Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Is Fascist Wrong?

suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 6:54:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
While racial genocide and war atrocities committed by Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan is certainly wrong and deserve to be punished but did this also extend to the fact that the governing is done by Fascist government? What if the governments is clearly a Fascist, dictatorship, aggressive, militaristic but never committed any racial genocide or war atrocities. They may start a war, looting but no massacre and raping (like Mussolini - Ethiopia Affair which I have little knowledge). Do you think they deserve to be punished by death as of the Fascist government that do committed racial genocide or war atrocities. And what if those crimes are committed by democratic government? Do you think the death penalty could be applied still?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 7:47:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 6:54:41 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
While racial genocide and war atrocities committed by Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan is certainly wrong and deserve to be punished but did this also extend to the fact that the governing is done by Fascist government? What if the governments is clearly a Fascist, dictatorship, aggressive, militaristic but never committed any racial genocide or war atrocities. They may start a war, looting but no massacre and raping (like Mussolini - Ethiopia Affair which I have little knowledge). Do you think they deserve to be punished by death as of the Fascist government that do committed racial genocide or war atrocities. And what if those crimes are committed by democratic government? Do you think the death penalty could be applied still?

I think your beliefs are irrelevant to the atrocities you may or may not commit. You state that war is not a crime in itself, being an instigator in a war w/ out a fair reason (Fair reasons being a defensive preemptive strike, settling old scores, helping an ally being attacked, etc.) is a crime in itself. Starting a war that involves slaughtering innocents for land, resources or power should morally be a crime and is technically a crime. I admire Napoleon and the Duke of Wellington for their strategic prowess, but their morals disgust me, this is why I only care to study their strategies. Anyone who thinks they should be able to own a country or oppress it simply because their country is superior is deluded and needs punished.

Conclusion question:
Would someone be put to death for killing 10 people senselessly? (Usually, if there was no plea bargain, yes)

So if someone starts a senseless war and kills thousands, or MILLIONS, They should also be put to death, democratic nation, fascist, communist, it really doesn't matter. The Roman Empire was atrocious and killed millions in the crusades and their conquest wars, they were a republic for a long time, this doesn't exempt them from being filthy swine, and if someone had the opportunity to jail their leaders, they would have been sentenced to death.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2013 1:07:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 7:47:37 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/19/2013 6:54:41 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
While racial genocide and war atrocities committed by Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan is certainly wrong and deserve to be punished but did this also extend to the fact that the governing is done by Fascist government? What if the governments is clearly a Fascist, dictatorship, aggressive, militaristic but never committed any racial genocide or war atrocities. They may start a war, looting but no massacre and raping (like Mussolini - Ethiopia Affair which I have little knowledge). Do you think they deserve to be punished by death as of the Fascist government that do committed racial genocide or war atrocities. And what if those crimes are committed by democratic government? Do you think the death penalty could be applied still?

I think your beliefs are irrelevant to the atrocities you may or may not commit. You state that war is not a crime in itself, being an instigator in a war w/ out a fair reason (Fair reasons being a defensive preemptive strike, settling old scores, helping an ally being attacked, etc.) is a crime in itself. Starting a war that involves slaughtering innocents for land, resources or power should morally be a crime and is technically a crime. I admire Napoleon and the Duke of Wellington for their strategic prowess, but their morals disgust me, this is why I only care to study their strategies. Anyone who thinks they should be able to own a country or oppress it simply because their country is superior is deluded and needs punished.

Conclusion question:
Would someone be put to death for killing 10 people senselessly? (Usually, if there was no plea bargain, yes)

So if someone starts a senseless war and kills thousands, or MILLIONS, They should also be put to death, democratic nation, fascist, communist, it really doesn't matter. The Roman Empire was atrocious and killed millions in the crusades and their conquest wars, they were a republic for a long time, this doesn't exempt them from being filthy swine, and if someone had the opportunity to jail their leaders, they would have been sentenced to death.

If that is true you might as well want to sentence Eisenhower to death for killing a million of innocent German citizen in bomb raid and for nuking Japanese civilian. Execution of Mussolini would be unjust (perhaps it already was because there were no trial). /the entire eastern front campaign will be justified because there is clear evidence that USSR was also plot to fight German 3rd Reich.

This is nothing personal I just try to understand the principle behind the legal context of war criminal law.
1046190
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 10:02:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It doesn't have to be bad. At it's root fascism tries to unify a country, amplify patriotism and work towards the benefit of the state.

