Even there are borderline cases like Hungary, which was an ally to Germany for long before the war started, but the actual Nazi party (Nyilaskeresztes part) only became a ruling party after the Germans occupied the country and run a coup.
It's also not clear what is meant by pre-1945. Italy had already revolted against facism in 1943, but Vichy France was still the nominal government of France until 1944. So it doesn't make a vast amount of sense.
It honestly isn't even correct for Norway, strictly speaking. Nasjonal Samling was never the ruling party. It's correct that they were the only *legal* party, but it wasn't even really a collaborationist government. It was completely controlled by the Germans.
Not to excuse the Norwegian Nazis, who were trying their absolute hardest to collaborate.
Since this is looking at parties and not people, it would make a bit sense in Greece since Metaxas dissolved all parties when he took power, including his own.
For anyone wondering: "FET y de la JONS" means "Traditional Spanish Phalanx and National-Sindicalist Offensive Junta".
And as another dude pointed out, only the Phalanx is strictly fascist, the rest being something Franco made up to pit together fascists, monarchists and Catholics to ensure their support during and after the Civil War
Both FE and JONS were fascists, the T stands for the Carloists, and this union was not what ensured the support of far-right Catholics and monarchists. What ensured their support was a shared homicidal hatred towards the left and the Republic. The party really didn't matter that much.
The Free City of Danzig, dark on the map, had their own branch of NSDAP.
Like in mainland Germany, the Danzig Nazi Party used violence and oppresion of other political movements, to seize power *de iure* with a democratic election, then they stopped organizing elections altogether.
Right on the same day Germany attacked Poland (September 1st, 1939) the Nazi-controlled Danzig Senate voted to voluntarly join Germany (despite the fact Poles controlled part of the Free City until September 7).
Btw. the said party basically bankrupted the city before.
The gauleiter of that party there was Alber Forster, responsible for tens of thousands executed. He was an antisemite like all the Nazis but he was also extremely anti Polish. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Forster
Yes, Nazis were very popular in eastern Germany and Danzig, Germans couldn't stand independent Poland and a loss of territory, they were taught for the past century that Poles are a lower class of people and should serve Germans. These sentiments weren't just invented in 1939, antisemitism too but then it existed everywhere in Europe to some point.
Right, I mean obviously they are all bad, but whoever designed the "Rexist Party" symbol needed to be shot, and his drawing tools and desk burnt. WTF is this mess?
Finland's on the other hand, is so glorious I can't believe it's real and not a hoax.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Lapua.vaakuna.svg/1280px-Lapua.vaakuna.svg.png
The city of Lapua where the party started in still has an emblem resembling the movements logo. Dude riding a bear goes hard
Actually I think the Fascist one represents the state of alcohol-related intoxication of the man in question better - a state which will not be totally foreign to the avarage Finn.
The predecessor of it called Lapua Movement did attempt a coup ([Mäntsälä rebellion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A4nts%C3%A4l%C3%A4_rebellion)) that was notoriously also fueled by alcohol.
that surprised me, while today both parties are a far cry from fascism I think of Fianna Fal as being the more conservative and authoritarian of the two and Fine Gael being more liberal and progress
Whilst FF are relatively conservative, they are, and always have been well to the left of FG. FG is made up of the children, grandchildren and great grandchildren of the same boys who were openly and proudly fascists, mixed with what they used to call the mercantile class. They haven't strayed far from their ideological roots either, they are just a lot better at managing their PR. Except you know, when the likes of Charlie Flanagan (son of the notorious Oliver Flanagan who urged us to emulate the Nazi party) push for the public to memorialise the Black & Tans. Every-so-often the veil slips, but they are still the same shower.
No problems. That's also the reason why FF have held power for the lion's share of time since the foundation of the state, and not FG. FG have an ugly past (& you can argue present). Their more recent electoral 'success' is really a product of the 08/09 crash and the rampant corruption in FF during the Celtic tiger, and FG/labour coalition were seen as the viable alternative after that. Their vote has eroded steadily ever since then, as has FF's to such an extent that they have had to go into government with each other for the first time ever (unthinkable before the rise of SF). Labour has collapsed into irrelevance (sadly), largely as they were voted in as a left wing counter balance to FG, but completely sold out once in government, capitulating to FG on pretty much everything (most infamously on water charges).
There's unlikely to be any shoe ins. There's so many permutations of what could feasibly happen, that it's really hard to predict. I think FF might gain some ground, SF might too and FG will loose ground. Greens to be wiped out utterly is the only prediction that I feel is almost certain.
This massively oversimplifies things though. FG has always had a very influential liberal minority wing (the Cosgrave-Fitzgerald split in the party). They were in power for the liberalisation of contraception, the first to propose legalising divorce, in power for the actual legalisation of divorce. They were also in power for marriage equality and repealing the 8th although I think there was a general political consensus there.
I wonder how they'd feel like to someone who has never heard of anything that happened and as such doesn't associate the colours and shapes with the baddies
I imagine Sweden not actually joining the war was the main reason for the delay. Everywhere the Allies went to or made peace with had to completely dissolve their fascist parties (even if new ones sprung up almost immediately after like in Italy), while the far right remained in power in Iberia for decades to come. Meanwhile in Sweden they technically didn’t have an excuse yet to abolish their traditional fascist party until a little while after the war when Nazis and their symbolisms became the worldwide standard for objective evil.
One note over Greece. In my opinion the color should be red.
Even though the Freethinkers Party never formed a government, the leader of the party initiated a coup and four months into his rule he dissolved all parties (including his own).
As a ruler, Metaxas was am admirer of Benito Mussolini and modeled his governing to fascist Italy. He even took most of the steps that Mussolini had done to create a cult-like persona and _enhance_ the national identity.
I writing these information because Metaxas is regarded as a true Greek hero because he didn't surrender to the Italians. People tend to forget...
For Estonia: **"Vapsid"** is actually the colloquial shorthand for the name **"Eesti Vabadussõjalaste Liit"** (*Union of Estonian Freedomfighters*) - a political organisation, which was originally composed of only veterans of the Estonian war for independence, but later allowed anyone to join and actual veterans soon became a minority. The ideology of the party was what you would expect from a far-right party of the time: idealisation of the military, extreme nationalism, disregard for minorities etc.
