It's a miracle ....Habanos Celebrates Soaring Cigar Sales

[99call]

1 hour ago, dgixxer252525 said:

I agree with your point 100%. It’s not the strategy that’s bullshit, it’s the hypocrisy of the Cuban regime that’s bullshit. Anti capitalist until the need capitalism to bail them out. 

I would argue that the majority of the world is currently operating under neither capitalist, nor communist regimes,  rather that they've become dictatorships/kleptocracies.    Once social mobility becomes stagnant, systems of power largely just take the form of theft.     There are some exceptions, some Scandinavian countries etc.   

I would argue that Cuba looks from the outside in like a few greedy people living in palaces, enacting policies of poverty on their people,  that's not a political ideology, it's just theft, and apathy

[NSXCIGAR]

16 hours ago, 99call said:

I would argue that the majority of the world is currently operating under neither capitalist, nor communist regimes,  rather that they've become dictatorships/kleptocracies. 

Anything that could be considered close to free market capitalism disappeared after 1913. There are dictatorships but the term kleptocracy has always been pretty subjective to me. I would consider Cuba to be more of an oligarchy of the top handful of communist party elites. When Fidel was around it could certainly have been considered a dictatorship. I don't see much difference between the two other than the cult of personality of a dictator.  

I don't know enough about China's system but I would guess it shares a lot with Cuba in terms of its rule by the party elites. I know nothing about the Russian system but those two would be the odd ones out, still kind of the "second world" system. 

The rest of the west is essentially either mercantilist/corporatist, hampered market/welfare state or a combination of the two. I use the term socialism in the classical sense meaning either communism or fascism, i.e. Russian-style socialism or Italian/German-style socialism. 

[99call]

5 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I use the term socialism in the classical sense meaning either communism or fascism, i.e. Russian-style socialism or Italian/German-style socialism. 

I think this is a really troubling problem specific to whats going on in America since the trials of Charlie Chaplin.    The conflating of word socialism with failed brutal interpretations of communism, or even to the ridiculous revisionist history thats been going on in the last 20years with people trying to say that the atrocities of Nazi Germany was not a right wing movement, but actually a left wing movement, is just utter dangerous nonsense.     

I hope I've got the wrong interpretation of what you've written, and wilfully give you the benefit of the doubt. 

The word socialism is so loaded.  In some countries like America its some gruesome child eating red eyed ogre, wanting to enslave their populations to endless purgatory, and servitude. But in Manchester, England where I'm from and where Marx and Engels wrote their manifesto in Cheethams Library,  Socialism was a reactionary movement, against things like child slave labour in the cotton mills, the desire to give women rights, to form co-operatives, workers unions etc etc. In general it was a call to readdress some of the awful aspects the industrial age.   Still to this day, whether is be the NHS, or legislations to protect workers rights, Socialism has a big fingerprint on some aspects of the UK, and are still hugely popular throughout the country. 

I wholy accept that throughout the course of history that whether is be Stalin or Mao people have tried to impose failed forms of communism, that have seen disgusting atrocities carried out, millon's of deaths in labour camps etc.     But I maintain, it's important we recognise movements for that they are, and not conflate terms.      Socialism is not another word for Fascism, not matter where you are in the world. 

Socialism = A political and economic theory of social organisation which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole

Fascism = Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterised by a dictatorial leader, centralised autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good

I'm not advocating for any particular movement or ideology.      The only thing a con't stand is revisionist history, or trying to conflate terms to muddy waters or absolve differing factions of the past. 

Again, I'm sure you've not sought to do this.  and that I've got the wrong end of the stick, in what you've wrote. 

[helix]

8 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I would consider Cuba to be more of an oligarchy of the top handful of communist party elites.

This is IMHO accurate.

[99call]

8 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

There are dictatorships but the term kleptocracy has always been pretty subjective to me. I would consider Cuba to be more of an oligarchy of the top handful of communist party elites. When Fidel was around it could certainly have been considered a dictatorship. I don't see much difference between the two other than the cult of personality of a dictator.

