4th of Augustball

aka Hellenic Napalm (SOMEONE USED MUH NAME!)

  • I live in Australia
  • I was born on June 15
  • My occupation is Does Nationalist count?
  • I am Male
  Loading editor
  • My question is what do you think of Joseph Tito?

    The other thing I wanted to say is that I've started to like Traditionalism and Nationalism more compared to the first time we talked in March so I've become more culturally right now although I'd say I'm culturally/socially centrist probably. 

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • I beleive that mexatas and mussolini were equally as evil and that mexatas is only painted in a better light because he beat mussolini

      Loading editor
    • R̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶E̶

      I mean, im gonna say no but feel free to explain more after my comment.

      In terms of "equally evil", what do you mean by that? Ideologically, they were very seperate. This is demonstrated by Metaxas being more of a traditionalist/reactionary force (maintaining and advocating for Monarchism, Social Conservatism and Faith. Metaxas was also Anti-Imperialist, Pro Assimilation/Anti-Eugenics). Mussolini, by contrast, was more Fascistic (as demonstrated by his disdain for the Church, Monarchy and traditionalist Italian rhetoric.) He is described as "socially progressive" in the sense that he wished to alter the Italian national identity to full allegiance to the state and only the state, which is why he hated the monarchy and Church.

      So, if you are talking about them being both evil as they had the same ideology, I am afraid I will have to disagree with that.

      If you are talking about regime or them possessing the same authoritarian nature, then I don't know how to argue against this. I personally believe that authoritarianism was necessary in the times of crisis experienced by Greece, Spain and Portugal (which is why I support reactionary dictatorships created by Metaxas, Franco and Salazar). Now you, being a revolutionary and maybe libertarian, may disagree and you have the right to do so. I could understand why both regimes would be considered abhorrent to you (for they are both Authoritarian in nature).

      Whether one is "worse" than the other, however can only be argued via ideological means. One (Metaxism) wished to restore a Greece which was traditionalist, nationalist, deeply religious and monarchist via an authoritarian regime which would strengthen the "national ethos". The other (Italian Fascism), wished to see a totalitarian regime which would raise up a generation of Italians who were unquestionably loyal to the state and Il Duce (doing away with the revolutionary fervour of the left and the obsolete nature of the traditional/old right), thus seeing them march on for the prospect of acquiring new lands/colonies of this new Italian State

      Given this, I, as a reactionary and traditionalist at heart, would gladly support the Metaxas Regime (Greece), Francoist Spain or Estado Novo (Portugal) over Fascist Italy and regime like it.

        Loading editor
    • >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.

        Loading editor
    • >Metaxas and Fascismo was more or less the same schiesse

      I believe the contrary is the reality in regards to your argument. Whilst Fascism and Metaxism was "similar", they were in no ways the same and differed from eachother in regards to thought patterns. Academically, the regimes of Franco, Metaxas and Salazar were considered to be "conservative dictatorships" and rightfully so. The factors I have already mentioned (being imperialism, secularism, anti-tradition etc) should not merely be discarded when focusing on the two ideologies. Even the similarities between Fascism and Metaxism could be put into question. Greece, by no means, possessed the same nationalistic fervour that Italy had. Metaxism differed from traditional Greek nationalism for they were not expansionist and even went so far as to ally themselves with their former enemy of Turkey. Instead of pursuing the ideas of the "Megali Idea" Metaxas went about creating a Greece which was defencive and prioritised "cultural enrichment" and the resurrection of a "national ethos" rather than attempt to expand into imperialistic or even irredentist based claims.

      >Evil cause Dictatorships. Also here is a biased interpretation of Greek history

      Now your main problem with Metaxas is that it is a dictatorship, one who (according to you) subverted the Greek national choice in creating a truly democratic Republic. Now the main thing that you have dismissed throughout your intepretation of Greek history was the fact that the Second Republic was an unstable hot mess. The Second Hellenic Republic possessed 5 coups and attempted coups combined throughout it's tenure of 11 years. This time was marked by political instability, paranoia and violence (seeing mainly the Liberals, Venezeilists, Communists and Monarchists at each other's throats for the majority of the time). 

      As such, Metaxas was not merely getting rid of a fully functioning republican democracy supported universally by the Greek people. I, for one, believe he was reinstating a period of law and order to a country that would've ended up like Spain had it not been for his reactionary dictatorship. He empowered and emphasised the monarchy (an institution which was indeed supported by a considerable minority of Greeks as demonstrated by the existance of "The People's Party") not solely as a means of legitimising his regime (though it's effects may have done so) but rather because he was a staunch monarchist through and through (he had fought for the monarchy in numerous occassions). Mussolini mainly used the monarchy as a means of gaining control. Had he been left to his own devices, there is no doubt that he would've done away with such institutions. Plainly put: Metaxas wanted the monarchy, Mussolini wanted power (and thus he compromised with the monarchy).

      >This peace could be brought only by democracy.

