Talk:Fascism

Lead too confusing

The lead gives us a very specific example of fascism, and leaves out the very general meaning of fascism. Most official definitions seem to do this as well, so I can't find a source to back my point. Instead of making reference right away to political "this and that", I think it would be better to simply call for it's more essential properties in the lead before bringing up that mess. Something like, "Fascism is the belief that a society, or group of persons, has a unified objective, goal, or purpose." The extrapolation, then, from this meaning gives rise to the more garbled notions of "dictators", and "national identity". Sorry but the lead is just a turn-off, and the first sentence is so pretentious, it's retarded: "Fascism is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology." Remember: while true, this is not the best way to explain what people are saying when they call someone a fascist. I'm going to write what I feel deserves to be the first sentence, in a simple attempt to move in the right direction, here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.81.81 (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Creeping Fascism

Why does 'creeping fascism' redirect here? If the articles are to be merged, the term 'creeping fascism' should at least be defined in this article. I found a cached version of a page for 'creeping fascism', so it did at one time exist. But I found no discussion or rationale for merging the two. 75.65.21.44 (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Rwanda

I see no reason for inclusion of the Rwandan Coalition for the Defence of the Republic[1] in the article. It is not "widely accepted as being a fascist party". Lots of groups have at some time been call fascist, but that does not mean we should coatrack them into the article. TFD (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible sources for claims include: [2] "The wounded breast: intimate journeys through cancer" by Evelyne Accad. Routledge at [3] seems to confirm a connection. Siler cites Africa Watch from 1992 in [4]. [5] Scheere labels the CDR as "fascist" ("Genocide and crisis in Central Africa: conflict roots, mass violence, and regional war"). Bunch of others - but clearly not an unsupported claim to be sure. Collect (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

These are at best passing references to the CDR as fascist, the type of reference that can be found for any extremist group. A reference to the statement of a person reported in a book about cancer that the Rwanda regime was "fascist" is pretty far from what one would expect to support the claim. One can certainly find examples of numerous groups that have been called fascist at different times by different people. Your source, Routledge companion to fascism and the far right, does even call the CDR fascist or even far right. TFD (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I fear you ought to read the entire Routledge RS cite. And I would note this is "tip of the iceberg" on this - the group was decidedly racist, irredentist, militaristic, and authoritarian. What facets are missing? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The Routledge Companion btw does not even mention the CDS. TFD (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The roblem is that some sources explicitly connect Rwanda government with fascism. Routledge states that it has an "uncanny resemblence to those of fascists or far right in the past". Try [6] page 170 'The party's ideology was blatantly fascist." [7] with multiple statements about the movement being "fasciste". [8] UNESCO report also. [9] page 95. Conclusions explicitly made by sources. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Saying something has a "resemblance to" does not mean it is the same thing. Not only that but Routledge do not even mention the CDR. Otherwise you have just Google-mined for passing references that you think may support your views. TFD (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no "view" on this other than to note that Wikipedia uses what are called "reliable sources" and not what we WP:KNOW about a topic. The problem is that enough reliable sources make the claim that policy requires that they be given some weight in the article. The idea of NPOV is that disputed claims get reliably sourced as well - not that no claim ever make it into an article which has a reasonable scholarly source backing (including a UN report). Cheers - I am glad you "know" the "truth" but all I do is follow those stupid Wikipedia rules. BTW, some of the same exact sources are used on other Wikipedia pages as reliable sources. Collect (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Your allegedf UNESCO report is actually a report by Reporters Without Borders (who receive part of their funding from UNESCO) and you appear to be relying on a footnote. Your last source is a French translation of a book by the English journalist Linda Melvern, which is critical of the UN, and says that the Rwandan Patriotic Front once described the CDR envoy and radio and television boss, Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, as a "fascist thug". Could you please not misrepresent sources. TFD (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Replied to elsewhere where you made the errant and egregious claim that I back calling a group fascist on the basis that some person referred to "fascist thugs." Such is a gross and improper misrepresentation of may posts, and is so noted. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to the edit. Do you deny making it? TFD (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Issue of indigenous fascism in post-colonial states - especially in Africa, i.e. "tropical fascism" and "Afro-fascism"