To my mind, a dictatorship can be different to a kleptocracy, as obviously the individual can be motivated by ideals that are not based on theft (rarely the case).   I guess you might say for Che and Fidel, that they may have been genuine revolutionaries, or had actual ideologies that didn't 100% revolve around theft from the public purse, but as they got older and fatter (obviously not for Che) that's increasingly what it looks like. 

Terminology wise, a guess a dictatorship is usually also kleptocracy, and an oligarchy is just a dictatorship ran by more than one person.   In Putins Russia you could argue that they are all three.  He's the dictator at the top, He's seized the wealth through a system of enabled oligarchs, and the system of power they wield is a kleptocracy. 

[Bijan]

14 hours ago, 99call said:

or regulated by the community as a whole

In this sense every country is socialist, so it's meaningless. Even the US regulates production, industry, the stock market, banks, etc.

There are essentially 2 axes.

The axis of economy regulated for the benefit of the people vs regulated so as to maximize growth.

The axis of free maket vs state control.

That gives the democratic socialism like in western Europe (free market but aimed at popular benefits), corporatism (a lot of other western countries, free market but focused on growth and innovation). And fascism like in China (the Chinese "communist" party is very closely tied to industry and Chinese industrialists/capitalists and people get very little socialist benefits like health insurance, welfare, etc.).

There really are very few USSR style or Mao's china style communist countries except maybe Cuba and North Korea.

Then there are just kleptocracies/tyrannies with no underlying ideology or where the dominant ideology doesn't figure into economic policy.

Edit: tbh Cuba and North Korea probably fall in that last category.

[NSXCIGAR]

18 hours ago, 99call said:

The word socialism is so loaded.

That's why I don't typically use it. What's called socialism today in the west is what would classically be known as a hampered market economy or social welfare (Scandinavian model). 

Most people today in common usage use the term socialism to describe the above, but as you imply that is clumsy and leads to misunderstandings. So for clarity I use socialism strictly in the classical sense (with full disclosure) to refer to communism/Marxism and fascism. After all, socialism is in the names of both Nazi and USSR. 

I also try to avoid using the term capitalism as it too is quite loaded. I prefer free market or laissez-faire economy. 

The term kleptocracy has always felt just too subjective and broad. Are the Cuban communist party elites and the Russian oligarchs essentially stealing from the lower 99? Yes. A kleptocracy I suppose, but I think we can be more specific.

And for reference, I also keep the definitions of communism and fascism simple. I consider both to be economic systems. Communism is state ownership of the means of production. Fascism is state control of nominally private means of production. The end result is virtually identical which is why classically they are both called socialism. 

[Fugu]

4 hours ago, Bijan said:

That gives the democratic socialism like in western Europe (free market but aimed at popular benefits),

Let me correct that for you, Bijan: eco-social market economy.

(careful with technical terms:  social not= socialism)

25 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

After all, socialism is in the names of both Nazi and USSR. 

“Democratic” has been in the name of the German Democratic Republic. 

[99call]

1 hour ago, NSXCIGAR said:

After all, socialism is in the names of both Nazi and USSR. 

With regards to the Nazi's,  Like many political movements that have horrendous aspirations,  they often arrive in a form the people find palatable, promising the earth to the desperate german electorate.   Hitler effectively cukooed Anton Drexler's party. 

LIke whats happening today, people with foul intentions are using the desperation of workers in poverty to seize power, and from that point on, regardless of whats in their title, they split form their manifesto and committed atrocities.       The fact that the word socialist was in the title, is merely a sales pitch to the electorate......a lie. 