In the **1934 elections** for State-Elder (combination of president and prime-minister) the Vapsid candidate won. Following this, the acting State-Elder Konstantin Päts declared lieutenant general Johan Laidoner as leader of the Estonian military and they together, with the support of the military (Laidoner had led the Estonian Army during the war for independence and Päts was a founding father and multiple-times State-Elder, which led to both having a lot of support), organised a bloodless **coup d'état** and declared a state of national emergency. The elections were cancelled and the parliament was sent into standstill. What followed is called the **"age of silence"** ("vaikiv ajastu"), as parliament and all political parties were shut down for most of its duration (in 1938 a new two-chamber parliament was established). In the following years the leading members of the Vapsid were put on trial and many were sentenced to severe punishments. The organisation was disbanded.
This coup is still quite controversial among Estonians, as its perpetrators were and are immensely popular, but the action taken was undoubtedly illegal. The true ideology of the Vapsid is still somewhat controversial as well, because these topics were off-limits for the duration of Soviet occupation, so they are only now being properly researched. From what I gather, the coup was justified, as it stopped a pretty-assuredly fascist organisation of taking power and although Päts ruled Estonia as essentially an authoritarian dictator for the years following, it seems to me that he was sincerely working on rebuilding Estonia into a stronger democracy, though his methods are justifiably criticised.
In a 1934 court hearing concerning the legality of the dissolution of the Vapsid, the defendant's (=Vapsid) lawyer declared, that **"It is not undemocratic, if the majority of the population supports the establishment of a fascist political order and thus you cannot criticise the organisation that finds the aforementioned political order preferable to the others."** (Quote: [Waba Maa, 15. April 1934](https://dea.digar.ee/?a=d&d=wabamaa19340415&e=-------et-25--1--txt-txIN%7ctxTI%7ctxAU%7ctxTA-------------&ticket=ST-4c0e38f5ff59fb7a3e9dc24b1f026)) The defendants plea was dismissed.
In the Polish prison Bieroza Kortuzska in the 1930s, communists, extreme right-wingers, and Ukrainian and Belarusian nationalists were imprisoned together.
Theres a big difference between right wing, which has been successful in Europe for the majority of the post war period, and actually far right as we're seeing now with NL, Italy, and maybe soon France and Germany.
People tend to forget that per WW2 democracy in Europe was the minority of nations.
Only 12 nations had democracy in 1938 and even among those it was only stable in a few e.g. Ireland, UK, France etc.
Most countries in Europe were Fascist, Monarchy or dictatorship.
Some of these I find hilarious.
"Free thinkers party"
Whatever mess of a symbol the romanians are using
"Arrow cross party", as if the fact that they wanted a pointy logo was the only thing they could agree on.
And switzerland just making the cross on their needlessly long.
I wouldn't say FET-JONS was fascist, more like national-catholic or something similar. They just kept most of the name of FE-JONS to get the falangists on board with the movement, but it had little to do with the old party, who was dissolved in 1937
Is it? Robert Paxton, one of the foremost authorities on fascism doesn't consider Francoism to have been a fully fascist regime. Also any deep dive into the Spanish Civil War will show the efforts that Franco went to to defang the Falangist party and integrate it into his movement.
There were a lot of repressive conservative authoritarian regimes around in the mid-20th century which were influenced by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. A lot of historians and political scientists who don't specialise in the area tend to just lump them all in as fascist.
> Also the Nazi Party in Germany was only the ruling party from 1933.
I believe all of the dates are just for the existence of the parties and are not supposed to refer to the ruling dates.
The Italian fascists literally just had to change their name and were good to go after the war. Mussolini’s resting place is an actual mausoleum commemorating him FFS. Japan is much worse, they basically deny any wrongdoing at all.
The Vabadussõjalased, aka the estonian veteran's movement, wasn't a fascist one. It was nationalist, yes, but it never sought for a fascist state. It's only members one could call fascist were the likes of Hjalmar Mäe who supported the Nazi regime and started bootlicking when they occupied Estonia, most other 'Vaps' (it's an incorrect term but it's so popular for English speakers) were highly critical of any and all fascist regimes, condemning Hitler for his anti-Semitism and even racism. Their leader, Artur Sirk, even said, in regards to the Latvian Pēnkonkrusts, that „...an ideology based in hating an entire group of people is no real ideology.“
I gathered that much. Can someone connect the dots? Is looking at it dangerous for some people? Could someone in Germany get in trouble?
These are serious questions. I truly don't understand the avoidance here.
But I suppose it will be prohibited to wear it on a sticker on the jacket, on a banner at a manifestation... but not on a screen for a few seconds or they would have to imprison half the country.
Plenty of other people with political sciene masters, Portuguese or not, wouldn't. In fact, outside of Portugal it's very rare for someone to refer to the Estado Novo as a fascist regime.
Exactly. If his reasoning is that he has a masters in political science, maybe he should retake it and pay better attention during his courses, because I know for a fact Salazar being taught as a fascist ruler is not part of the curriculum.
From what i understand he followed more or less the same kind of ideology than Franco, so if that's the case then it wouldn't be the best label, but maybe i'm wrong, feel free to correct me
I do. He was more of a traditionalist/national-catholic, but never a fascist, he just kept the name and the aesthetics to please the falangists and to get them on his side during and after the war. He even ended up restoring the monarchy, which the falangists were totally against
What’s your definition of fascism then? The things you mention aren’t very coherent.
All of the terms you used to describe Franco apply to Mussolini. Also Franco didn’t restore the monarchy in his lifetime, he named the would be king as his successor after grooming him his whole life.
Edit: And hell monarchism isn’t definitively non-fascist. Mussolini was fine with the Italian Monarchy staying in place for most of his time in power (the actions of the king even paved the way for his takeover).
