Template talk:Fascism sidebar expanded

Wouldn't it make more sense to list the major figures either chronologically by birth or death date or alphabetically by last name? I can't figure out why they are ordered as they are. Srnec (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

New Template lay out

Please discuss the new and old template lay out on here. C mon (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Gennarous' version could use some improvement, but on the whole it was better than this one, which is just an uninviting collection of links that I for one have no desire to look at. Srnec (talk) 06:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Rockwell

Rockwell was not a Fascist, he was a National Socialist. He denied being a fascist on video, as seen in this British Fascist propaganda video (be patient, it takes time to get to Rockwell).

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yYTO3PkLKVo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Super-soviet (talk • contribs) 10:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Basic concepts

As can be seen by reading the article definitions of fascism, there is no scholarly consensus on the precise features that could be considered the "basic concepts" of fascism, except perhaps nationalism and authoritarianism. As such, I oppose the inclusion of a section entitled "basic concepts" in this template, since it would give the impression of a scholarly consensus on the features of fascism when in fact no such consensus exists. -- Nikodemos (talk) 05:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I put them back. Most scholars would not disagree with those elements. Plus the "see also" section is too filled up. 75.121.165.60 (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to claim that most scholars would not disagree with those elements, then please provide quotes from most scholars saying that they see those things as basic elements of fascism. Take a look over definitions of fascism, for example, and make a note of every scholar cited there. If you can provide quotes from a large majority of the scholars cited there agreeing with those "basic concepts," then I would agree to put them back in.

The fact is, every scholar has his own separate definition of fascism, and the various definitions have little or nothing in common besides nationalism and authoritarianism. It's a frustrating situation, but that's the way it is. -- Nikodemos (talk) 03:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes they have a different denfiniton but that does mean they would disagree with those elements being a part of it. Plus they are included in the lede of the fascism article and are sourced. 68.251.175.168 (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is at least one historian who believes that each of those things can be considered a basic element of fascism. But there is no consensus among historians. If you wish to claim that there is a consensus, please provide sources from a large majority of the known scholars of fascism agreeing with those "basic concepts." -- Nikodemos (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute, so you don't think it's agreed upon that nationalism and totalitarianism are part of fascism? Why aren't you removing these element from the lede then? 68.251.175.168 (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Nationalism and totalitarianism, yes. Most scholars will indeed agree that these are basic elements of fascism. I didn't think it was worth keeping the "common elements" section if it's only going to have two elements, but if you wish to keep it that way, I will not object.

I'm not sure about integralism and populism, though. "Integralism" seems to be a term used almost exclusively in Portuguese-speaking countries, and populism is rather vague... -- Nikodemos (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

People

What exactly is the reason behind including Plínio Salgado and José Antonio Primo de Rivera, but not, say, Francisco Franco? Plrk (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

---

I put Franco and Codreanu in here and deleted Hitler, he was not a fascist.

Much wrong

Adolf Hitler was not a fascist, come on people, you who also know this, he was a national socialist (nazi), there are MANY differences there. He should not be linked to original fascism, although he held many right-wing beliefs, Mussolini did not even like him in the beginning.

Franco and Codreanu should be added. Keep at least Corneliu Codreanu there, he was an outspoken fascist if you read For My Legionaries you can read about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.231.36 (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

-I also put Iron Guard in the fascist folder and Ustase in the nazifolder, they belong there more. I added Codreanu because he led a group that was not nazis, they were antisemites and fascists but still not nazis, Codreanu is a symbol for the Third Position that I added too, if you read about it. Admin or moderators, respond to why you edit it back if you do edit it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.231.36 (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether Hitler was a "Fascist" or not is a subject of much scholarly debate which can be summarized as follows: in the strictest sense of the word, no, Hitler was not a fascist. In the looser senses of the word, however, hell yes he was a fascist. He definitely belongs in the template. Plrk (talk) 09:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

But that associates Nazism with fascism which is wrong, it will only make more people think that fascism is the same, we need to learn people the differences between the two, if you put Hitler there... well, they will think Hitler was a fascist or an inspiration to fascism, which is wrong. Franco and Mussolini often turned Hitler down, they were the true fascists and them knowing what a joke Hitler was makes it clear what a fascist thinks of Nazism.

What you think is right or wrong is not relevant. Wikipedia should reflect the academic consensus, and most scholars - Burleigh, Wippermann, and Payne for example - include Hitler when discussing "fascism". Interestingly, Payne makes a distinction between "fascism" and "far-right authoritarianism" and includes Franco in the latter, not the former. Plrk (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In the 1920s and 1930s, Hitler active admired and copied the Italian Fascists. The two movements of course had divergences as both were nationalist movements which made them spar over Tyrol an areaof Italy containing both Italians and Germans. It is known that Hitler admired Mussolini and sent a letter to Mussolini shortly after Mussolini rose to power asking for Mussolini to provide the Nazis assistance for a planned "March on Berlin", a copy of the March on Rome, to allow the Nazis to seize power. Mussolini saw Hitler as insignificant and unimportant at the time to the Italian Fascist cause and did not take him seriously. Nevertheless Hitler continued to attempt to woe Mussolini's trust, Hitler and the Nazi party kept a bust statue of Mussolini's head in their office in Munich and the Nazis portrayed Hitler as the "Mussolini of Germany". As the Nazis grew in influence, the media recognized Hitler as emulating Mussolini. By the early 1930s, The Italian Fascists sent financial aid to the Nazis and upon Hitler becoming Chancellor in 1933 Mussolini proclaimed approximately that Hitler's victory was also a victory for Italy. Mussolini above all wanted a fascist Europe but one that would by under Italy's sway of influence and thus attempted to contain Germany as a minor ally, thus he wanted to resist German expansionism into Austria which could then have led to a conflict between the two countries over German populated areas of Tyrol. When Nazis killed Mussolini's ally Austrian Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss, Mussolini was infuriated that Hitler had been involved in killing an ally and that Hitler may betray him by going after Tyrol if Austria was captured by Germany. Thus Mussolini attempted to weaken Hitler, eventually forcing Hitler to abandon plans to takeover Austria in 1934. Both Hitler and Mussolini were anti-communists and opposed to liberalism and parliamentary democracy. Both Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany saw common ground in assisting Francisco Franco's rise to power in Spain during the Spanish Civil War. However after Italy was condemned for occupying Ethiopia, Germany supported Italy and the two regimes settled their outstanding differences over Tyrol in 1938 with Hitler conceding to allow Mussolini to demand that the Tyrol Germans either agree to be Italian citizens or leave Italy, then Mussolini supported Hitler when he annexed Austria. It must be made clear that there have been fascist movements that have been at odds with each other, i.e. fascist movements in France, Greece, and Yugoslavia would naturally be hostile to the Italian Fascists' irredentist nationalist claims to parts of their countries. Mussolini's Croatian fascist ally, Ante Pavelic was allied to Mussolini in the matter of destroying Yugoslavia but bargained with Hitler to push Italy to concede some of the Italian-claimed territory of Dalmatia to Pavelic's regime in Croatia. Fascists were united by anti-communism, anti-liberalism, and anti-democracy but due to their nationalist nature, were competitive over territory.--R-41 (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)