Affectively it was just a wolf in sheeps clothing sales pitch.          And thats what I find infuriating, on the basis of the original lie (to the German electorate) some people are now trying to suggest that the Holocaust was a left wing atrocity.    Why? because it makes their own personal world view easier to swallow?  They don't want to believe fascism is a rightwing evil

This is taken from United States Holocaust Memorial Museum website 

Hitler was a powerful and spellbinding orator who, by tapping into the anger and helplessness felt by a large number of voters, attracted a wide following of Germans desperate for change. Nazi electoral propaganda promised to pull Germany out of the Depression. The Nazis pledged to restore German cultural values, reverse the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, turn back the perceived threat of a Communist uprising, put the German people back to work, and restore Germany to its "rightful position" as a world power. Hitler and other Nazi propagandists were highly successful in directing the population's anger and fear against the Jews; against the Marxists (Communists and Social Democrats); and against those the Nazis held responsible for signing both the armistice of November 1918 and the Versailles treaty, and for establishing the parliamentary republic. Hitler and the Nazis often referred to the latter as "November criminals."

Hitler and other Nazi speakers carefully tailored their speeches to each audience. For example, when speaking to businessmen, the Nazis downplayed antisemitism and instead emphasized anti-communism and the return of German colonies lost through the Treaty of Versailles. When addressed to soldiers, veterans, or other nationalist interest groups, Nazi propaganda emphasized military buildup and return of other territories lost after Versailles. Nazi speakers assured farmers in the northern state of Schleswig-Holstein that a Nazi government would prop up falling agricultural prices. Pensioners all over Germany were told that both the amounts and the buying power of their monthly checks would remain stable.

[Bijan]

1 hour ago, Fugu said:

Let me correct that for you, Bijan: eco-social market economy.

(careful with technical terms:  social not= socialism)

I am unfamiliar with the term eco-social.

Googling it i only came up with results unrelated to political economy and also eco-socialism 🙂

In any case socialism, like most ism's has become a political tool. Defining it has become tricky. People just "know it when they see it". Of course that depends who's looking.

So I agree with you that if there is a better term it's best to use it. To use a technical term and not a political term. Though in the end we are talking about politics...

When I made my original comment and said that public/state regulation of the economy is too broad a definition of socialism, I didn't mean to disagree that that is a valid definition. Only that it is now so universal a fact of life as to no longer be useful.

If i remember correctly the definition given by the French sociologist Émile Durkheim in his writings on the topic a little over 100 years is along those lines.

Just over 100 years ago that may have been a useful definition. Governments didn't control the money supply, or control interest rates with a view to stimulating or checking the economy. And they didn't really care about the unemployment rate. At least not what exact percentage it was at.

The 40 hour work week seemed like a pipe dream and the world was a very different place.

It seems sometime between world war one and the great depression all of that changed.

Now all 3 of those things and many others are practically everywhere a reality.

And now socialism is viewed not as government/public regulation of the economy, which is now universal, but identified with the goals of the original promoters of socialism who hoped that society would be regulated for the benefit of working people.

[Bijan]

@99call at the end of the day there can be left-wing socialism and right-wing socialism. And as long as one doesn't think of national socialism as left-wing, I think that's ok.

As I said above since now all governments are "socialist" in the sense of regulating the economy, we don't think of right-wing socialism as socialism.

Left socialism is associated with international(ism). You likely know more about the history than I do, so I won't push that point.

But national socialism was very much not that way.

So we can think of it in left/international vs right/national terms.

Ironically in terms of atrocities, if you commit atrocities against foreigners or ethnic minorities then those are likely right wing atrocities (the Holocaust, German atrocities in eastern Europe generally, Japanese atrocities throughout east Asia, etc), if you commit atrocities against your own broad population those are likely left wing atrocities (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc).

Again there are 3 broad categories of atrocities in the 20th century: fascist/right atrocities, communist/left atrocities, and colonial/imperial atrocities (which tend to get swept under the rug in these discussions).

 

Sorry to pick on you again @99call but we can't dismiss Nazi Germany as just a brainwashing operation.

Over 4 million German soldiers died in WW2, and not defending Germany itself from invasion. Given the difficulty literal cults have in getting their members to "drink the cool aid", this is not just a bait and switch.

https://www.liquisearch.com/soviet–german_war/casualties

If you look at military casualties German/axis casualties vs Soviet casualties, the soviet casualties aren't too far off and are only so far off because the Germans killed over two thirds of their Soviet POWs (often in concentration camps).