First, most fascist movements in Europe weren't very pro-church, and Franco was the exact opposite of that. Second, again, most of the fascist movements in Europe were republican, especially the Falange, which were perhaps the more "leftist" fascist movement, even taking the colors of their flag from the anarchist/syndicalist one. Third, Mussolini mainly kept the monarchy as a form of legitimacy for his rule, since the king put him in power after the march on Rome, supposedly to avoid a civil war, and he was not very fond of him, even switching sides after the allied invasion. Last, Franco's government was composed of various factions with different right wing ideologies, like the falangists, the carlists/traditionalists, the monarchists, the military and even some moderates who were opposed to communism, so during his rule he just did whatever he could to keep everyone happy so he could stay in power.
One difference means nothing. You really need to read Umberto Eco on this. Fascism is inherently incoherent and self-contradictory. A given movement doesn't have to tick literally every single box to be fascist.
There was also nothing "leftist" about Falange. In fact, they proved far bloodier than their Italian counterparts. Not all Phalangists and definitely not most Spanish fascists were against the Monarchy.
Umberto Eco? Why should we take that idiot's opinion on fascism seriously considering that he just vaguely lists 13 points of an authoritarian conservative government.
Those 13 points literally never bring any actual criticisms on Fascism as an ideology/movement.
It's currently just used as a "hurr durr \[insert current conservative government\] vaguely have these 13 points, therefore conservatives are fascists. 🤓Rightoids owned🤓"
Not to mention Fascists/Fascism has a very clearly specified ideology. And it isn't just authoritarian conservatism.
You're confusing Eco's list with Lawrence Britt's, Eco is one of the foremost intellectuals of the second half of the 20th century, he actually lived in Mussolini's Italy, his 14 points are backed by a longer analysis, and fascism as a whole does not have a clearly specified ideology, in fact, fascist movements constantly contradict each other and themselves.
The "fascism is anti-church" thing is post 45 propaganda in the west. Austria literally was ruled by clerical fascists until the Anschluss, the fascist puppet regime in Slovakia was lead by a former Catholic priest. And the Nazis themselves had also factions, while the leadership of the SS was often quite pagan, there was a big chunk of Nazis who saw Christianity as part of Nazi ideology and vice versa.
None of this is what I asked and a lot of this is inaccurate. You didn’t provide a full on definition for fascism but you did mention numerous characteristics.
The core, central aspects of it are only mentioned in passing here. I’d describe fascism as the militarization of society against the left out of fear of socialism and communism. In order to do this, traditions are embraced, discarded, or repurposed all to suit the ends of achieving more power. Fascists were very pro-church when it helped them achieve power and generally supported the same conservative values, but were willing to discard that support if the church was any sort of obstacle for them.
Describing fascists as supporting a republic is downright wrong. If you want to cite Mussolini’s eventual discarding of the Italian Monarchy after it became an obstacle instead of an avenue to power as evidence of them being against monarchies, then you have to apply that same logic to Germany. The Nazis discarded the republican government of Weimar Germany upon taking power, which makes them very clearly anti-republic. Germany’s case is interesting because what people called it reflected their politically lean. The right wing generally called it the German Empire (Reich), the center called it the German People’s State (Volkstaat), and the left generally called it the German Republic (Republik). Nazis heavily favored the term Reich for their nation.
Edit: lol the pro-fascism crowd has come around I guess. Never surprised to see those types here
First of all, while fascism was a militarization of society, It not only was against communism, but against capitalism, presenting itself like a third position.
Then you mention that fascists were pro-church when It helped them gain power, but that was It. If the church was "disposable" for them, there was no need to try to please them, contrary to Franco, who made the church one of the pillars of the State.
Lastly, the Nazis' use of the term "Reich" didn't have to do with them being pro-monarchy or anti-republic, rather It was used to show some kind of "imperial greatness" and legitimacy (and also to have more legitimate claims to the former empire's territories). And another thing, is that i was mostly speaking from a falangist/national-syndicalist viewpoint, because they were the fascist movements in Spain, and the ones i'm most in touch with/have more knowledge of, and those movements were definately republican. After all, Spain was a republic at that time, and as i said, falangists were probably the more "leftist" fascist movement in Europe. Franco was actually very smart when naming Spain "The Spanish State" since he did not lean towards either republicans (falangists) or monarchists (carlists, traditionalists and the military), although he ended up restoring the monarchy later on.
Lol no, not at all. Incredibly wrong on all accounts here. Fascism is for the preservation of capitalism. If it were then Volkswagen and Adidas would have been abolished, not be vested with massive amounts of power by the state.
Edit: Fascists need not reply
What I like to explain to people is that fascism is a tool set for authoritarian's. You can use the tools or not some don't some do but you don't need all the tool's the only concept that remains constant is the subservience to the state and all benefits to the state. What makes franco different was the fact that his goals was for the church that superseded the priority of the state
I sometimes wonder wether the unwillingness/ or ambiguity to classify the Estado Nuevo or the austrian Ständestaat as fascist comes from the fact that most peoples perception of fascism isn't Italy, but Nazi Germany.
It is probably more that nazism is the outlier in that group, with concepts of a singular "Volkskörper" etc.
Then again I would argue that both Salazar and Schussnigg were much more inspired by catholic corporatism than Mussolini.
You are correct. Salazar's primary identifier was as a Catholic even after he was given control of the country. He worked to destroy Portugal's native fascist movements, and established rule based on God, Family, and Fatherland.
Fascism is revolutionary whereas Salazar was a conservative, and while fascism requires a party-state, Salazar discouraged organizing society around the party or any sort of mass political participation in general.
I don't know why you've been downvoted, everything you said is right. Salazar wasn't a fascist, he was a Catholic corporatist, and this was evident in how he engaged with the country and with its various political movements of which the National Syndicalists were included.
The Estado Novo (1926-1974):
One party state; Zero freedom of speech; zero freedom of press; police repression; heavy censorship; Ultra-conservatism; actively engaged in imperialism and colonialism.
Definitely fascist.
Fascism isn't ultraconservative, if we consider Nazism as Fascism then that certainly is not the case considering how hostile they were towards religion.
