>Nationalist>Conservative>Authoritarian>Anti-communistHow come Metaxas Greece or Salazars Portugal was never labeled fascist?Was 'Fascist' merely a synonym to the enemies of the allies?
>>18587913>Was 'Fascist' merely a synonym to the enemies of the allies?Yes, at the time. Although now I'm sure libcucks would call those guys fascists as well. Fascism now just means nationalistic dictatorship, actually just dictatorship in general.
>>18587913They weren't invading other countries
>>18587913I know Pilsudski only used the Polish Socialist Party as a mean to get independence, but he should not be alongside Metaxas and Salazar.
>>18587913Did they follow a Futurist narrative of a New Man for the New Century? The issue with categorizing something as fascist is that it's too specific a philosophy. Honestly, it's pretty crazy that something like that would make its way up to the government level instead of remaining an artistic movement or a hypothetical theory that never left the lecture halls.
>>18587913Because none of them were fascist. I'd best describe Mussolini's fascism as state-worshipping totalitarianism.
>>18588648>>18588645Can you explain a little bit more why they differ from mussolinis Italy?
>>18588636Why not?Interwar Poland was extremely authoritiarian, right-wing and anti-semitic.
>>18587913Because nobody cares about irrelevant underdeveloped shitholes
>>18587913Pilsudski was a socialist, he was just also anti-imperialist, so he resisted the Soviet Union just as much as Tsarist Russia before that.The other two are called Fascist all the time. This is somewhat accurate to the Salazar regime, which borrowed heavily from Italian corporatism, but they were too technocratic to support the kind of mass politics other Fascists practiced. The Metaxas regime was more of an old-school military dictatorship.
>>18588660Well Salazar always aimed to keep people OUT of politics rather than trying to force them into a mass movement that encompasses the entire state like Mussolini wanted. Very much a sleepy, Catholic paternalism that aimed to stay hands-off so long as nobody is causing trouble. That varied with time, the Estado Novo lasted like 60 years or something, but fundamentally it was CORPORATIST which is basically Catholic medieval guild/family autism as a modern political ideology. The actual Portuguese fascists ended up getting purged because they were considered a threat, kind of like the Falangists in Spain. There was also none of the Darwinist warmongering either. Salazar was mostly an isolationist except for his colonial autism which was mostly based on the idea of "With Angola, we are BIG. Without Angola, we are a tiny shithole on the end of Europe" which is true but I'm not sure if Angola helped at all. Tl;dr is go read the Salazar biography that came out recently. Poland is pretty similar. I'm pretty sure that Sanacja didn't even have a youth wing and the actual right wing extremists were forced underground.
>>18588672>Pilsudski was a socialist, he was just also anti-imperialist¨LOL no he wasnt.He was literally the one who coined Intermarium (Międzymorze)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IntermariumInterwar Poland almost had a Polish minority because of his policies to expand east.
>>18587913What are you talking about Salazar is listed as a Fascist all the time, and by actual academics not just twitter bluehairs. It was a bit taboo to talk about it during the Cold War because he was an American vassal, but once that ended in the 90's everyone was free to point it out since you no longer had to worry about confirming soviet propaganda.Metaxes just isn't talked about period. Because no one gives a shit about 20th century Greece. You actually could make a good case for him being Fascist but no one thinks it's worth the effort.Pilsudski is a little more complicated. Both due to his own constantly changing political allegiances making him hard to pin down, and the fact that even after the Cold War ended, The "Creation Myth" of NeoLiberalism mythologized Poland and the Baltics as Jesus-like sacrificial martyrs in the "Double Holocaust" by big bad evil Russia that are used to justify the Wests victory in the Cold War. This means interwar Poland has to remain a kind of pure innocent liberal utopia to play the victim to the evil forces of "Populist Authoritarianism" that NATO can then rescue them from. So regardless of if Pilsudski was Fascist or not, even having an honest debate about the subject is a no-no because it might hurt the image of Poland as the virginal maiden being ravaged by the rabid authoritarian hordes.
>>18588681>This means interwar Poland has to remain a kind of pure innocent liberal utopia to play the victim to the evil forces of "Populist Authoritarianism" that NATO can then rescue them from. Vatnik schizo meltdown.
>>18588712Specifically talking about the Soviets (and Nazi's) not modern Russia. The entire "Double Holocaust" narrative is about saying that Fascism and Communism are the same thing, and making the Soviets "just as bad" as the Nazi's.
>>18588712It was actually one of the most accurate ways to describe interwar Poland.He does have a pointInterwar Poland was:1. Authoritarian dictatorship2. Deeply anti-semitic (no one ever talks about this)3. Imperialist, Poles were almost a minority in the country, and Pilsudski wanted to go even further east.4. Aggressively opportunistic, captured territory from neighbouring countries such s Czechslovakia in 1938 and threatened war with Lithuania in 1939Interwar Poland was martyred when nazi Germany invaded and that image has been enforced by post-war propaganda that wants to simplify ww2 as much as possible.
>>18588681>Metaxes just isn't talked about period. Because no one gives a shit about 20th century Greece. This is just lazy tho.Metaxas isnt listed as a fascist because fascist Italy invaded them in 1941, thus bringing Greece into the allied fold. It distorts the mythologized narrative of ww2 if one of the allies was also fascist.
>>18588717A figure of speech. He probably just wants to emphasize that Poland was brutalized by the Soviets in the form of mass-murder and mass-deportation, and colonized in the way that their identity, culture and self-rule was torn from them.It does make Poland the 'ultimate victim' of ww2, plus the fact that the frontline passed through them twice so they were especially war-torn with great loss of life.
