May 8, 2021

GIL

Daily Global New Media

Not all Fascists Are Nazis – Civil War in Austria | BETWEEN 2 WARS I 1934 Part 2 of 4

1 min read

43 thoughts on “Not all Fascists Are Nazis – Civil War in Austria | BETWEEN 2 WARS I 1934 Part 2 of 4

  1. A lot comes together in this episode. Austria in 1934 is where a lot of political movements, ideologies and methods we saw throughout the '20s and '30s in previous episodes go head to head. We explain how Austro-Fascism differs from fascism and how Nazism and Austrofascism engage in a violent clash. (READ MORE FOR OUR STANCE ON THE POLITICAL LEFT-RIGHT SPECTRUM)

    So, this episode covers Communism, Fascism, Austrofascism and Nazism in the context of Austria in 1934. I can predict some of the comments that will appear under this video, so allow me to explain how we interpret and explain the key differences between some of these. In academia, we use a right-left axis to place political movements on based on their ideology, NOT just because of their methods or form of state. Our definition is not politically motivated or does not relate to current day politics. We only apply this definition to the specific historical context of the interwar era and World War Two. In short: totalitarian or authoritarian governments are not all the same. Fascism and Nazism are generally placed on the right because they were driven by state or race superiority, Communism and Socialism are placed on the left as they were driven by class-differences and (theoretical) equality.

    Granted, there is a rich scholarly debate surrounding the function and interpretation of the left-right axis. Anyone who is interested to read more about that can read 'Andrew Heywood, Political Ideologies: An Introduction (2017) 15-17.' However, there are limits to what is accepted as an academic argument and what is plain propaganda. Socialism and Nazism are not the same by any respectable definition. Communism and Nazism both embracing totalitarian regimes does not make them the same. We love to engage in debates about this, and we will do so with anyone who presents a real argument with real examples and sources. We will not engage with trolls who are politicising this historical debate with a modern-day agenda.

    Cheers,
    Joram

    RULES OF CONDUCT
    STAY CIVIL AND POLITE we will delete any comments with personal insults, or attacks.
    AVOID PARTISAN POLITICS AS FAR AS YOU CAN we reserve the right to cut off vitriolic debates.
    HATE SPEECH IN ANY DIRECTION will lead to a ban.
    RACISM, XENOPHOBIA, OR SLAMMING OF MINORITIES will lead to an immediate ban.
    PARTISAN REVISIONISM, ESPECIALLY HOLOCAUST AND HOLODOMOR DENIAL will lead to an immediate ban.

  2. THANK YOU for this video!!! I’ve been researching my in-laws family tree and their ancestors were exactly in the middle of what happened in this video, so it’s so good to learn.

  3. What I have always found interesting is why Austria was not a part of Germany at the time of German unification (1870s). What I found was that the Prussians did not want it, because that would have brought in a large Catholic population to the Reich. Given that, by the 20th century this is not as big a deal as it had been, and the unification under Hitler just became a natural event. It should probably have happened in the previous century.

  4. Excellent verbage with the use of the word ' anathema " to describe a particular threat to Austrian governmental practicing…….
    Sizzling.
    The word Anathema means " Accursed ".

  5. My maternal grandfather was born in Vienna in 1936, so he was technically born in the Austrian fascist state… interesting. My grandparents on the other side also grew up in Austria around this time.

  6. despite Hitler's racial motivated expansion, he saw Italy as a suitable ally against France and was willing to sacrifice the south Triol for this purpose. He mentioned this in his book written in the early 1920's

  7. Well I'm no historian nor anything but, I've heard the argument that the sudetenland wasn't as German as a lot of people say. Sure, in Austrian census, the majority of speaker's main language is German, while sure, language and ethnicity are usually tied together it might not mean those said speakers aren't actually Czech.

  8. I once read a comment on post-WW1 Austria to the effect that: 'Vienna is now a city without visible means of support'. The psychological as well as economic trauma immediately after 1918 must have been tremendous.

  9. While it is the commonly accepted historical practice, the label "austro-fascism" is a misrepresentation. Dolfuss was not a fascist. He was a Monarchist and what he wanted was a restoration of the Hapsburg monarchy. He saw the restoration of the rightful Hapsburg ruler to the throne of Austria as his sacred duty. The things he did politically were all geared to #1 stop the advance of the Nazis and the Communists, and #2 restore the Hapsburg ruler.