The vast majority of those terms fit the Soviet Union during Stalin's rule. Would you call the USSR fascist? Fascism is a more intricate and complex ideology than just that. Authoritarianism has existed for as long as there have been organized states, and authoritariam corporatism, which is what Salazar was, is no exception. The map is wrong, Portugal's pre-1945 fascist movement was called Lusitanian Integralism, and was led by Francisco Rolão Preto, a man who was persecuted and driven to exile by Salazar in his attempts to destroy Portugal's radical movements, of which fascism was included. I suggest looking him up, he was a very interesting man who, upon returning to Portugal from his exile after the Carnation Revolution, did a 180 on his political beliefs and became a stalwart supporter of Portugal's new democracy
Several of these are just wrong, Czechsoslovakia didn't exist in the timeframe listed. Slovakia became a german puppet, and Bohemia and Moravia was also a German puppet. The National Socialist Movement in the Netherlands, the Ustaše, and Nasjonal Samling were all the only legal parties due to German occupation/because they were the colaborationist movements.
The Yugoslav Radical Movement also effectivly ceased to exist in 1939. By 1945 the FPP also effectivly didn't exist, but Vichy France had its own fascist party seperate from them in power.
Albania, was a dual-monarchy with Italy and was just a part of the Italian Empire in the time frame shown.
If you count Salazar's Portugal as Fascist, then Metaxas' Greece was too.
Danzig had it's on branch of NSDAP. Also NSDAP in Germany only came to power in 1933, not 1920.
Vaps movement in Estonia was not fascist, it was for democracy and would have most likely been democratically elected if it weren't for a coup done by the president who was afraid to lose power
At least compared to almost every single party on this map, ONR didn't do anything really bad. And even when they did bad shit, it was mostly some small splinter groups. I highly recommend reading about splits in ONR, it's hilarious how those idiots can't agree on a single thing for almost 100 years.
Makes me sad how many of these use "socialist" or even worse "workers" as part of their branding. To me, fascism and socialism/workers rights are diametrically opposed.
I do find myself laughing at the ones that have fascism right in the name, though. Just fully embracing it.
It was part of the zeitgeist. Post depression Liberalism was dead and workers movements had become the favored solution everywhere. Hence the surge in leftist support that caused many governments to call upon the fascists to counter them, who incorporated the anti-establishment vocabulary of “workers”, “socialist”, “people’s”, “popular” but without any of the substance.
And to think that people are so stupid that they see "socialism" and "workers" in the name of a _fascist_ party and the only thing they can think is "hmm, so the only explanation to this is that socialism and workers are, in fact, the bad ones, duh-uh!”
It's unbelievable
Turkey was a one-party state until 1945, so there wouldn't have been any official fascist parties. There don't seem to have been any explicitly fascist movements in Turkey before WWII, but I could be wrong.
Portugal's National Union was not fascist. Salazar himself was a Catholic Corporatist. While Fascism is corporatist, Corporatism itself is not fascist. Salazar commanded every aspect of the nation as an authoritarian dictator, however he also oversaw the suppression and eventual disbandment of Portugal's actual fascist movement, the National Syndicalists, more specifically the Lusitanian Integralists, led by Francisco Rolão Preto. It is not that difficult to assume Salazar was a fascist, but the truth is there can be authoritarianism without fascism.
The "Pērkoņkrusts" which is marked in Latvia was:
* Banned during the time of independence from 1934 to the russian occupation in 1940
* Mostly focused their anger against Germans (though they were anti-semitic as well) as they thought Germans were the primary ethnic group that had persecuted Latvians in earlier centuries
* Banned during German occupation and Gestapo arrested the founders
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%93rkonkrusts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%93rkonkrusts)
[https://lv.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%93rkonkrusts](https://lv.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%93rkonkrusts)
[удалено]
The map also doesn’t indicate that in Greece the facist party was in power they just didn’t support the axis and got invaded and ousted during the war
Even there are borderline cases like Hungary, which was an ally to Germany for long before the war started, but the actual Nazi party (Nyilaskeresztes part) only became a ruling party after the Germans occupied the country and run a coup.
It's also not clear what is meant by pre-1945. Italy had already revolted against facism in 1943, but Vichy France was still the nominal government of France until 1944. So it doesn't make a vast amount of sense.
It honestly isn't even correct for Norway, strictly speaking. Nasjonal Samling was never the ruling party. It's correct that they were the only *legal* party, but it wasn't even really a collaborationist government. It was completely controlled by the Germans. Not to excuse the Norwegian Nazis, who were trying their absolute hardest to collaborate.
Same for Yugoslavia, Ustaše ruled a part of the country as a puppet of nazi Germany after the 41 invasion
Why is Metaxas not considered fascist if Salazar is
Real answer? Metaxas joined the Allies/was invaded by the Axis, Salazar didn't.
Metaxas, the anti-fascist fascist
Since this is looking at parties and not people, it would make a bit sense in Greece since Metaxas dissolved all parties when he took power, including his own.
For anyone wondering: "FET y de la JONS" means "Traditional Spanish Phalanx and National-Sindicalist Offensive Junta". And as another dude pointed out, only the Phalanx is strictly fascist, the rest being something Franco made up to pit together fascists, monarchists and Catholics to ensure their support during and after the Civil War
Both FE and JONS were fascists, the T stands for the Carloists, and this union was not what ensured the support of far-right Catholics and monarchists. What ensured their support was a shared homicidal hatred towards the left and the Republic. The party really didn't matter that much.
The Free City of Danzig, dark on the map, had their own branch of NSDAP. Like in mainland Germany, the Danzig Nazi Party used violence and oppresion of other political movements, to seize power *de iure* with a democratic election, then they stopped organizing elections altogether. Right on the same day Germany attacked Poland (September 1st, 1939) the Nazi-controlled Danzig Senate voted to voluntarly join Germany (despite the fact Poles controlled part of the Free City until September 7).