All this to say, this is one of those rare "revolutions", where even if people didn't know what they were signing up for at first, they ultimately would be very aware of it later, and would still actively stay the course until the very end. And the same could be said of Japan during the same period.

[99call]

21 hours ago, Bijan said:

Ironically in terms of atrocities, if you commit atrocities against foreigners or ethnic minorities then those are likely right wing atrocities (the Holocaust, German atrocities in eastern Europe generally, Japanese atrocities throughout east Asia, etc), if you commit atrocities against your own broad population those are likely left wing atrocities (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc).

Again there are 3 broad categories of atrocities in the 20th century: fascist/right atrocities, communist/left atrocities, and colonial/imperial atrocities (which tend to get swept under the rug in these discussions).

I guess within this statement you would have to suggest Jews resident in Germany at the time, were not accepted as German citizens.  Sadly lots of countries still to this day have that sort of nativism, even if they are not native communities of that country themselves,   utter madness.

The only thing I care about is that the 'actual' events of history as they occurred are taught in schools, and regurgitated in cigar forums correctly. The atrocities of Moa, Stalin etc were left wing atrocities.  My personal politics are centre-left, there is no sinew of my being that want's to rewrite that history or absolve anyone or party. 

I do think there is a vile, toxic movement, that continues to try and rewrite the history of the Nazi party, and suggest their murderous regime was a left wing atrocity.  I just find it sad and deranged.    

 

20 hours ago, Bijan said:

Sorry to pick on you again @99call but we can't dismiss Nazi Germany as just a brainwashing operation.

Over 4 million German soldiers died in WW2, and not defending Germany itself from invasion. Given the difficulty literal cults have in getting their members to "drink the cool aid", this is not just a bait and switch.

https://www.liquisearch.com/soviet–german_war/casualties

If you look at military casualties German/axis casualties vs Soviet casualties, the soviet casualties aren't too far off and are only so far off because the Germans killed over two thirds of their Soviet POWs (often in concentration camps).

All this to say, this is one of those rare "revolutions", where even if people didn't know what they were signing up for at first, they ultimately would be very aware of it later, and would still actively stay the course until the very end. And the same could be said of Japan during the same period.

I usually follow your comments quite clearly, but I have no idea what you're trying to say here, or suggest I have said/believe

[Bijan]

15 minutes ago, 99call said:

I guess within this statement you would have to suggest Jews resident in Germany at the time, were not accepted as German citizens.

The Germans carried out their atrocities with an entire legal framework they created for the purpose. It is well documented in Raul Hilberg's 3 volume "the Destruction of the European Jews".

15 minutes ago, 99call said:

Sadly lots of countries still to this day have that sort of nativism, even if they are not native communities of that country themselves,   utter madness.

Yes, then and now, many similar things both to that same genocidal extend and more often not.

Though many of the worst atrocities outside the Holocaust are carried out without any legal redefinition of citizenship, so why i said foreigners and ethnic minorities (I should have said ethnic minorities within the national borders to be clearer).

[Bijan]

20 hours ago, 99call said:

I usually follow your comments quite clearly, but I have no idea what you're trying to say here, or suggest I have said/believe

I am sorry if I was unclear. And if I inferred something you did not say.

I am saying that unlike other revolutions like Iran or certain other cases where a party came to power, and people wrongly assumed the new party in power would be benign but they were not and the state carried out purges and shut down opposition and got a stranglehold on power.

The Nazis also managed to convince the population to fight a war of aggression with large losses.

 

20 hours ago, 99call said:

I usually follow your comments quite clearly, but I have no idea what you're trying to say here, or suggest I have said/believe

This is not a good sign and I will take a break from this thread. Hopefully I'll make more sense when I'm back.

There is maybe some bit of logic in that internet rule that says discussion is over when the thread turns to Nazis/Hitler.

[Fugu]

54 minutes ago, Bijan said:

I am unfamiliar with the term eco-social.

