘. What would happen if I brought the news that Protestants were returning tomorrow? ‘The reply was given by Bea. ‘That would be tricky since Rome is not prepared for it’. Asmussen was a leader in the Confessing Church, and he had been jailed several times for his outspoken opposition to Hitler and the Third Reich. He was not afraid to challenge Bea for his response and said: In that case, the appeal to return is irresponsible, an empty formula and the expression of the old lust for power’. [2] [1] Stjepan Schmidt Augustin Bea New City Press New York 1992 p.237 [2] Wolfgang Lehmann, Hans Asmussen p.121-122 as quoted in Stjepan Schmidt ‘Augustin Bea’ New City Press NY 1992 Footnote to p.240. The Priests Block Dachau Concentration Camp Asmussen and many other Lutheran Clergy had been deeply affected by Hitler and the Third Reich and Hitler’s desire to create a German National Church under the authority of the State and a Bishop of Hitler’s choosing and had suffered for their witness of faith. A fellow Lutheran Pastor, Max Lackmann had also fallen foul of the Third Reich and had been sent to Dachau Concentration Camp. Here he was interned with many Catholic priests, an experience which had a profound effect on his life. After his release from Dachau, he decided to dedicate himself to the cause of ecumenism. Cardinal Bea in Ecumenical Dialogue with Willem Visser t'Hooft, first secretary of the Ecumenical counc https://cormacoduffy.weebly.com/die-sammlung---the-gathering.html https://www.instagram.com/p/CQnB9pXrFQOCQ-w9IAqXPgANeT_SMqlFIXnMjo0/?utm_medium=tumblr

0 notes

softedwin · 7 years

Text

Okay listen up you little fucks because I’m already fed up with the amount of people saying that Germany was never sincere about their holocaust apologies, and you’re about to get educated.

Let me explain to you what it’s like to grow up in Germany. Even from a little age on you’re told NOT to be proud of your country. You’re told to keep it to a minimum if you even have a little pride at all. In school you’re taught about the second world war from 7th grade on usually and it is literally the only thing you talk about in history (and a lot of other subjects too). Sure, you learn about other things too but educating our children about our horrible past, so it won’t repeat itself is the main focus. And in doing so, we remind them not to be proud of the country, that we should still feel ashamed for things that we aren’t responsible for, even after 70 years. Does any other country do that? I think the fuck not. We are the least patriotic country in Europe (or do I say even the whole world?) although we have a bunch of stuff to be proud of. If we even say in front of a non-german person that we are proud of our country, the first thing we are going to hear is them calling us Nazis. I get that y’all are afraid that the Holocaust could happen again but you know, there’s a difference between simply being proud of what your country is CURRENTLY doing and being a racist, xenophobic asshole that thinks white supremacy is the main goal (so basically what’s going on in the US right now but everyone chooses to ignore that because we’re used to that kind of patriotism from the US, right?).

Since I’m already on the topic of the US, let’s compare the two countries, shall we? When I went to the US last year, there was a flag somewhere around the house at EVERY house I passed. Every. Fucking. House. But that is considered normal there. If we did that in Germany, everyone would scream that we’re Nazis again. Earlier this year I was on the train and passed a small village where 3 houses had a german flag around the house and I was like, what’s going on? Did something happen? Did I miss a national holiday? Because that’s not normal in Germany. You just don’t see that. Even when we’re celebrating the German Day of Unity, which is basically the equivalent to the Fourth of July, we don’t go full out like the Americans do. You see maybe two houses in one entire village who has their flags raised. We’re not like “YEEES GERMANY WAS FINALLY UNITED FUCK YES GERMANY GERMANY!!!!!”. No, we’re more like the opposite. We use this day to be reminiscent of our past and are fucking grateful that is in the past. I’ve never been to a German Day of Unity party because this stuff just doesn’t exist.