      Now I think that is a gross understatement of what Greek history was all about leading to true peace. The truth is, we would not be able to see the full potential of the Metaxas Regime based off of the fact that it was forcibely destroyed by the Nazi Germans. From then on came a civil war due to the KKE gaining support and power due to their resistance against the Nazis, thus putting them in a position where they could challenge the authority of the Monarchy who was to reclaim it's country after Nazi Occupation. From there came a long string of political controversies and crisis's which resulted in a Military Junta launching a coup as a reaction to a "future" socialist government (which, may I remind you, happened in the midst of the Cold War). After the Junta fell, Democracy could preside, seeing Greece ushered into a new age of Conservative politics and now, degenerate Socialist policies, Financial problems, Foreign enemies, Neo Nazis and Communists etc.

      Democracy could only bring peace in a time where there was no crisis. I prefer a stable dictatorship over a weak and unstable democracy anyday, hence why I give my full support to the Metaxas Regime (and this isn't even to mention of the beneficial policies it had on Greece).

      "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."

      Both comments are wrong. One is the fact that Metaxas opposed the notion of aggressive expansion into Anatolia in the 1920's and differed from Eleutherios Venezeilos (the main advocate of the "Megali Idea") in regards to the pursuit of irredentist goals. "Venizelos and i invited you to look backwards to the past. Now i urge you to look forward to the future; and since you cannot live without ideals, the only suitable ideal is that of the Hellenic Idea. The Great idea (Megali Idea) itself did not fail; only the attempt at its territorial implementation. The Greco-Byzantine perception of if has failed, but not its ancient classical form of Hellenism. Our [my] disagreement with Venizelos, in the final analysis, is over the understanding, the meaning, significance and form of the Hellenic Idea" - Ioannis Metaxas

      Now you seem to believe the idea of a "Third Reich" and the "Third Greek Civilisation" are of the same mindset. I put it to you that the "Third Reich" was merely a term used to act as a successor to the various interpretations of what a "Greater Germany" was, stating that the Germans were bound to achieve the same prestige as their forefathers had. The "Third Greek Civilisation" was coined by Metaxas as a means of moulding the Greek people into something that prized the values of the first two, rather than an attempt to revive a "Hellenic Empire". Metaxas wished to raise a Greek generation/civillisaiton of people who would prioritise militarism and discipline (values shown through the actions of the Ancient Spartans and Macedonians of the "First Civilisation") in combination with devout faith in the Church (values shown through the actions of the Byzantine Empire of the "Second Civilisation".)

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Byz-Mediterranean


      Loading editor

    Were you this guy? Your old username is similar to his.

      Loading editor
    • View all 9 replies
    • To put this into context,this was back when I thought Greeks still lived in Anatolia and could revolt to make the Megali Idea come true... we all change, I suppose

        Loading editor
    • There probably still are Greeks in Anatolia but not as much as there used to be as the Ottomans committed a Greek genocide as  well as an Assyrian Genocide during the same time they were committing the Armenian Genocide.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • authoritarians bad

      Loading editor
    • View all 41 replies
    • One day I'll have to answer to this wall of text.

      And that day you will see even longer wall of text.

      Sincerely, FLAH

        Loading editor
    • MrBismark wrote:
      Metal78 wrote:
      this scares me
      authoritarianism should scare you

      "Those who would trade their freedom for security deserve neither and shall lose both."

      -Benjamin Franklin

      also if that is so

      then why oppose legalization of lgbt rights :)

        Loading editor
  • here it is
      Loading editor
  • I see you are a huge supporter of Ioannis Metaxas. I don't know much about him but I heard his regime was an Authoritarian and Nationalist one so that outlook doesn't look good. Nonetheless, I've seen a few people claim he was Fascist but that doesn't make sense to me since he was leader during the Italian invasion and refused to surrender to Italy. I could just do research on Metaxas but I want to see from your perspective.

    Also why do you support Franco? I know you say that he "preserved Spains culture, religion, sovereignty and stability through nationalism" but he was a Fascist and he had support from both the Italian Fascists and the Nazis that you hate.

    And one more thing. I know that there were Chetniks who collaborated with the Nazis but weren't they led by different people. I know Draza's Chetnicks were loyal to Monarchist Yugoslavia which was destroyed by the Axis.

      Loading editor
    • View all 7 replies
    • You do have a point. Once the Francoists(Fascists, Nationalists and Monarchists) were defeated, the civil war would've continued as Spanish Republic vs Communists vs Anarchists as all 3 had opposing views and the only reason they fought on the same side was their shared hatred of Fascism, Nationalism and the Monarchy.

      Nonetheless, from what I have heard and read, before the war, the government was trying to decrease the power of the Catholic Church in Spain while most of the violance was committed by Far-Left militias. 

        Loading editor
    • I think the only Republican I liked/could tolerate (at least in Spain) was Mr Niceto Zamora considering he was a moderate (the only problem being that his tenure was during a time of Economic depression and instability in Spain, thus provoking an inevitable replacement in favour or the radical Manuel Azana).