As mentioned earlier, the phenomenon of fascism in post-colonial states is admittedly a controversial topic amongst scholars but still a relevant one. There are Western scholars like American historian and political scientist Robert Paxton who reject the idea of fascism being developed in "Third World dictatorships" and though he admits there have been post-colonial regimes with resemblances to fascism including Zaire under the rule of the Popular Movement of the Revolution of Mobutu Sese Seko or the regime of Idi Amin in Uganda, he denies that they are "legitimate" fascist regimes in Africa. Similarly Roger Griffin claims that aside from white South African fascism, there is no real phenomenon of African indigenous fascism because he claims that the "conditions" are not right - in that indigenous African societies have not been affected by liberalism, secularization, and cultural nationalization that he claims are needed for the rise of fascism, and claims that such indigenous societies where traditional religious culture has resisted Westernization are not susceptible to fascism. However there are other scholars such as Swiss historian Max-Liniger-Goumaz, a scholar on African history, has identified a list African regimes as being part of the phenomenon of "Afro-fascism", including: Francisco Macías Nguema's regime in Guinea, Mobutu Sese Seko's regime in Zaire, Idi Amin's in Uganda, Gnassingbé Eyadéma in Togo, and Mengistu Haile Mariam's regime in Ethiopia. (Michel Ugarte. Africans in Europe: the culture of exile and emigration from Equatorial Guinea to Spain. University of Illinois Press, 2010. Pp. 25.) Other scholars have used the term "Afro-fascism" as well, it is mentioned in Stuart Joseph Woolf's book Fascism in Europe [10]. Another example is the term "tropical fascism" used to describe a variant of fascism used to describe the nature of movements and regimes in post-colonial and Third World states. (African geopolitics , Issues 17-20. OR.IMA International, 2005. Pp. 104.), [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]) Bear in mind that I have excluded from this list POV sources - such as by politicians (especially on the far left) who throw the term "fascism" as a slur.--R-41 (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do you not just say that in the article. Instead you present a source that refers to the CDS as "fascist", then use it as a coatrack to describe what they did. Instead it would be better to explain what scholars said about their relation to fascism. TFD (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I still think that the the Popular Movement of the Revolution of Zaire and Mobutism should be listed in the article as being disputed amongst scholars as to whether it is an example of indigenous fascism in Africa or para-fascism/quasi-fascism, just as just as the allegedly "Austrofascist" regime of the Fatherland's Front in Austria is debated as to whether it was fascist or para-fascist but is considered important to the study of fascism. From my readings case for Mobutu being either fascist or at lease para-fascist is strong: Mobutu sought to purify Zaire of Western white culture through revolutionary nationalism, his party was anti-communist and anti-capitalist, it applied the claim of being syncretic - common to fascism - claiming to be "neither left nor right nor centre", the MPR's supporters trumpeted single-party and single-leader rule, in one speech an MPR supporter denounced the idea of multiple leaders and political parties in the country saying: "In our African tradition there are never two chiefs...That is why we Congolese, in the desire to conform to the traditions of our continent, have resolved to group all the energies of the citizens of our country under the banner of a single national party. (Wrong, Michela. In The Footsteps of Mr. Kurtz. Harper Collins. ISBN 0060934433). The Mobutu and the MPR sought to replace Christianity in Zaire with a religious devotion to Mobutu and the MPR with interior minister Engulu Baanga Mpongo once saying to supporters of the MPR: "God has sent a great prophet, our prestigious Guide Mobutu. This prophet is our liberator, our Messiah. Our Church is the MPR. Its chief is Mobutu. We respect him like one respects a Pope. Our gospel is Mobutuism. That is why the crucifixes must be replaced by the image of our Messiah". (Meredith, Martin. The Fate of Africa. PublicAffairs, 2006. Pp. 297.). The Manifesto of N'sele laid out the intentions of the government which included expansion of the national government's authority, a program committed to upgrading labour standards, having the country gain economic independence, and the creation of an "authentic nationalism" in Zaire. (Simpson, Andrew. Language and Nationality in Africa. Oxford University Press, 2008. Pp. 228) This should not be considered sources that deliberately say that Mobutu was fascist or para-fascist/quasi-fascist - there are other ones, only those that say so should be used for such a claim. However these sources can be used after such a sourced statement to show the nature of the regime. I myself don't buy the argument that indigenous Africa is not economically or culturally "ready" to have fascism or that it universally does not have the "conditions" as those of Western culture - many African leaders have been Western-educated or Westernized. Also, poor economic conditions in Latin American countries didn't stop Latin Americans from forming fascist movements. In the case of Mobutu he directly addressed Western political concepts - nationalism, the left-right political spectrum, anti-communism and anti-capitalism, etc. Plus though Mobutu could not fulfill all his plans or achieve complete totalitarianism or that it was a corrupt kleptocracy as some point out - neither could Mussolini achieve a totalitarian state and the fascist regimes in Italy and Germany were notoriously corrupt. Plus Mobutu's regime was organized enough to organize the kind of well-organized, gigantic mass rallies dedicated to his regime like those of the Italian Fascists and the Nazis, take a literal look for yourself of such rallies in the first minute of this video and the militarist display of personality cult saluting of Mobutu at 6:14 to 6:44 in the video: [16]. Be aware that I am not totally in favour of listing every African dictator or genocidal despot as a fascist - I agree with Robert Paxton that Idi Amin's regime was not fascist - it was a military dictatorship that was genocidal.--R-41 (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter what arguments you or I find more persuasive. Unless there is consensus that a party was fascist, we cannot say it is, and cannot use the claim as a coatrack to describe what the party did. All we can do is explain the claims that it was fascist, while clearly stating the extent of acceptance of that view. TFD (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It is disputed just as the concept of Austrofascism is disputed, the MPR and Mobutism is a prominent example of a disputed example - but bear in mind that that it is "disputed" between scholars - some say it was not fascist (and by saying that they are revealing that it is an issue in scholarship on fascism) and others say it was fascist or quasi-fascist. We have included quotes by fascists in this article and descriptions of their policies, we should mention that Mobutism is a disputed example, but also mention key points from its ideology and quotes from its leadership figures on the issue of single-party state, Mobutu as a supreme leader, its radical nationalism, its syncretic politics, anti-communism, etc, and also Paxton's and others views in order to give the readers a background - it allows them to understand the nature of the regime and the debate of whether it was fascism, quasi-fascism, or neither.