The Holocaust wasn't the only thing bad about the Nazis. It made what they did a lot, lot worse. But had there been no Holocaust, Nazis would still have been really, really bad.

Your argument, which many other people make, assumes that had the Holocaust not taken place, Naziism would have been a good thing.

The so-called Godwin's Law was devised as a joke -- and should be considered as such.

My argument could arguably be used to imply (not at all the same thing as assuming) that, had the holocaust and world war 2 not taken place, Nazism would have gone down in the list of everyday bad regimes with people like Salazar and Metaxas and Duvalier, and too many others to count from across time and space

But even that is only tenuous.

of Nazism in that it lowered an entire people to a level of barbarity that nobody thought possible at that time in history.

The Germans were us, they had the same level of education, technological know how, and history and yet the Nazi's convinced them that it was not only OK but beneficial to wipe out entire groups of people based on a bullshit philosophy built out of lies.

Until the Nazis came about we, as a people pretty much assumed institutional brutality at this level was only possible in the "lesser" parts of the world.

Had the Nazi's not carried out the Holocaust they would have, IMO, gone down in history as much less than they actually were. They would have been seen as no worse than the German Empire of Kaiser Wilhelm.

That seems like a good reason to not reflexively invoke Godwin's Law. If a course of action mimics Nazism then we should not dismiss warnings. Those who do dismiss the warnings tend to feel confident in their own superiority which, in turn, appears to rely on their sense of education, technological know-how and history.

The Nazis, even without the Holocaust, would have been seen as one of the most evil regimes of all times. They started a war of aggression that resulted in tens of millions of deaths. On that alone they would be forever condemned.

Comparing what Hitler did to the actions of the Axis powers in WWI is absurd and ignores history.

It's often not, and the term "Nazi" and "fascist" or comparisons with Hitler are bandied about both with scant referential meaning but with great emotional meaning.

The goal is to say that what somebody's doing is really, really heinous and requires attention and condemnation, via something like the halo effect. Simple minds fall for it and often use it in their simpleness. Others use it to provoke or to shut down communication.

Any mocking of this use is not only acceptable, but praiseworthy. My response for many a year to those who said "X is like Hitler" or even "X is worse than Hitler", was to say, "Martha Stewart is like Hitler. Both eat their soup with a spoon."

Use that makes actual reference to historical practices that are comparable to current practices are fine. There aren't that many uses that are "fine," however. Nazism had some real problems. But the attitude that everything and everybody under and touched by the Nazi state was the absolute epitome of ultimate evil is loony. Even where it was evil, there are still actors in other countries and times that were often worse, or it's fairly often the case that worse examples can be found. The halo effect is a cognitive defect at this point in the development of human thinking.

Hitler wasn't the only Nazi. A lot of the other Nazi's weren't directly responsible for what Hitler brought in to being. But, they all supported the tenets of Nazism. Being a Nazi doesn't require the killing of millions.

Your example comparisons to Hitler are absurd and don't reflect the issues on which the charge is usually made. For instance, much like Hitler w bush invaded a country that hadn't attacked us based on propaganda and lies. Millions weren't killed but tens of thousands were. The degree of bush and republican criminality was serious enough to warrant the comparison.

You can take Godwin's "law" and shove it.

14 POINTS OF FASCISM

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism

From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights

The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause

The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism

Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism

Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media

Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security

Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together

Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected

Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated

Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts

Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment

Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption

Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections

Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.


NOTE: The above 14 Points was written in 2004 by Dr. Laurence Britt, a political scientist. Dr. Britt studied the fascist regimes of: Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile).

Does any of this sound familiar? As America sinks deeper and deeper into corporate greed will this country continue to be a democracy by the people and for the people or will it be ruled by the few? Will the trinity of money, power and greed over come one of the greatest countries in the world? Only we, the people, can keep it free. SPEAK OUT AND LET YOUR THOUGHTS BE KNOWN...ONLY BY SILENCE WILL WE BE DEFEATED!

The were invented by Dr Lawrence Britt, whose objective was not to accurately classify fascist and non-fascist states, but to try and make it look as though the USA was one of the former.

They have virtually nothing to do with Fascism - there are several that are absent from plenty of fascist states, virtually all are present in plenty of non-fascist states, and there are several much clearer-cut qualities (like "military dictatorship&quot that he omitted completely because they don't fit his agenda.

I keep meaning to write a proper in-depth shredding of them and trying to come up with a better list instead, but I always seem to have more interesting things to do with my time, like not.

that he studied. And I have to agree with him. Many say the US is becoming or already a fascist state too.

Flagwavers-check
Militaristic-check
corporate control and ownership of the govt -check
...and all the rest-check

to distract with threads about Godwin's law.

the best known example of their kind. It's a piece of shit meme and a toxic bit of stupidity.

Does that mean we have to wait until had that property to compare it to the Nazis?

If a group or individual shares significant similarities in beliefs and/or policies with the 1933 Nazis, it is worth pointing out those similarities.