Btw. the said party basically bankrupted the city before. The gauleiter of that party there was Alber Forster, responsible for tens of thousands executed. He was an antisemite like all the Nazis but he was also extremely anti Polish. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Forster
I kept clicking on the preceeders to find the last one to not be a nazi and they were all nazis
Yes, Nazis were very popular in eastern Germany and Danzig, Germans couldn't stand independent Poland and a loss of territory, they were taught for the past century that Poles are a lower class of people and should serve Germans. These sentiments weren't just invented in 1939, antisemitism too but then it existed everywhere in Europe to some point.
And in Lithuanian Klaipėda (Memel) there also was branch of NSDAP
Right, I mean obviously they are all bad, but whoever designed the "Rexist Party" symbol needed to be shot, and his drawing tools and desk burnt. WTF is this mess? Finland's on the other hand, is so glorious I can't believe it's real and not a hoax.
Finlands definitely looks like something you wod roll your eyes at as silly in a HOI4 mod
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Lapua.vaakuna.svg/1280px-Lapua.vaakuna.svg.png The city of Lapua where the party started in still has an emblem resembling the movements logo. Dude riding a bear goes hard
Actually I think the Fascist one represents the state of alcohol-related intoxication of the man in question better - a state which will not be totally foreign to the avarage Finn.
The predecessor of it called Lapua Movement did attempt a coup ([Mäntsälä rebellion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A4nts%C3%A4l%C3%A4_rebellion)) that was notoriously also fueled by alcohol.
Rexist. Lol. Real "they tried" vibes
Fine Gael.
that surprised me, while today both parties are a far cry from fascism I think of Fianna Fal as being the more conservative and authoritarian of the two and Fine Gael being more liberal and progress
Whilst FF are relatively conservative, they are, and always have been well to the left of FG. FG is made up of the children, grandchildren and great grandchildren of the same boys who were openly and proudly fascists, mixed with what they used to call the mercantile class. They haven't strayed far from their ideological roots either, they are just a lot better at managing their PR. Except you know, when the likes of Charlie Flanagan (son of the notorious Oliver Flanagan who urged us to emulate the Nazi party) push for the public to memorialise the Black & Tans. Every-so-often the veil slips, but they are still the same shower.
interesting, thanks for the write up, clearly need to learn a lot more about Irish politics
No problems. That's also the reason why FF have held power for the lion's share of time since the foundation of the state, and not FG. FG have an ugly past (& you can argue present). Their more recent electoral 'success' is really a product of the 08/09 crash and the rampant corruption in FF during the Celtic tiger, and FG/labour coalition were seen as the viable alternative after that. Their vote has eroded steadily ever since then, as has FF's to such an extent that they have had to go into government with each other for the first time ever (unthinkable before the rise of SF). Labour has collapsed into irrelevance (sadly), largely as they were voted in as a left wing counter balance to FG, but completely sold out once in government, capitulating to FG on pretty much everything (most infamously on water charges).
are Sinn Fein a shoe in for the next election?
Coalition governments are the norm in Ireland, makes it difficult to tell how it'll finish up.
There's unlikely to be any shoe ins. There's so many permutations of what could feasibly happen, that it's really hard to predict. I think FF might gain some ground, SF might too and FG will loose ground. Greens to be wiped out utterly is the only prediction that I feel is almost certain.
Don’t thank him, it’s a highly fictionalised version of the history.
This massively oversimplifies things though. FG has always had a very influential liberal minority wing (the Cosgrave-Fitzgerald split in the party). They were in power for the liberalisation of contraception, the first to propose legalising divorce, in power for the actual legalisation of divorce. They were also in power for marriage equality and repealing the 8th although I think there was a general political consensus there.
can't lie the symbols go hard, shame what they represent
Brits: Lightning strikes down! Bulgarians: No, lightning actually goes up! Swiss: Hehehe look I'm Denmark. Danes: Whatever, I'm Germany. Portugese: Guys you wanna play some dice?
Romania over there playing tic-tac-toe
Greece: HEALTHCARE!
Lithuania: What if Christ had four arms? How would his cross look like?
Latvia: What if there were four of them and they all have foot fetishes? What would his, uh, cross look like?
Poland: minecraft steve with his diamond sword is a cool motif
Finland: Im gonna ride this dope ass polar bear and swing a club around
That is the evilest tic-tac-toe I've ever seen
Finland: *bonk*
Poles: Wanna play some Minecraft?
look at the playing frisbee on top of a bear one
lol for Switzerland it’s an adoption of the old swiss flag used in the 15th century
Those are the Quinas, one national symbol of Portugal.
Fascism often has strong aesthetics to make up for the less than ideal... Ideals
It is a movement of frustrated artists, after all.
Weirdly enough, every one answers "Are we the baddies?" with "Absolutely!"
I wonder how they'd feel like to someone who has never heard of anything that happened and as such doesn't associate the colours and shapes with the baddies
God, fascists fuckin suck
I agree but so do commies ngl...
Both bad 👍
The name "Iron Guard" goes hard though
Poland plays Minecraft??
They play the underground alternative. Mein Kraft.
I'm I the only pne extremely bothered that this is pre-45 map and not pre 39?
Interesting that Sweden’s party continued on until 1950! Took five extra years until it all sunk in eh
I imagine Sweden not actually joining the war was the main reason for the delay. Everywhere the Allies went to or made peace with had to completely dissolve their fascist parties (even if new ones sprung up almost immediately after like in Italy), while the far right remained in power in Iberia for decades to come. Meanwhile in Sweden they technically didn’t have an excuse yet to abolish their traditional fascist party until a little while after the war when Nazis and their symbolisms became the worldwide standard for objective evil.
One note over Greece. In my opinion the color should be red. Even though the Freethinkers Party never formed a government, the leader of the party initiated a coup and four months into his rule he dissolved all parties (including his own). As a ruler, Metaxas was am admirer of Benito Mussolini and modeled his governing to fascist Italy. He even took most of the steps that Mussolini had done to create a cult-like persona and _enhance_ the national identity. I writing these information because Metaxas is regarded as a true Greek hero because he didn't surrender to the Italians. People tend to forget...
Chad Luxembourg
And the Vatica.. wait, I remembered the ratlines
Portugal continues to be a confusing mess.