As for War Criminals, most of the Japanese and German war criminals were justly executed. They committed horrible crimes. But others who committed War Crimes escaped punishment. The Italians and the Allies among others. And more then any one else, the Soviet Union. The Allies weren't punished because they won the war and the Italian War Crimes weren't worse than the Allied War Crimes so they weren't executed either.

One of the War Crimes Nazis were guilty of was waging an unlawful war against Poland. The Soviet Union also waged an unlawful and aggressive war against Poland, but they escaped punishment.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 2:10:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago

One of the War Crimes Nazis were guilty of was waging an unlawful war against Poland. The Soviet Union also waged an unlawful and aggressive war against Poland, but they escaped punishment.

Actually, I found that very confusing too. I think waging an aggressive war had just became unlawful after the end of 2nd WW and the establishing of UN, in fact, the Spanish-American war, the British-Zulu war, and many more, would be considered unlawful in modern legal context, yet no punishment or even apologetic massage can be extracted from this violators because the it had been sanctioned after the crimes were committed and the rule of law forbade the sentencing of crime before the creation of law.

Therefore, most of the Nazi criminals would be immune to all most every charges the Allied had made against them at the end of 2nd WW. I understand that at the time, it was more of a practical reason to consider the Nazi a war criminal (and they should). But when look back at it with modern legal perspective, it seem to me that their punishment is actually legally unjustified.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 7:03:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 2:10:44 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:

One of the War Crimes Nazis were guilty of was waging an unlawful war against Poland. The Soviet Union also waged an unlawful and aggressive war against Poland, but they escaped punishment.

Actually, I found that very confusing too. I think waging an aggressive war had just became unlawful after the end of 2nd WW and the establishing of UN, in fact, the Spanish-American war, the British-Zulu war, and many more, would be considered unlawful in modern legal context, yet no punishment or even apologetic massage can be extracted from this violators because the it had been sanctioned after the crimes were committed and the rule of law forbade the sentencing of crime before the creation of law.

Therefore, most of the Nazi criminals would be immune to all most every charges the Allied had made against them at the end of 2nd WW. I understand that at the time, it was more of a practical reason to consider the Nazi a war criminal (and they should). But when look back at it with modern legal perspective, it seem to me that their punishment is actually legally unjustified.

There is nothing wrong with vigilante justice.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 7:12:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 7:03:00 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Yes, Fascism is wrong. Any form of government that is forced on the people is wrong and merits harsh sanctions.

This.
I don't know what you mean by "put to death". Should the leaders be killed? No. Should the regime be stopped? Yes.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
1046190
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 3:45:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 7:03:00 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Yes, Fascism is wrong. Any form of government that is forced on the people is wrong and merits harsh sanctions.

Fascist governments did gain popular support. An example of a working fascist state would probably be 1920's Italy.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 12:45:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 7:03:00 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Yes, Fascism is wrong. Any form of government that is forced on the people is wrong and merits harsh sanctions.

It is pretty difficult to define the government that is "forced on people" you know. Democratic regime like those of French Directory were democratic but manipulate the election to ensure the power of the regime (there is not enough evidence so I try not to talk about the US). Some modern regime are populist which is also "forced" a few rich against popular demand, something like the pass-away mr. Chaves, or the Thai government under Taksin. Most of the method is of little different from what the Nazi used to preserve power, they are just no so open about it. If you are going to compare a degree of crime based on that context alone, I think it would be very difficult.

In fact the reason I focused on the war criminal topic is because the most distinct characteristic of Fascist regimes from modern day state, is that they all had aggressive foreign policy and relied on war economy. So it is easier to carefully observe their action and degree of crime they deserved.

But I agreed with you, they probably are a bad guys.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 3:05:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 12:45:45 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 3/4/2013 7:03:00 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Yes, Fascism is wrong. Any form of government that is forced on the people is wrong and merits harsh sanctions.

It is pretty difficult to define the government that is "forced on people" you know. Democratic regime like those of French Directory were democratic but manipulate the election to ensure the power of the regime (there is not enough evidence so I try not to talk about the US). Some modern regime are populist which is also "forced" a few rich against popular demand, something like the pass-away mr. Chaves, or the Thai government under Taksin. Most of the method is of little different from what the Nazi used to preserve power, they are just no so open about it. If you are going to compare a degree of crime based on that context alone, I think it would be very difficult.

You two are using the term "forced upon" in different contexts. Royal is an anarchists and uses the phrase to term anything which is put on someone regardless of their individual consent. You, I'm guessing, are using it in the ambiguous sense that democratic theorists tend to use the term i.e., it's "forced" but not really because we all voted and policy X won out. It's due to the fact that statists tend to ascribe ontological superiority to some ill-defined "public will" whereas anarchists reject such a thing.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.