Here we go, it certainly is multifaceted, but in a nutshell:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-social_market_economy

The eco- basically is an addition to the “common” social market economy (the ‘Rhine capitalism’ if you so will). The current EU model (or that of most of its member states) basically incurs a transformation from the latter to the former.

And, here’s an excerpt for you from the second Wiki bit:

“The "social" segment is often wrongly confused with socialism and democratic socialism. Although aspects were inspired by democratic socialism, the social market approach rejects the socialist ideas of replacing private property and markets with social ownership and economic planning. The "social" element of the model instead refers to support for the provision of equal opportunity and protection of those unable to enter the free market labor force because of old-age, disability, and/or unemployment.”

[99call]

1 minute ago, Bijan said:

The Germans carried out their atrocities with an entire legal framework they created for the purpose. It is well documented in Raul Hilberg's 3 volume "the Destruction of the European Jews".

HHm I think you may have gotten the wrong end of something here.    I'm stating that the offering to the desperate German electorate from either Anton Drexler's 'Workers Party'  or Hitler's 'National Socialist German Workers Party' was a rouse to get to power.  They were manipulating peoples frustrations much like how Dominic Cummings and Nigel Farage triggered people in poor working class communities to vote for Brexit

From the point of The Nazi's gaining power, the writing was on the wall.  If you are suggesting you as an imaginary German national was going to stand up and say (whilst Kristallnacht was happening).   "Im not into this"  then fair play to you, you have some set of balls. 

- The Nazi party, first came to power through lies, deception,

- As soon as they seized power they ruled through fear and violence........that also applied to any German national not wanting to be a part of it. 

 

[NSXCIGAR]

2 hours ago, 99call said:

With regards to the Nazi's,  Like many political movements that have horrendous aspirations,  they often arrive in a form the people find palatable, promising the earth to the desperate german electorate.   

I'm not debating any of that. I've only been offering my definitions of economic systems which are, I think, most clear by using classical definitions. Communism and fascism are both socialism classically defined. Left wing and right wing doesn't enter into it. That begins to venture outside of the economic scope which I'm not trying to do. 

As I've pointed out "democratic socialism" doesn't exist in the classical literature. That system would be considered some amalgamation of hampered market/welfare state. "Democratic socialism" is a modern term adopted for various reasons. Which is fine, but it can be confusing or a loaded term. Just as capitalism (a term that also doesn't appear in the classical literature and was most notably propounded by Marx) is, and was, usually used erroneously to describe mercantilist/corporatist systems. 

One of the best books in this area is Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy by Joseph Schumpeter (1942) 

[99call]

3 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Communism and fascism are both socialism classically defined

Classically defined by who?    Socialism and communism has a relating line, but differ generally through whether that system is managed by a controlling state, or the people 

how is fascism a part of that? Fascism is an imposing of hierarchy, and is at odds with the fundamental principles of socialism. 

[NSXCIGAR]

15 minutes ago, 99call said:

Classically defined by who?

Most of the major political economists of the 20th century including Schumpeter, Hayek, Mises and Friedman. 

Both communism and fascism are state control of the means of production. Plain and simple. 

Very little new and original has really been added to the economics field since the 1960s. All of these systems have been thoroughly examined and analyzed for nearly 100 years. Most of the best books on economics and political economy were written before 1965. 

[99call]

17 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Both communism and fascism are state control of the means of production. Plain and simple. 

On this point we have agreement, but i would argue that socialism is separate to that

As I said early on I'm sure wires were crossed at some point.  Your focus being solely economic models and not political.      I maintain it's dangerous to reference the featuring of the term 'socialist' in Hitlers party, as anything other than a con to the electorate.        In reading what you've said I can wholeheartedly see that there was no intention of that on your part.  Sadly it is something that an increasingly large number of people are trying to suggest i.e that the Holocaust was a left wing atrocity

Ultimately fascism and failed communism, look very similar in the end, death cults, and we can agree on that. 