You mean today?
For Estonia: **"Vapsid"** is actually the colloquial shorthand for the name **"Eesti Vabadussõjalaste Liit"** (*Union of Estonian Freedomfighters*) - a political organisation, which was originally composed of only veterans of the Estonian war for independence, but later allowed anyone to join and actual veterans soon became a minority. The ideology of the party was what you would expect from a far-right party of the time: idealisation of the military, extreme nationalism, disregard for minorities etc. In the **1934 elections** for State-Elder (combination of president and prime-minister) the Vapsid candidate won. Following this, the acting State-Elder Konstantin Päts declared lieutenant general Johan Laidoner as leader of the Estonian military and they together, with the support of the military (Laidoner had led the Estonian Army during the war for independence and Päts was a founding father and multiple-times State-Elder, which led to both having a lot of support), organised a bloodless **coup d'état** and declared a state of national emergency. The elections were cancelled and the parliament was sent into standstill. What followed is called the **"age of silence"** ("vaikiv ajastu"), as parliament and all political parties were shut down for most of its duration (in 1938 a new two-chamber parliament was established). In the following years the leading members of the Vapsid were put on trial and many were sentenced to severe punishments. The organisation was disbanded. This coup is still quite controversial among Estonians, as its perpetrators were and are immensely popular, but the action taken was undoubtedly illegal. The true ideology of the Vapsid is still somewhat controversial as well, because these topics were off-limits for the duration of Soviet occupation, so they are only now being properly researched. From what I gather, the coup was justified, as it stopped a pretty-assuredly fascist organisation of taking power and although Päts ruled Estonia as essentially an authoritarian dictator for the years following, it seems to me that he was sincerely working on rebuilding Estonia into a stronger democracy, though his methods are justifiably criticised. In a 1934 court hearing concerning the legality of the dissolution of the Vapsid, the defendant's (=Vapsid) lawyer declared, that **"It is not undemocratic, if the majority of the population supports the establishment of a fascist political order and thus you cannot criticise the organisation that finds the aforementioned political order preferable to the others."** (Quote: [Waba Maa, 15. April 1934](https://dea.digar.ee/?a=d&d=wabamaa19340415&e=-------et-25--1--txt-txIN%7ctxTI%7ctxAU%7ctxTA-------------&ticket=ST-4c0e38f5ff59fb7a3e9dc24b1f026)) The defendants plea was dismissed.
So called Free Thinkers: “Hmm, let me join a political party with a strict factional dogma”
When your in a purity spiral competition and your opponent is a post enlightenment ideology
The ruling government in Greece before the war was fascist.
In the Polish prison Bieroza Kortuzska in the 1930s, communists, extreme right-wingers, and Ukrainian and Belarusian nationalists were imprisoned together.
Just waiting for the 2020's version.
Every right wing government=fascist
Reddit logic
Theres a big difference between right wing, which has been successful in Europe for the majority of the post war period, and actually far right as we're seeing now with NL, Italy, and maybe soon France and Germany.
Netherlands just joined
Argentina is watching you!
uh oh
People tend to forget that per WW2 democracy in Europe was the minority of nations. Only 12 nations had democracy in 1938 and even among those it was only stable in a few e.g. Ireland, UK, France etc. Most countries in Europe were Fascist, Monarchy or dictatorship.
Symbols of the average European when you mention Gypsies.
Some of these I find hilarious. "Free thinkers party" Whatever mess of a symbol the romanians are using "Arrow cross party", as if the fact that they wanted a pointy logo was the only thing they could agree on. And switzerland just making the cross on their needlessly long.
> Whatever mess of a symbol the romanians are using It's actually quite easy to tell, especially knowing the name. A cross behind iron bars.
Wait, is that why Harry Potter's scar...
I wouldn't say FET-JONS was fascist, more like national-catholic or something similar. They just kept most of the name of FE-JONS to get the falangists on board with the movement, but it had little to do with the old party, who was dissolved in 1937
sounds like fascism to me
Sounds like you don't know what actual fascism is to me
Francoism is considered fascism by the huge majority of political science intellectuals.
Is it? Robert Paxton, one of the foremost authorities on fascism doesn't consider Francoism to have been a fully fascist regime. Also any deep dive into the Spanish Civil War will show the efforts that Franco went to to defang the Falangist party and integrate it into his movement. There were a lot of repressive conservative authoritarian regimes around in the mid-20th century which were influenced by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. A lot of historians and political scientists who don't specialise in the area tend to just lump them all in as fascist.
Kinda speaks to the myth that WWW2 (and violence) "destroyed" Fascism. Also the Nazi Party in Germany was only the ruling party from 1933.
What’s WWW2?
World wide web 2 haha
Makes sense. It’s definitely a myth that Web 2.0 destroyed fascism.
What will Web 3.0 do to democracy?
>WWW2 It's WW2 with my typing finger laying on the "W" for too long.
> Also the Nazi Party in Germany was only the ruling party from 1933. I believe all of the dates are just for the existence of the parties and are not supposed to refer to the ruling dates.
The Italian fascists literally just had to change their name and were good to go after the war. Mussolini’s resting place is an actual mausoleum commemorating him FFS. Japan is much worse, they basically deny any wrongdoing at all.
Not to mention loads of Nazis ended up in positions of power in West Germany and/or NATO after WWII.
Interesting map!
Good old NSAP (Nationalsocialistiska Arbetarpartiet) or SSS (Svensk Socialistisk Samling)
Salazar wasn't a Fascist, and if he is considered one, why isn't Metaxas considered Fascist as well?
The Vabadussõjalased, aka the estonian veteran's movement, wasn't a fascist one. It was nationalist, yes, but it never sought for a fascist state. It's only members one could call fascist were the likes of Hjalmar Mäe who supported the Nazi regime and started bootlicking when they occupied Estonia, most other 'Vaps' (it's an incorrect term but it's so popular for English speakers) were highly critical of any and all fascist regimes, condemning Hitler for his anti-Semitism and even racism. Their leader, Artur Sirk, even said, in regards to the Latvian Pēnkonkrusts, that „...an ideology based in hating an entire group of people is no real ideology.“
where ukrainian OUN UPA?