--R-41 (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I have found a prominent scholar on fascism, Walter Laqueur who says: "And finally, the racism of the Nazis and the admixture of nationalism with quasi-religious elements of other fascist movements have found new expression in Third World ideologies ranging from Mobutism to Qaddafism." "...these regimes do contain fascist elements, if as yet in a primitive framework". [17]--R-41 (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You do not appear to be replying to my comments. See WP:COATRACK: "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject." BTW prominent scholars have found influences and similarities to fascism with a whole range of modern political groups, including the American Right, which we could mention, but we do not therefore add sections about the Moral Majority, Tea Party, etc. TFD (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Laqueur is a reputable and respected scholar on fascism whose works are included in this article and he appears to be seriously addressing the close similarities of Mobutism to fascism and not merely out of a political attack on Mobutism as some biased scholars with an axe to grind do on topics of the Tea Party. Plus with respect to the addressing of Mobutu as fascist or quasi-fascist or not fascist by respected scholars in Europe and Africa, it is not a trivial point like that of ridiculous claims that the Tea Party is fascist - no respectable scholar on fascism has addressed the Tea Party as fascist, but multiple respected scholars on fascism have addressed the issue of Mobutism in connection to fascism. I am not saying that we only include sources that speak of the similarities of Mobutu's regime, we can include others that negate the claims, such as Robert Paxton and others who claim the regime did not have the organizational capacity or power to achieve any of its agenda and that they claim that it was a regime of a paternal autocrat and kleptocracy alone that was disguised in revolutionary overtures.--R-41 (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, Laquer does not say that Mobutism is fascism just that it is similar, and you have not even established what degree of acceptance that claim has. Regardless many things are similar to other things and it is coatracking to start adding narratives about all the things that have been compared to fascism. One could say for example that Australia is similar to Canada, but it would be coatracking to add the history of Australia to the article about Canada. TFD (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What about the source that includes Swiss historian Max-Liniger-Goumaz's assertion of the existence of "Afro-fascism" that includes the regime of Mobutu in Zaire? (Michel Ugarte. Africans in Europe: the culture of exile and emigration from Equatorial Guinea to Spain. University of Illinois Press, 2010. Pp. 25). Doesn't this demonstrate that Mobutism's connection with fascism is an issue addressed by scholars? I am not saying that it is positively asserted that it is fascist, but that it is a subject of discussion and debate amongst scholars, just as the concept of "Austrofascism" is discussed and debated as to whether the Fatherland Front's ideology was genuine fascism. We used to have a section in the article on para-fascism that included known movements with fascist influences and others under substantial debate by scholars as to whether they were fascist, para-fascist, or not fascist, I wish it could be restored.--R-41 (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I can find an rs that says Liniger-Goumaz uses the term "Afro-fascism".[18] Apparently other scholars do not use the term and unless I you find that there is a consensus that these regimes were fascist, you are coatracking them into the article. The result would be that the article represents your personal views on fascism. TFD (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The term "Afro-fascism" was used by Algerian politician Hocine Aït Ahmed, he was a radical socialist revolutionary though - so I would question him on bias issues, though it has also been used by other scholars such as in these sources : [19], [20], [21]. The first source acknowledges that the term exists, but believes it is an exaggeration. Could you please explain in a very short and simple way what coatracking is. I don't understand it--R-41 (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I can find an rs that says Liniger-Goumaz uses the term "Afro-fascism".[22] Apparently other scholars do not use the term and unless I you find that there is a consensus that these regimes were fascist, you are coatracking them into the article. The result would be that the article represents your personal views on fascism. Coatracking is using the relevance of another topic to move on to a discussion of that topic beyond its relevance to the article's topic. So one could on an article about dogs mention that they are similar to cats, but turning the article into a discussion of cats would be coatracking. TFD (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I just showed you a series of other sources on "Afro-fascism" and "African fascism". As I said, there are sources that directly discuss African fascism a.k.a. Afo-fascism, and sources - including Paxton, Laqueur, and Payne that discuss the issues of fascism in Africa. Paxton and Max-Liniger-Goumaz address claims of Mobutu's regime being fascist.--R-41 (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You have found sources that compare African tyrants with fascism and possibly one or two that call them fascist. In order for us to consider them fascists you would need a source that says they are considered fascist. The book Fascism and the far right briefly mentions the CDS and never says it is fascist or far right. This treatment is similar to that of other books about fascism. Yet you think in this brief article it deserves an entire paragraph. Obviously your weighting of different topics is outside the mainstream and is contrary to neutrality. TFD (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't require an entire paragraph, I suggested more lengthy focus on Mobutism, but that is not necessary. It can be one or two sentences. Liniger-Goumaz, Laqueuer, and Paxton are all addressing the issue of a regime claimed to be fascist. There are similarities and disimilarities according to these authors. As I said, it can be one or two sentences mentioning that "there is debate amongst scholars on the appearance of fascism and quasi-fascism in Africa, such as in the case of Mobutu's MPR regime in Zaire whose relation with fascism has been addressed by scholars on fascism and African history. Most scholars believe that though Mobutu's regime had outward similarities to fascism that it is not fascist,(REFERENCE PLACED HERE) scholar Walter Laqueur claims that Mobutu's regime contained elements of fascism,(REFERENCE PLACED HERE) and a minority such as Swiss historian Max-Liniger-Goumaz claim that Mobutu's regime is an example of "Afro-fascism".(REFERENCE PLACED HERE)". I am not claiming that every African tyrant or despot is a fascist, but the Mobutu regime has been addressed by two major scholars on fascism and Max-Liniger-Goumaz who used the term "Afro-fascism", these all discuss its relation with fascism - that is worth noting in this article.--R-41 (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

