Thread:4th of Augustball/@comment-38190122-20200520154147/@comment-38190122-20200523152932

>Ideologically, they were very separate.

Not exacly. While Mexatas' brand of totalitarianism was a bit different from facisimo, many historians have found many similarities between Fascism and Mexatism. Both were totalitarian neoreactionary (at the time they were neo) movements which sought to restore glory to their respective nations. Both Mexatas and Mussolini also established themselves through coups (George II supported Mexatas and in return for establishing a totalitarian reigime Mexatas placed George II back on the throne). Granted, Fascism was more imperialistic and secular, but overall both wished to revive underlying aspects of national culture. Fascism, however, used those aspects to make something new, that is, total devotion to the state. Thing is, the main characteristic of both Mexatism and Fascism was totalitarianism and extreme nationalism. The anti-religious part of fascism wasn't very significant if we look at the grand scheme of things.

>In terms of equally evil

The main part of evil I wish to assert is more like, controlling. Both Mussolini and Mexatas established totalitairan reigimes through coups in order to further their goals. Mexatas utilized George II as a figurehead (the japanese did this as well with Hirohito) in order to garner more support, and thus did a self-coup to gain powers which '''violated the Greek constitution. '''I assume you are familiar with recent Greek history but here is an explanation since someone else will inevitably join in.

The Second Hellenic Republic was proclaimed in 1924 when King George II was  BOOTED FROM asked to leave Greece after a failed royalist coup. A vote was held as to how the country should be governed, and the Greeks were smart enough to choose a republic. 11 Years later, that would all go to waste when Ioannis Mexatas overthrew the government after he was elected and George II was restored to the throne. However, Mexatas was really in control, using his power behind the throne to assert control in a way not unlike Mussolini.

Now why does this matter? While one went on a mad conquest and the other only oppressed his homeland, they both used their control over the nation to further their own interests. This begs the question, aren't religious dicatorships contradictory? You cannot follow God, even restore someone to the throne in his name, and then limit the freedom of your people. Mexatas didn't even acomplish his goal, after WWII there would be a civil war, military junta, only untill 1975 there would be peace.

This peace could be brought only by democracy.

And that's recent Greek history for whoever sees this. Now where was I?

>Whether one is worse than the other can only be argued by ideological means.

Well, Mussolini brought about as much control as Mexatas did when they both took power. Both established dictatorships, you get the point. Objectivley, they were both equally bad because in essence they were the same thing, totalitairan reigimes that had wanted to make the nation into something new. Again, Mussolini was seen as worse because of his conquests, but let's not forget that Mexatas supported the Megali idea. In fact, when the 4OAR was proclaimed, Mexatas said that this would be "the advent of the 'Third Hellenic Civilization'", similar to the Third Reich.