But are we ever going to talk about the horrible things the US did? We only ever talk about Germany because it’s the “most recent one” but just because it dates further back doesn’t mean it didn’t happen and we can just forget about it. I mean, dropping that bomb on Hiroshima and killing off native Americans (which is also known as American Indian Holocaust, by the way), just to name a few examples, isn’t as bad as the german Holocaust, right? Let’s just rather focus the blame on Germany because it suits you and everyone will forget about the horrible past of the US. You know, Germany is at least sorry about what we did. Did you ever hear America SINCERELY apologizing for any bullshit they pulled? Yeah, me neither. America doesn’t teach their kids about their horrible past. It teaches them that they should be proud of everything they have done so far. Which, to be honest, is nothing. America has NOTHING to be proud of because their country is built on slavery and genocide. Why the fuck would you be proud of that? Don’t even let me get started on how much the British fucked up because that’s just as bad but you guys don’t wanna hear about that anyway because you would rather just sweep it all under a rug and forget about it. And you know, even though 13% of Germany voted for the AFD (mind you, most of the AFD voters were protest voters, so they don’t fully believe in everything they do), y’all still elected Trump lmao resulting in stuff like Charlottesville (honestly there’s so much more Nazi activity going on in the US than in any other country currently) which would never happen to such an extent in Germany because we EDUCATE our children and the police would interrupt this immediately. Honestly, America is such a bad country with so many issues, yet y’all still blame Germany for something that isn’t our fault but racism is still so blatantly obvious and acted on in the US (let’s not forget that some people in the south still have the confederate flag and some of you act like it’s nothing? In Germany you would never see anyone swinging a Nazi flag and not only because it’s ILLEGAL) but you are still proud of your country like crazy when, like I mentioned before, there’s seriously nothing to be proud of lmao. Maybe in saying this I’m not better than any other country who told us Germans not to be proud of our country. But maybe this will also give you a little taste of what we have been dealing with for 70 YEARS now. I’m so fed up with your entitled asses like y’all are mad at us for electing Nazis in our parliament (which was “”””only””” 13% of the German population) while you elected a Nazi as your president lmao.

I’m pissed as hell that they got so many votes, don’t get me wrong. I hate the AFD with a burning passion because what they’re doing is completely wrong. And 87% of Germans luckily realize that. But just because the other 13% voted for them doesn’t mean Germany is full of Nazis again or that we aren’t sorry for what happened during the Third Reich. (Did you know it’s obligatory in Germany to visit a concentration camp during your time at school at least once? To show you hands on what was going on back then? Usually with very explicit description to make sure we feel guilty as hell for all the people who died in the Holocaust? Basically, our whole history classes are to make us feel guilty. Bet you didn’t know that!) We are sincerely sorry for the Holocaust and even more sorry for the Jewish people or refugees that live in our country under this government for the next four years. I’ve seen so many Germans apologizing for this happening because we are truly scared of what’s going to happen. So yeah, don’t you fucking dare say we’re a country of Nazis again. You don’t even live here. You don’t know what exactly is going on in our country except for the things the media tells you. Don’t you fucking dare say we’re not sorry for the Holocaust because basically since our birth (if I may exaggerate here a bit) we are taught to be sorry for what happened and to feel guilty about it. Please educate yourself because you spew utter bullshit like that.

#german election #germany #afd #bundestagswahl #im so fucking pissed lmao #y'all can suck my dick honestly im so annoyed #germany is not full of nazis!!!#this doesn't represent the majority of us!!!#vany talks #long post for ts #nazi for ts #holocaust for ts

362 notes · View notes

comrade-jiang · 7 years

Text

Tactics of Liberalism (Intro, #1)

This is a new series I'm starting to tackle the most nefarious tactics used by modern-day liberals in defense of authoritarianism, whether knowingly or unknowingly. Unknowingly serving as a pawn for authoritarianism serves the same function as doing so on purpose, and the responsibility and consequences for such an action must be present in both cases.

Without further ado, let's get into Tactics of Liberalism #1: Meatshields for Fascists.

Make no mistake- liberalism has invaded our society and pushed out outside politics, decrying them as "extreme", "radical", "violent", and "terrorist". By doing this, liberals further the state's own monopoly of violence, for the government and police they often defend fit the definitions of the words they use for their opponents.

Most liberals ignore or justify the killings by the states they hold near and dear, with some even saying mass casualties are acceptable "because they get the job done". In reality, mass casualties are acceptable to them because they're happening to people they don't know and can't see.

Talking to the average liberal about defending oneself from fascism usually results in a dismissal from the liberal. Their answer, if they bother to give one, usually goes something like this.

"Neo-Nazis are nonviolent, and if you stoop down to their level, you become just as bad as them. They have a right to free speech and you can't assault them because you disagree with them."

We'll pick this apart piece by piece. Use this as a resource when dealing with your own liberals.

"Neo-Nazis are nonviolent."

Easily disproven by a simple Google search, liberals continue to say this lie as a means of protecting fascists from the consequences of their actions. Within the last 20 years, neo-Nazis and white supremacists have killed at least 60 people. High profile cases like the Charleston Church shooting and the murder of Heather Heyer are included.

Other neo-Nazis applaud these murders and call for more. Their end goal nowadays is to ignite a race war, where they belive their whiteness will assure them victory. To ignore this is to allow it to happen again, and again, and again, until we live in a society of fear, moreso than we already do.

Well-known, high-profile murders by white supremacists include the following. The Charleston Church shooting was a mass shooting, that took place at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in downtown Charleston, South Carolina, United States, on the evening of June 17, 2015. During a prayer service, nine people were killed by domestic terrorist Dylann Roof, a 21-year-old white supremacist. Three other victims survived. The morning after the attack, police arrested Roof in Shelby, North Carolina. Roof confessed to committing the shooting in hopes of igniting a race war.