(out) No they are not all addressing the issue of a regime claimed to be fascist, they are merely comparing them to fascism. So that is what the article should say. And in order to even mention Liniger-Goumaz you would have to show that his views are significant in fascism literature. TFD (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Max-Linger-Goumaz's material on African fascism is mentioned in many scholarly works and as an important work of literature, see here: [23]. In particular, Michael Ugarte ascribes to use Max-Liniger-Goumaz's term "Afro-fascism" - originally used by Goumaz based on his focus on the political phenomenon he first discovered in Equatorial Guinea, to describe multiple regimes, including Zaire under Mobutu.[24] Another source from the University of Arizona describes a recently published novel that accepts Max-Liniger-Goumaz's term "afro-fascist" to describe the regime of Francisco Macías Nguema of Equatorial Guinea. [25] and an encyclopedia listing Maz-Liniger-Goumaz's "afro-fascist" description of Equatorial Guinea [26].--R-41 (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Your link shows that a number of books about Africa refer to Liniger-Goumaz's term "Afro-fascism", although there is no evidence that any of them have accepted it. More importantly your link shows that the concept has been entirely ignored by writers on fascism, which is why we should also ignore it. Tbis a classic example of POV pushing. TFD (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"Tbis a classic example of POV pushing" - You are overreacting. I am rationally discussing this with you. Many scholars reject that "Austrofascism" was a real fascist ideology, but we have an article called "Austrofascism" and Austrofascism is discussed by scholars on topics of fascism. Laqueur says that Mobutu's regime had "fascist elements". Other scholars address the issue - they address it because Mobutu's regime has been claimed to be fascist. What is the problem with having a few sentences that address the issue of Mobutu's regime and perhaps Nguema's regime, just as books on fascism address claims of austrofascism or claims of Peronism being fascist or quasi-fascist? I have presented a series of sources that are for the description, against the description, and Laqueur against but claiming that fascist elements exist in Mobutu's regime. Also, be careful with what you accuse someone of, assume good faith, and be polite - you were uncivil, not polite, nor assuming good faith in just out of the blue slandering me as POV-pushing: "While calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil, even characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done carefully. It is generally not necessary to characterize edits as POV-pushing in order to challenge them", "If you suspect POV-pushing is happening, please remember to assume good faith and politely point out the perceived problem either on the article's talk page or the user's talk page." (Source: WP:POVPUSH).--R-41 (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You want to add things to the article that mainstream books on fascism ignore. That violates neutrality. If you believe the experts are wrong then you should publish your articles and correct their errors. But this article is not the place to begin that campaign. And could you please keep your posts brief. TFD (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Laqueur and Paxton - scholars on fascism specifically mentioned Mobutu's regime in relation to fascism - so it is addressed by mainstream scholars on fascism. I included these specifically because they address the claim of fascism on Mobutu and reject the claim - though Laqueur claims it has "fascist elements". Plus, as I said you did not adhere to this: "While calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil, even characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done carefully. It is generally not necessary to characterize edits as POV-pushing in order to challenge them", "If you suspect POV-pushing is happening, please remember to assume good faith and politely point out the perceived problem either on the article's talk page or the user's talk page." (Source: WP:POVPUSH)--R-41 (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