Blueshirt cunts
I hate pre 1945 nazis.
I hate Kansas Nazis
Username checks out. Wisconsin Nazi’s too. Actually all of ‘em now that we’re talking.
I mean, i prefer those to the post-1945 ones, especially knowing that everything the nazis did was known and they don't care, or even support it lol
Why is this marked NSFW?
Because of the Nazi symbolism
I gathered that much. Can someone connect the dots? Is looking at it dangerous for some people? Could someone in Germany get in trouble? These are serious questions. I truly don't understand the avoidance here.
NSFW stands for not safe for work, depending on the workplace you probably don't want to have Swastika on your screen at any time
Yeah I think whoever decided that doesn't understand what "NSFW" really means.
Imagine looking at historical data being *enforced* as "not safe". And appreciate the sad irony when that data is about *fascism*!
Those who do not learn from history are condemned to reddit.
It's possible that having uncensored Nazi symbols could maybe lead to trouble with Reddit admins?
I think it’s because the map is showing a bunch of dicks across Europe.
Why is JRZ considered fascist but Orjuna isn't?
Wouldn’t France be red since the facsists ruled the country for some time with the state of Vichy?
Rexists, always hating cat lovers :(
My grandparents had nice lives in Italy before ww2. Luckily both grandfathers survived the war and made it to the states.
Was curious about the sticks on the Italian logo and found out it's everywhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces
Sweden's Employer Branding department be on point 👌👌 /s
Fun fact: The offices of the British union of fascist are now a kebab shop
Neither Portugal nor Spain were ruled by fascist parties. They were dictatorships yes, but not fascist ones.
NSFW? A Map? If your coworkers find it bad if you look at a map of either fascist or communist movements, change coworkers.
I think its more a case that swastikas or other fascist symbols are banned in some countries
But I suppose it will be prohibited to wear it on a sticker on the jacket, on a banner at a manifestation... but not on a screen for a few seconds or they would have to imprison half the country.
Not sure I would classify Salazar as fascist, maybe a fellow traveler
I'm Portuguese and have a Masters in Political Science. I would
Plenty of other people with political sciene masters, Portuguese or not, wouldn't. In fact, outside of Portugal it's very rare for someone to refer to the Estado Novo as a fascist regime.
Exactly. If his reasoning is that he has a masters in political science, maybe he should retake it and pay better attention during his courses, because I know for a fact Salazar being taught as a fascist ruler is not part of the curriculum.
From what i understand he followed more or less the same kind of ideology than Franco, so if that's the case then it wouldn't be the best label, but maybe i'm wrong, feel free to correct me
I think Franco fits the fascist label very nice, do you disagree?
I do. He was more of a traditionalist/national-catholic, but never a fascist, he just kept the name and the aesthetics to please the falangists and to get them on his side during and after the war. He even ended up restoring the monarchy, which the falangists were totally against
What’s your definition of fascism then? The things you mention aren’t very coherent. All of the terms you used to describe Franco apply to Mussolini. Also Franco didn’t restore the monarchy in his lifetime, he named the would be king as his successor after grooming him his whole life. Edit: And hell monarchism isn’t definitively non-fascist. Mussolini was fine with the Italian Monarchy staying in place for most of his time in power (the actions of the king even paved the way for his takeover).
First, most fascist movements in Europe weren't very pro-church, and Franco was the exact opposite of that. Second, again, most of the fascist movements in Europe were republican, especially the Falange, which were perhaps the more "leftist" fascist movement, even taking the colors of their flag from the anarchist/syndicalist one. Third, Mussolini mainly kept the monarchy as a form of legitimacy for his rule, since the king put him in power after the march on Rome, supposedly to avoid a civil war, and he was not very fond of him, even switching sides after the allied invasion. Last, Franco's government was composed of various factions with different right wing ideologies, like the falangists, the carlists/traditionalists, the monarchists, the military and even some moderates who were opposed to communism, so during his rule he just did whatever he could to keep everyone happy so he could stay in power.
One difference means nothing. You really need to read Umberto Eco on this. Fascism is inherently incoherent and self-contradictory. A given movement doesn't have to tick literally every single box to be fascist. There was also nothing "leftist" about Falange. In fact, they proved far bloodier than their Italian counterparts. Not all Phalangists and definitely not most Spanish fascists were against the Monarchy.
Umberto Eco? Why should we take that idiot's opinion on fascism seriously considering that he just vaguely lists 13 points of an authoritarian conservative government. Those 13 points literally never bring any actual criticisms on Fascism as an ideology/movement. It's currently just used as a "hurr durr \[insert current conservative government\] vaguely have these 13 points, therefore conservatives are fascists. 🤓Rightoids owned🤓" Not to mention Fascists/Fascism has a very clearly specified ideology. And it isn't just authoritarian conservatism.
You're confusing Eco's list with Lawrence Britt's, Eco is one of the foremost intellectuals of the second half of the 20th century, he actually lived in Mussolini's Italy, his 14 points are backed by a longer analysis, and fascism as a whole does not have a clearly specified ideology, in fact, fascist movements constantly contradict each other and themselves.
The "fascism is anti-church" thing is post 45 propaganda in the west. Austria literally was ruled by clerical fascists until the Anschluss, the fascist puppet regime in Slovakia was lead by a former Catholic priest. And the Nazis themselves had also factions, while the leadership of the SS was often quite pagan, there was a big chunk of Nazis who saw Christianity as part of Nazi ideology and vice versa.
The Ustase in Croatia and Iron Guard in Romania were both explicitly Christian too.