The Portland train attack occurred on May 26, 2017, when a man fatally stabbed two people and injured a third, after he was confronted for shouting what were described as racist and anti-Muslim slurs at two teenage girls on a MAX Light Rail train in Portland, Oregon. Jeremy Joseph Christian had previously been convicted in 2002 of kidnapping and robbery of a convenience store, and was sentenced to 90 months in prison for that offense. He was also arrested in 2010 on charges of being a felon in possession of a firearm and theft, but those charges were later dropped. He held extremist views, posting neo-Nazi, antisemitic, and far-right material on social media, as well as material indicating an affinity for political violence. Christian had been participating in various "alt-right" rallies in Portland. One month prior to the stabbing, Christian spoke at a right-wing "March for Free Speech" in Portland's Montavilla Park, where he wore a Revolutionary War-era flag of the United States and carried a baseball bat, which was confiscated by police. He gave Nazi salutes, and used a racial slur at least once.

At the "Unite the Right" white supremacist rally, a man drove his car into a crowd of counterprotestors, hitting several and slamming into a stopped sedan, which hit a stopped minivan that was in front of it. The impact of the crash pushed the sedan and the minivan further into the crowd. One person was killed and 19 others were injured in what police have called a deliberate attack. The man then reversed the car through the crowd and fled the scene. James Alex Fields Jr., a 20-year-old from Ohio who reportedly had expressed sympathy for Nazi Germany during his time as a student at Cooper High School in Union, Kentucky, was arrested. Fields had been photographed taking part in the rally, holding a shield emblazoned with the logo of Vanguard America, a white supremacist organization.

Also, at the same rally earlier in the day: Harvard professor Cornel West, who organized some of the counter-demonstrators, said that a group of "20 of us who were standing, many of them clergy, we would have been crushed like cockroaches if it were not for the anarchists and the anti-fascists who approached, over 300, 350 anti-fascists." West stated, "The neofascists had their own ammunition. And this is very important to keep in mind, because the police, for the most part, pulled back." DeAndre Harris, a black teacher's aide from Charlottesville, was brutally beaten by white supremacists in a parking garage close to Police Headquarters; the assault was captured by photographs and video footage. The footage showed a group of six men beating Harris with poles, metal pipe, and wood slabs, as Harris struggled to pick himself off the ground. Harris suffered a broken wrist and serious head injury.

Fox News and the Daily Caller had instigated running over leftist protesters for years now, but puleld their articles when someone was finally murdered that way, as to avoid responsibility.

As you can see from a few relatively recent cases, neo-Nazis are not nonviolent. Their ideals are not nonviolent. To stand in real, tangible opposition to the ideology whose end goal is total extermination of all unlike them is not violent- it is self-defense.

"If you stoop down to their level, you become just as bad as them."

This one is fairly straightforward. If a liberal's only problem with Nazism is that it's too rowdy, then they are purposely ignoring what the Nazis have done, what they want to do, and what they will do if allowed to.

The only way anyone could "stoop down" to the level of a neo-Nazi is to harbor all their ideals. There are many things wrongs with neo-Nazis besides their propensity for violence, including but in no way limited to their anti-Semitism, anti-blackness, ideals of racial purity, and desire to initiate a global race war and Fourth Reich.

"They have a right to free speech."

In the United States, at least, they actually don't. Inciting genocide, no matter how likely, falls under inciting imminent lawless behavior, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, as does anything that presents a clear and present danger. It falls under a type of death threat, and is on the same level, legally, as making bomb threats. However, due to law enforcement and judiciary officials either not understanding this decision or not caring, this is rarely, if ever, prosecuted. Being technically legal due to incompetence or corruption is still illegal.

On top of this, the neo-Nazis' victims have a right to live, and that right is quite a bit more important than their right to repeatedly incite violence until one of them steps up and kills someone.

"You can't assault them because you disagree with them."

This ties into my second point. If a liberal can boil the desire for extermination of an entire race into an "opinion" that you can simply disagree with, then the liberal is, in essence, shifting blame away from the ones who are calling for extermination and onto the ones who wish to stop them.

It is in these manners that liberals are often called "Nazi sympathizers" or the like- by defending aspects of Nazism from criticism or reprisals, the liberal is presenting themselves as little more than a meatshield for fascists, who will gleefully thank them for the help until it's time to round liberals up too.

I must reiterate that liberals are not the enemy, despite their position as ideological opponents. Liberals, unless actively fighting for fascists, should be coached into common sense by those who understand the ramifications of a second Nazi incursion.

#anarchism #liberalism #militant resistance #socialism #antifascism

24 notes · View notes