> My my, what a staunch defender of fascism.
Nice ad hominem. Attacking your falsehoods =/= defending fascism. I don't support fascism. That doesn't mean that what you are saying is correct, and that falsehoods should not go unchallenged.
>Not that i remember with the intent of killing everyone there.
Right, only most of the people living there. I guess that makes it ok in your eyes then?
>Also, way to conflate colonialism with what nazis wanted to do in europe and to Russia.
Considering that the native populations of the New World alone, declined from about 145 million, to 15 million people, in less than 300 years... yeah, I think the impact is pretty comparable. How about hundreds of thousands, potentially million plus people killed by the US invasion of Iraq? What about those killed in Afghanistan? How about all the victims of US supported dictators in South America? What about the Indian Mutiny, the Irish Famine, the Bengal Famine, the Belgian atrocities in the Congo, which are estimated by some to have killed 5-10 million people?
>Im sure nobody will care when the regime sends tanks and soldiers to crack the skulls of those who protest for worker rights or corruption.
Most people don't protest for worker's rights or corruption, that's how apathy works. They are especially unlikely to do so when the threat of violence appears. The US doesn't exactly have a shining history when it comes to Union suppression, or implementing anti-corruption measures. Neither does the UK. Winston Churchill certainly wasn't very nice to unionists or strikers. Tonypandy riots? Deployment of 10,000 soldiers to Glasgow, due to strikes and unrest?
> Because we all know, ultra authoritarian regimes are never corrupt!!!
Yes, the are corrupt. Basically always more corrupt than non-authoritarian regimes. This doesn't mean that people particularly care enough to overthrow a government over corruption. They haven't done so in the past, and they still aren't doing so today. Orban's government is known for widespread, deep corruption. Yet, he received 49% of the vote in the 2018 election, an upwards swing of over 4%.
>I dont know, dragging oneself into a war, and being drafted to "war" for the greater good sounds a big abuse to me. Diminishing worker rights, freedom of expression, etc.
You do realise that democracies draft people too, right? The US drafted something close to 10 million men during WW2. The British also used the draft, as did pretty much every allied nation iirc. The US also used conscription during the Vietnam war, if you weren't aware of that.
>The intellectual elite of any society is always against rampant abuse of power.
Except who dreams up these authoritarian regimes in the first place? Members of the intellectual elite, largely. Plenty of horrific schemes have been drafted and approved by the intellectual elites of a society.
>Nazi germany even had alot of people who wanted to kill hitler, because they thought the country eas going in the wrong direction.
You are mostly referring to officers in the military, and old guard politicians and intelligentsia, who had been in tension with Hitler and the Nazi party since before the war. Some tried to kill him, most prominently towards the end of the war, because Germany was losing terribly. Yet, you act like they tried to kill him right after France capitulated, or early in his career.
>Europe and brazil,the right to protest in UK in "certain places" are vastly different things.
No, they aren't. It is clearly authoritarianism. I mean, he is threatening to outlaw various social movements, and he labels his opponents as communists. What the hell do you call that?
>Upsring of nationalism isnt a natural process. It happens when there is a percieved injustice and is reactionary. It is mote conplex than someone like you likes to pretend it is.
That really depends on what you call natural. Generally, yes, nationalism and revanchism is a "natural" response to certain events.
> Are we really quoting polls now? Im sure even Stalin had a huge popularity before things went to shit. Lol.
Historically illiterate. Nice. No, Stalin certainly didn't take polls, let alone elections, and he died long before the USSR collapsed. Even today, his reputation is mixed in Russia, and many still REVERE him, despite his many atrocities.
>Polls are meaningless.
No, because this poll lead to Orban's party being re-elected in what was basically a landslide. It clearly isn't meaningless.
>Enough for a general and multiple attemps to kill Hitler.
10 assassination attempts after he seized power, most of which occurred after 1943, and in the circumstances I already explained (NOT by random members of the public). Some were attempts by resistance movements. Not really representative of the public hating him. Hell, one plot (the Oster plot, which was actually a plan to reinstall Wilhelm II to power, so much for anti-authoritarian...) by a bunch of generals was called off because he was so popular after annexing Czechoslovakia, that it couldn't succeed.
>And pray tell, how do you measure popularity in dictatorial places? Do you go ask the local dogs and pidgeons for opinions? LOL
You gauge general sentiment. Unless there is 1984 style repression going on, people are generally able to voice their opinions to some degree, even if it is anonymous. The NSDAP was initially elected, gaining 30% of the vote in 1933, so he pretty clearly had popular support, especially after a series of successes prior to 1939.
> Im sure there is alot of differences between a dictatorial regime and a liberal democracy.
Yes, of course. But one can become the other pretty easily, and both still use violence, although one is more liberal in its use than the other generally. Sure, society probably wouldn't collapse in the latter without it, but it would make things like law enforcement pretty difficult. The issue is that you are making democracies out to be beacons of non-violence, who would never use it as a threat themselves, which is simply untrue.
>Really is working out well for those countries, right? Winning wars!
The British Empire covered a quarter of the world. France has multiple nations in the back of their pocket. Yeah, I'd say that it worked out pretty well for them.
>Tell me, what happens when you stsrt losing them? Nazi germany went from a powerful country to shit.
I don't understand your point here. Are you saying that starting and then winning wars is a good thing? Isn't that what Nazi germany tried to do? Are you criticising their goal, or are you simply criticising the fact that they lost?
That's true for any country. A peaceful but prosperous country, can be left in ruins after a defensive war, just as much as a violent warmongering country can be left in ruins after an offensive war. I mean, the whole idea of a war is to defeat your opponents, with all that defeating them implies.
> A war based society needs enemies.
The Nazis didn't lose because they didn't have enemies. If they needed enemies, they could just invent them anyway.
>You seem to forget most of the human history was run on fear of death and violence.
How does that disprove my point/prove your point, that propaganda and hatred can only get you so far? If it has been the norm for all of human history, then are you trying to say that it will get you further than any other method? What?
>We arent going to go back to medieval or 20th century fascism without some resistance.
No change occurs without some resistance, even if it is a token amount. But some resistance doesn't mean significant resistance, or effective resistance.