    The confusion is perhaps understandable due to Dolfuss seeing Italian Fascism as an ally against the encroaching German influence. But the confusion also arises because, in my opinion, much modern history and political theory doesn't really have proper historical context when it analyzes 19th century and 20th century politics. It uses current context rather than the context of the 18th century out of which those movements really came.

    When current people look back at the early 20th and 19th century they tend to break the factions up into 3 camps, liberal democracy, Fascism, and Communism. This is generally placed on the spectrum of Fascism on the extreme right, liberal democracy in the center, and communism on the extreme left.

    In fact, the entire left vs right dichotomy arises from the French revolution and it initially described Liberal Republicans vs Monarchists. In this context the left wing liberals were those who wanted to abolish the remnants of the medieval cultural traditions and replace them with a new culture based on the dictates of Reason. the Right wing were those conservatives who wanted to preserve the traditions of their ancestral culture.

    Neither of these views were Totalitarian, nor marxist, nor fascist. None of those ideologies had really come into existence yet.

    Marxism and Totalitarianism came into the picture in the mid 19th century. By this time the struggle was still going on between left wing liberal republicans and right wing traditionalist monarchists, but the liberals had won most of the time and they had gained lots of concessions etc. They were largely in control. Marxism arose as a reaction against the failures of Left-wing liberalism and the industrial revolution, which itself was a product of and a proponent of the liberal left.

    The mid-19th century revolutions were often a mixture of liberal republicans with socialists. This began to produce the roots of what would become fascism, and totalitarianism.

    By the early 20th century the political factions were not simply, liberal democrats/republicans, fascists, and communists. In reality it was liberal democrats, traditionalist monarchists, revolutionary totalitarians. The third group was itself split into two warring factions, the communists and the fascists.

    The totalitarians usually succeeded because one of the other groups mistakenly thought of them as allies. For example, liberal democrats often times had cross over with the communists and tended to see the communists as more closely aligned with their own ideals. Likewise the Traditionalist monarchists often saw the fascists as potential allies against the threat of communism.

    In reality, of course, the Totalitarian factions (communism and fascism) have much more in common with each other than they do with either of the other factions. Which is also why they fight each other so much, because they are competing for the same base and the same ideological niche in society.

    This Totalitarian infighting, at first glance would seem to guarantee their failure, but it actually lead to most of their successes, because the fear of one side frequently drove opposition groups into the arms of the other. Those who fear the communists end up supporting the fascists and those who fear the fascists end up supporting the communists.

  10. At 9:09 you briefly see the in historical footage the Karl-Marx-Hof, built in the late 1920s at the behest of the Social Democrats as a massive public housing project during the period of SDP control known as "Red Vienna". To this day, it remains the longest residential building in the world, at 1.1 km long, and is still used for its original purpose.

  11. What do you do when you're a brainwashed, indoctrinated Brit cretin and do not understand, CANNOT publicly say that Nazism is simply the name for German fascists…?

  12. Don't call them Nazis just call em with their respective name Fascists, Nazis were never Socialist begin with because their part of Socialism died when Hitler came to power and decided to cut off Leftst members of NSDAP, only ''Socialist'' that was left from that party was the name but thats that, It dosen't matter what party is called if actions don't match the name they are not Socialist even today in modern day Neo Pricks are idiots, they say Socialism sucks ass but same time call themselves ''National Socialists'' 99% Neo Pricks don't even know their own movement's history, this only shows how small IQ Fascists truly have.

  13. Fascism: The regimentation of society around a collective greater good, a moral law which is embodied into the "Fascist State" however the Fascist State being of an entirely different definition then of the standard, the term State within the Fascist concept refers to the ideal, the collective, everyone. Hence it is Total and Above all as the good of everyone is above all. Honour, Duty, Self Perfection, Virtue are the Morals of the Fascist State, everything is formulated around this, hence a Fascist Society is a Meritocracy at all levels, behooving the individual to work on themselves, therefore, adhering to the Moral Code as it is their only method of advancing in said society. The whole meaning to this State is for the people to be bonded by something else then Region, Race or Ethnicity -they are bonded by an idea, a certain good, the State. Social Cohesion within the Fascist Society is achieved merely by the nature of the philosophy and the organization formed around it. Even not obeying it is part of the plan, it is a hierarchy of merit and dedication, you need people at the bottom as well, therefore it is all about your own will, therefore arguably it the fairest hierarchy you may acquire. Whilst Nazism is the idealization of a Race, formed around Social Darwinism, Hierarchy of Races. Extensively different, perhaps some cores to it lay similarity, by execution and the nature of it in practice; it is not similar at all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

4 × one =