Where we disagree is 'classical' interpretations of Socialism.     We will have to agree to disagree, as I see Socialism and Fascism has having no connecting line. 

[Bijan]

42 minutes ago, 99call said:

HHm I think you may have gotten the wrong end of something here.    I'm stating that the offering to the desperate German electorate from either Anton Drexler's 'Workers Party'  or Hitler's 'National Socialist German Workers Party' was a rouse to get to power.  They were manipulating peoples frustrations much like how Dominic Cummings and Nigel Farage triggered people in poor working class communities to vote for Brexit

This is where I disagree. It is not like Brexit.

Hitler published Mein Kampf very early on and clearly said he thinks that Germany needs to expand its physical territory (into Eastern Europe). So that Germany would be a world power like the UK, the US, or France or rival the size of China or Russia. And then once in power Germans fought to do that.

You can say that once in power they could force people to fight that war, but even in wartime, forcing people to fight an offensive war is not easy, even for authoritarian regimes.

Russia is relying at present in Ukraine on private mercenaries and career military much more than on conscripts and volunteers.

Brexit is one of those affairs where politicians con the public, into supporting a law or policy with one story and then the public pays the price later, passively. But it's not like the people who voted for Brexit have to invade France and Germany or pay an explicit Brexit tax every year to actively support the effort.

In world war 2 the mood in practically every country in the world was anti war (including the US and all the rest of Europe, Churchill's our finest hour speech is 90% an explanation for why the UK is right to suspend fighting and why the current size of the military was sufficient for defence), except Germany and Japan, for very similar reasons. If you look at that link I sent above with the ww2 casualties you can see that Italy another fascist and nominally axis state had barely any casualties in comparison with Germany.

[99call]

2 minutes ago, Bijan said:

This is where I disagree. It is not like Brexit.

Hitler published Mein Kampf very early on and clearly said he thinks that Germany needs to expand its physical territory (into Eastern Europe). So that Germany would be a world power like the UK, the US, or France or rival the size of China or Russia. And then once in power Germans fought to do that.

Do you think joe public in the street was aware of what some random mentalist was concocting.   What do you thing the readership of Mein Kampf was, compared to what he was outwardly propagandising to the public?.    Exactly the same could be said about Dominic Cummings and Brexit.  He was formulating think tanks for years and giving lectures etc etc.   Do you think jo public got to see any of that?   no.     what they got was this

[Bijan]

20 hours ago, 99call said:

From the point of The Nazi's gaining power, the writing was on the wall.  If you are suggesting you as an imaginary German national was going to stand up and say (whilst Kristallnacht was happening).   "Im not into this"  then fair play to you, you have some set of balls. 

No, I can't blame people for not sticking their necks out to overthrow a totalitarian regime once it is in power. That is common to almost all such cases and regimes. An individual stands up and they are crushed. And the regime leaves no room for the organization of an opposition.

But going to the eastern front is also very much risking your life. And there's a big leap between passively coming to terms with a new regime and actively fighting far away from home.

Any country that doesn't have a lot of true believers (in this case devoted Nazi partisans) is going to have a lot of trouble fielding such a war. People trying to flee to avoid serving or just refusing to fight and having to be shot for desertion.

 

19 hours ago, 99call said:

Do you think joe public in the street was aware of what some random mentalist was concocting.   What do you thing the readership of Mein Kampf was, compared to what he was outwardly propagandising to the public?.    Exactly the same could be said about Dominic Cummings and Brexit.  He was formulating think tanks for years and giving lectures etc etc.   Do you think jo public got to see any of that?   no.     what they got was this

You left out the part where I said:

19 hours ago, Bijan said:

Brexit is one of those affairs where politicians con the public, into supporting a law or policy with one story and then the public pays the price later, passively. But it's not like the people who voted for Brexit have to invade France and Germany or pay an explicit Brexit tax every year to actively support the effort.

So maybe the set up for the con was similar. But the Nazis then said, here now pay the piper with your lives.