So historians say Mobuto was not fascist, although Laqueur(whose views tend to be outside the consensus) says he was influenced by them, and you want to use this as a hook to write about Mabuto. That's a coatrack. TFD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, fine, I rescind my proposal. I gave sources but it's too bad that Western society can't take seriously claims of fascism in Africa such as Mobutu's MPR and others. Maybe you're right TFD that I should do my own independent research project on it - I'm almost at my undergrad degree for Political Science and History. I am disappointed with Western scholars' treatment of Africa as lesser than the Western world and such a foreign, "backward" place that Western political ideologies have not taken resonance there. I thought I would find more sources on Mobutu as a quasi-fascist though I didn't think there would be many legitimate ones saying that his regime was all out fascist. But anyway, fine, I'm canning the proposal - you are right that more sources are needed.--R-41 (talk) 07:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Fatal problem with the article

The article does a good job describing historical fascism, particularly as it pertains to the 1920s-40s. It's clear why there is such an emphasis on this period: the WW2 era coloured all our perceptions about fascism and we seem unable to stop associating the ideology with little men brandishing funny moustaches. But it is dangerous for an encyclopedia to stop the analysis there and not delve deeper into fascist thought. There are subtler, less stereotypical forms of fascism around us in the western world to this day. For example, I would argue that modern corporatism (and government support thereof) takes a nod from fascism, in the sense that it leads to more centralization of resources in a capitalist context, often with direct links to government. The fact that no major political parties are calling themselves "fascist" today does not mean that fascism is gone. So let's stop talking about this as though it magically disappeared in 1945.