>>18588732Authoritarian dictatorship yes. The rest come with massive caveats. Deeply anti semitic? Well, there WAS a country which institutionalised the mass murder of Jews in this period but it wasn't Poland. For this to be a good point, you need the chutzpah to equate the Przytyk pogrom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przytyk_pogrom# with the Holocaust or the actual uncontrolled violence that occasionally broke out in the Russian Empire. Imperialist? Well, Pilsudski did want a large alliance bloc led by Poland and the first part of this would have been a Poland-aligned independent Ukraine to which end he supported Petliura. I mean, you'd think being forcibly allied to Poland would be better than being a part of the Soviet Union. Aggressively opportunistic? Kind of like Czechoslovakia which used the Polish Soviet War as an opportunity to take land off Poland. And I guess refusing to give back the Ukrainian SSR's rightful territory is an evil NAFO rooster move as well. Actually in this case, Poland did take a lot of land off Lithuania including Lithuania's historical capital except Vilnius was like 50% Polish and 50% Jewish in this period. Tl;dr is that anyone talking about big bad Poland in this period is a kvetching Jew, seething Nazi or deranged tankie trying to distract from the actual evil shitholes like Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany. Poland was hardly clean, but the aftermath of WWI was basically a free for all with every side trying to grab as much land as possible just that Poland ended up taking second place after the Soviet Union because it was the second biggest and best organised in the region.
>>18588662>anti-semiticNot because of Pilsudski lolIn fact, many Jews supporter him because the alternative were Dmowski's National Democrats, who were actual anti-semitesSalazar wasn't that much of an anti-semite either. He had little sympathy for Hitler and did let some Jews pass through Portugal to escape the Holocaust. And there are songs mocking him before world war ii saying he was a Jew because he was a cheapsteak lmaoAnd Metaxas was also supported by Jews because many Venizelos supporters were immigrants from former (recent, at the time) Ottoman lands, many of which went into Thessalonik, which was a Jewish majority town in the XIX Century and still had many Jews before ww2, and they were more anti-semitic, so the Jews supported MetaxasSo, either they were not facists because they had the support of or helped Jews, or being anti-semite is not needed to be a Fascist (like Mussolini, who had Jewish mistresses, probably thought)
>>18588902> (like Mussolini, who had Jewish mistresses, probably thought)Italian fascist party also had some of the highest number of jewish party members.Mussolini only enacted anti-semtiic laws after Italy become a junior partner to Germany, to appease Hitler.Before then, Italy despised Hitlers Germany and even considered war with them, and had no racial laws that even remotely mirrored the NS-German regime.
>>18589063The point being that anti-semitism being tied to fascism is a myth.The Falangists in Spain also had nothing of anti-semitism either.
>>18588902>He had little sympathy for HitlerBullshit.He literally held a 3-day national mourning upon learning of Hitlers death.Stop making shit up if you dont know what you're talking about.Also fascism had nothing to do with anti-semitism so you're wrong about that too and likely wrong about everything else as well. Better not to post if you're just going to imagine shit.
>>18588749>Deeply anti semitic? Well, there WAS a country which institutionalised the mass murder of Jews in this period but it wasn't PolandIt is possible to have a deeply anti-semitic country without it being genocidal.You come across as desperate when you instantly resort to compare it to nazi-Germany, almost like you're getting defensive because you see this debate as some sort of challange.We all know what nazi-Germany did but thats not the point of this thread. The other anon pointed out that interwar Poland has a distorted perception by a narrative. We should be able to have an open and honest discussion about it without someone being a moralfag and instantly "defend her honor" by comparing it to the murderous NS-German regime>Imperialist? Well, Pilsudski did want a large alliance bloc led by Poland Kinda sounds like imperialism, because imperialism can be to forcefully tie surrounding states to you, a geopolitical hegemonic sphere if you will.But Pilsudski did push to expand Polish frontier borders for as much as physically possible, with the argument that these had once been Polish during the era of the Commonwealth in the 17th century>Aggressively opportunistic? Kind of like Czechoslovakia Whataboutism.This isnt about Czechoslovakia.It's about Poland.Regardless of what Czechoslovakia was is irrelevant to the fact of what Poland was.I dont know why you're obssessing about comparing Poland to other states because it feels like you're just trying to "defend her honor against criticism" instead of having an open and honest discussion. It is possible to for one state to be something, without having to constantly 'defend' or 'justify' it>Tl;dr is that anyone talking about big bad Poland in this periodNo one said Poland was "big bad". The real question being pushed is actually what defines fascism since traits people often highlight in identifying fascism was found in Poland even if it did not reach even remotely the same scale as her neighbours
>>18588749Also>is a kvetching JewI am Swedish. I'm just a fan of history and I study history (yes its a meme degree) at my local university.I merely have a passion to explore the 'unexplored' parts of history, and I have no personal stakes in this debate about Pilsudskis Poland, I am merely trying to get the objective truth of what was and what wasnt.
>>18589144>He literally held a 3-day national mourning upon learning of Hitlers death.Because he was the head of state of a country with which he was not at war?He did the same for FDR i think
>>18589269>He did the same for FDR i thinkNo he didnt, why are you making shit up?>head of state of a country with which he was not at warIs this supposed to be an argument to hold a 3 day mourning for the death of Hitler?You literally made shit up saying he had "no sympathy for Hitler" yet you cant explain why he held a 3 day national mourning for Hitlers death, other than "well duh he was the head of the state", as if this is supposed to be a natural assumption.I dont know if your're suffering from schizophrenia, why are you making things up and presents them as facts? It's not normal behaviour.
>>18588902>or being anti-semite is not needed to be a FascistIt isn't. In fact one can literally be a Jewish Fascist as seen by Israel.
>>18588660I don't know much about Metaxas, Salazar, and Pilsudski though. I was asking if they shared a similar national myth as other fascists.