Do you think the Germans didn't know they were invading Poland? Fighting in Russia? Some of the atrocities could have been done out of sight or not reported on. But how do you send  millions of soldiers to the front in secret.

It was a mass psychosis.

It was not a government gains public support for political/legal agreement that does not benefit the public: like Brexit.

It was an entire nation commits to the unthinkable in order to reshape the map of the world and restore national honour, gain what should rightfully be theirs, etc.

[99call]

2 minutes ago, Bijan said:

It was a mass psychosis.

It was not a government gains public support for political/legal agreement that does not benefit the public: like Brexit.

It was an entire nation commits to the unthinkable in order to reshape the map of the world and restore national honour, gain what should rightfully be theirs, etc.

Ha! firstly there are no 'public benefit's' to brexit, it's a calamity to all other than disaster capitalists.  

To my mind the horrors of atrocities committed by the German public/soilders would have been a marriage of fear and desperation.  Yes, sure mix into that a healthy dose of people who had their own racist, nationalistic beliefs.  I think you often do get that sort of vitriol of a once great nation humiliated by losing WW1. 

From stuff I've seen (accounts of German soldiers), the concept of the slowly boiling frog does seem very present. i.e one day you are throwing a stone threw the window of a Jewish buisness, 5 years later, your bulldozing bodies into pits and not thinking anything of it.   Lots of research has been done into the depravities normal people sink to, if they are surrounded by others (in small groups) and no one is being the voice of reason.  i.e. you are all in you own head going, "Oh my god this is wrong, but equally the three guys next to you are doing it, so they just go along" 

I'm not suggesting that the plans were not in place from the very get go (they were) what i'm saying is how much of that did the bog standard soldier know.    Lord knows I'm not apologising for them, more saying that I would defy anyone not to be petrified into conforming, regardless of where you were stationed

[Bijan]

@99call I agree with you that once the ball is rolling, people will tend to keep going along as it snowballs out of control.

The question is given all the crappy governments, some of which are also ideological, some of which are also totalitarian, how come this particular snowball doesn't/didn't get started more often?

And I think it's maybe not a coincidence that it was Germany and Japan, two resource and land poor countries, with relatively large populations, that had huge industrial potential, and felt humiliated and deprived of resources, that got sick with this craziness.

I don't want to blame Germans of subsequent generations or absolve Germans of that generation.

But in coup d'états and revolutions it's often the case that we say, oh it happened because of clever use of propaganda.

The question is why there and not here? And the answer I think is that you can only convince people of what they want to and are willing to hear.

Otherwise you (the regime) can print whatever you want in the papers and say whatever you want on the radio, but people will stop reading the papers and turn off their radios.

From what I read of British politics, Boris Johnson's spin was that "you can have your cake and eat it too". Which at least one journalist dubbed cakeism.

I doubt this was the spin of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan, both of which likely stressed the value of "sacrificing" one's life (in wars of conquest) for the benefit of the nation.

"Hitler declared war on September 1, 1939. Speaking before the Reichstag as German planes and troops crossed the Polish borders in a devastating Blitzkrieg, he said:

 

As a National Socialist and a German soldier, I enter upon this fight with a stout heart! My whole life has been but one continuous struggle for my people, and that whole struggle has been inspired by one single conviction: Faith in my people! I ask of every German what I myself am prepared to do at any moment: to be ready to lay down his life for his people and for his country. If anyone thinks that he can evade this national duty directly or indirectly, he will perish.""

https://www.libraryofsocialscience.com/newsletter/posts/2015/2015-03-09-sac2.html

"Berman notes that we are willing to acknowledge that individual madmen might step forth, but “surely millions of people are not going to choose death." We hesitate to consider the possibility that millions of people have gone out of their minds and subscribed to a "pathological political tendency." Why do we find it difficult to conceive that entire societies behave in pathological ways?"

I don't necessarily agree with all the examples of countries given there, or that it applies any time we don't like some country or ideology, but again in the case of WW2 era Germany and Japan at least, some form of mass psychosis, seems to me to fit.