      But yeah, the Militias were indeed the real problem but they moulded themselves into the government (as a part of the "Popular Front"), thus giving them a form of "legitimacy".

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • do you think that nationalism is compatebel with communism/socialism?

      Loading editor
    • I believe that Nationalism is compatible with Socialism (as proven by the regimes of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy) as Socialism is merely an economic theory and does not necessarily have to be strongly alligned with left leaning thought in regards to how a society should think or how a government should act. It merely preaches for the idea that the state should possess control by nationalising certain industrial areas.

      I don't think Communism is compatible with Nationalism (at least in the traditional sense) as Communism by it's very nature is anti-Tradition and (for the most part) National Identity. Communism is under the pretext that "regardless of your faith, national identity or gender, we are all workers and thus, we must all unite to overthrough Capitalism and promote equality". This is in direct contrast of Traditional Nationalism which seeks to maintain these values in hopes maintaining the aspect of their beloved country.

      An example of this would probably be the Greek Civil War as the Greek Communists of that time aligned themselves with Macedonian Slavs, Cham Albanians and Pomacks whilst the Greek Monarchists (or Nationalists) were mainly made up of Greeks who were stauncly Anti-Communist (with many of them possessing Nationalist ways of thought).

        Loading editor
    • first of all nazi germany/fascist italy are not socialist second ever heard of communist romania?

        Loading editor
    • To answer your first question... yes, yes they were Socialist (at lease in regards to the economic specterum). The idea of nationalising all industries to be under the control of the state and for the state to be in charge over the affairs of the individual for the "greater good of the group" are Socialistic in nature. The ideologies of "Collectivism" and "Communitarianism" are associated with the Socialist ideology and have been welcomed by the Nazi movement with open arms. Granted, the Nazis and Fascists rejected the notion of "class warfare" and the politically liberal outlooks of Socialism but this did not stop them from adopting the Socialist outlook in regards to their economy.

      This is why Fascism is economically undefined as we have seen Fascist regimes that have adopted Socialism (such as Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy), Capitalism (such as Augusto Pinochet's Chile), Syndicalism (Such as the Falangist movement in Spain) and Corporatism (such as Metaxas's Greece). Socialism is not seperate from Nationalism and certainly not Fascism.

      In regards to your second question, Yes, I know of the somewhat Nationalistic based outlooks that Communist regimes (such as Romania, Vietnam and Yugoslavia to a degree) have possessed. But can you truly say this is representive of what Marx or Communist literature envisioned? Nationalistic thought in the traditional sense is denounced by the Communist intelligentsia and thus is rarely entertained by them. An example of this would be the Italian Socialist Party (before 1945 as back then, they turned to the ideas of "Revolutionary Socialism") as they protested against Italy joining the Great War as they deemed the conflict to be meaningless as it pitted the working man of one country against the working man of another.

      Based off of this idea, Communism is anti-Nationalist in it's traditional form. Sure there may be regimes that do not follow this method, but I don't believe the writings of Marx or Engels supported the notion of Nationalism.

        Loading editor
    • cringe

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Stop sending me emails you cursed fascist!

      Loading editor
    ChocoMingo closed this thread because:
    16:46, January 5, 2020
    • View all 18 replies
    • Why am I still get notifications for this jeez

        Loading editor
    • I'm just gonna close this thread now

        Loading editor
  • Isa
    you can be banned for being rascist right?
      Loading editor
    • mmhmmm, so I put it to you that this is not "racism" as it is my personal belief and conclusion that the KLA and other various Albanian militants supported by the Albanian government are terrorists and should be treated as such. 

      Racism is defined as: "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior." I have not stated that the Greek race is "superior" in anyway, nor did I claim that "all Albanians are terrorists" or anything on the lines of that. However, I am certainly not pleased with the actions of the Albanian government throughout contemporary history.

        Loading editor
    • well it sounded like you talked about the nation of albania but ok but still the kla arnt terrorists the real terrorists are the chetnik

        Loading editor
    • You cannot have double standards in regards to who you classify as a "terrorist" or not. The fact of the matter is that the KLA and other Albanian militant groups have used the unassimilated Albanian populous to their advantage. In Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, and Greece, the Albanian militants have tried their damndest to unassimilated in the cultures they are present in an attempt to separate with the land they have inhabited.

      The KLA is a mouthpiece for this idea of radical Albanian nationalism and unassimilation and therefore represent an ideology that will be considered as treasnous and terrorist based by all governments. Not only was this the case, but the KLA were also responsible for committing war-crimes (like their Serb counterparts) and were cowardly as they blended in with the civillian populous, therefor blurring the line between belligerant and civillian.

      If you Albanians are so adamant on Kosovan unification and independance, why can this not  be achieved in Northern Epirus or Northern Kosovo? You cannot claim that one area has the right to self determination whilst others do not. Especially if you do not follow the principles of irredentism.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.