There are only 2 sentences I can find in the whole article that hint at fascism beyond 1930s stereotypes. Both sentences appear at the beginning of the section "Variations and Sub-forms". They are: "Movements identified by scholars as fascist hold a variety of views, and what qualifies as fascism is often a hotly contested subject. ... Para-fascism is a term used to describe authoritarian regimes with aspects that differentiate them from true fascist states or movements." Everything else in the article seems to stick to historical models. In fact, some of the sections are blatantly written using the past tense, as if fascism "ended".

Some questions that come to mind, and are not addressed in this article:

-What sort of political parties / groups exist today that do not call themselves fascist but espouse ideas strongly linked to fascism (either because the ideas are fascist or developed out of fascism)?

-How much does a group have to stick to the key elements of 1930s fascism to be fascist? e.g. the intro section in the article is written as though dictatorships and eugenics experiments are necessary elements of fascism. Is this really the case? That's a terribly restrictive view.

-Since fascism traditionally considered itself the natural enemy of communism, did fascism (albeit under different names) play a role in opposing the Soviet bloc during the Cold War? I honestly have no idea on this one!

-What do we make of a country like China? It claims to be communist, but it has clearly moved to a business-oligarch economy while preserving authoritarian government. This meets 2 of the conditions of historical fascism. So what are we left with? (For the record, I don't think China is fascist. But there's some real food for thought here.)

I don't expect someone will be able to just add a simple section to the article to address these issues. This requires time and thought, not to mention expertise. But I really hope some of you take up the call. In responding, please do not interpret my comments as another rant from a right-wing (or left-wing) American ideologue. Let me be clear that I'm not writing any of this from an American perspective, or from the perspective of American current events (I'm not even American). This is a much bigger issue than the Republican candidates' race.

Thanks :) Nojamus (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV and WP:OR. The reason there is not more emphasis is that we do not give much coverage to fringe views, and do not present the original ideas of editors in articles. TFD (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Nojamus, I don't know what article you have been reading, but this article in much of its sections is well-developed and well-sourced and has provoked little controversy amongst most users, surprising for such a controversial topic. The heyday of fascism is important to be aware of, it is linked to a specific period of time, in specific circumstances, and in specific susceptible areas. If you want to know the mindset that brought it forward, learn about the fin de siecle, Friedrich Nietzsche's challenge of morality and claiming the need of an "ubermensch" ("superman") - his works had influence (it is said everyone who was anyone at the time read Nietzsche because he caused so much controversy) - leading to a loss of confidence in Enlightenment politics amongst the bright minds of Western society; Sorelianism - and its legitimation of revolutionary violence, and themes and figures of Italian nationalism - especially Gabriele d'Annunzio and Enrico Corradini. Knowing these is a good start to understanding the background that fostered fascism.--R-41 (talk) 07:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary Paragraph?

I believe the lone paragraph that states, "During World War II, the Axis Powers in Europe, led by Nazi Germany participated in the extermination of millions of Jews and others in the genocide known as the Holocaust" is unnecessary goes against the neutrality of this article and disrupts the fluency within the section. There is already a mention of the Holocaust in the succeeding paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtHubertFranz (talk • contribs) 08:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Nazi Germany's extermination of millions of Jews was an essential part of Nazism's Final Solution. Why does acknowledgement of this "unnecessarily go against the neutrality of this article"?--R-41 (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)