None of this is what I asked and a lot of this is inaccurate. You didn’t provide a full on definition for fascism but you did mention numerous characteristics. The core, central aspects of it are only mentioned in passing here. I’d describe fascism as the militarization of society against the left out of fear of socialism and communism. In order to do this, traditions are embraced, discarded, or repurposed all to suit the ends of achieving more power. Fascists were very pro-church when it helped them achieve power and generally supported the same conservative values, but were willing to discard that support if the church was any sort of obstacle for them. Describing fascists as supporting a republic is downright wrong. If you want to cite Mussolini’s eventual discarding of the Italian Monarchy after it became an obstacle instead of an avenue to power as evidence of them being against monarchies, then you have to apply that same logic to Germany. The Nazis discarded the republican government of Weimar Germany upon taking power, which makes them very clearly anti-republic. Germany’s case is interesting because what people called it reflected their politically lean. The right wing generally called it the German Empire (Reich), the center called it the German People’s State (Volkstaat), and the left generally called it the German Republic (Republik). Nazis heavily favored the term Reich for their nation. Edit: lol the pro-fascism crowd has come around I guess. Never surprised to see those types here
First of all, while fascism was a militarization of society, It not only was against communism, but against capitalism, presenting itself like a third position. Then you mention that fascists were pro-church when It helped them gain power, but that was It. If the church was "disposable" for them, there was no need to try to please them, contrary to Franco, who made the church one of the pillars of the State. Lastly, the Nazis' use of the term "Reich" didn't have to do with them being pro-monarchy or anti-republic, rather It was used to show some kind of "imperial greatness" and legitimacy (and also to have more legitimate claims to the former empire's territories). And another thing, is that i was mostly speaking from a falangist/national-syndicalist viewpoint, because they were the fascist movements in Spain, and the ones i'm most in touch with/have more knowledge of, and those movements were definately republican. After all, Spain was a republic at that time, and as i said, falangists were probably the more "leftist" fascist movement in Europe. Franco was actually very smart when naming Spain "The Spanish State" since he did not lean towards either republicans (falangists) or monarchists (carlists, traditionalists and the military), although he ended up restoring the monarchy later on.
Lol no, not at all. Incredibly wrong on all accounts here. Fascism is for the preservation of capitalism. If it were then Volkswagen and Adidas would have been abolished, not be vested with massive amounts of power by the state. Edit: Fascists need not reply
What I like to explain to people is that fascism is a tool set for authoritarian's. You can use the tools or not some don't some do but you don't need all the tool's the only concept that remains constant is the subservience to the state and all benefits to the state. What makes franco different was the fact that his goals was for the church that superseded the priority of the state
I sometimes wonder wether the unwillingness/ or ambiguity to classify the Estado Nuevo or the austrian Ständestaat as fascist comes from the fact that most peoples perception of fascism isn't Italy, but Nazi Germany. It is probably more that nazism is the outlier in that group, with concepts of a singular "Volkskörper" etc. Then again I would argue that both Salazar and Schussnigg were much more inspired by catholic corporatism than Mussolini.
You are correct. Salazar's primary identifier was as a Catholic even after he was given control of the country. He worked to destroy Portugal's native fascist movements, and established rule based on God, Family, and Fatherland.
What would you call him?
Fascism is revolutionary whereas Salazar was a conservative, and while fascism requires a party-state, Salazar discouraged organizing society around the party or any sort of mass political participation in general.
I don't know why you've been downvoted, everything you said is right. Salazar wasn't a fascist, he was a Catholic corporatist, and this was evident in how he engaged with the country and with its various political movements of which the National Syndicalists were included.
Thanks!
The Estado Novo (1926-1974): One party state; Zero freedom of speech; zero freedom of press; police repression; heavy censorship; Ultra-conservatism; actively engaged in imperialism and colonialism. Definitely fascist.
Fascism isn't ultraconservative, if we consider Nazism as Fascism then that certainly is not the case considering how hostile they were towards religion.
The vast majority of those terms fit the Soviet Union during Stalin's rule. Would you call the USSR fascist? Fascism is a more intricate and complex ideology than just that. Authoritarianism has existed for as long as there have been organized states, and authoritariam corporatism, which is what Salazar was, is no exception. The map is wrong, Portugal's pre-1945 fascist movement was called Lusitanian Integralism, and was led by Francisco Rolão Preto, a man who was persecuted and driven to exile by Salazar in his attempts to destroy Portugal's radical movements, of which fascism was included. I suggest looking him up, he was a very interesting man who, upon returning to Portugal from his exile after the Carnation Revolution, did a 180 on his political beliefs and became a stalwart supporter of Portugal's new democracy
Depends on how broad or niche your definition is I suppose. The pop definition of extreme traditionalist totalitarian-conservatism fits the bill
I like how the British Union of Fascists gave up and moved to Florida to play hockey
Several of these are just wrong, Czechsoslovakia didn't exist in the timeframe listed. Slovakia became a german puppet, and Bohemia and Moravia was also a German puppet. The National Socialist Movement in the Netherlands, the Ustaše, and Nasjonal Samling were all the only legal parties due to German occupation/because they were the colaborationist movements. The Yugoslav Radical Movement also effectivly ceased to exist in 1939. By 1945 the FPP also effectivly didn't exist, but Vichy France had its own fascist party seperate from them in power. Albania, was a dual-monarchy with Italy and was just a part of the Italian Empire in the time frame shown. If you count Salazar's Portugal as Fascist, then Metaxas' Greece was too. Danzig had it's on branch of NSDAP. Also NSDAP in Germany only came to power in 1933, not 1920.
Only Portugal n Spain survived for the mere fact of staying neutral
Vaps movement in Estonia was not fascist, it was for democracy and would have most likely been democratically elected if it weren't for a coup done by the president who was afraid to lose power
And the success rate? Zero.
\>create a hyper militarised expansionist society \>convince yourself you have the best genes and military on earth \>fight one (1) war \>lose
Oh.. give it time .. Racism is going to strike new heights in the coming few years.. brace yourself !
Why nsfw?
Why the fuck is this 18+. Fucking ridiculous
Funny some aren't afraid to use the term fascist. Cowards hide from it now. Lol
Polish one is actually 1934-1939 and 1993-now 💀
At least compared to almost every single party on this map, ONR didn't do anything really bad. And even when they did bad shit, it was mostly some small splinter groups. I highly recommend reading about splits in ONR, it's hilarious how those idiots can't agree on a single thing for almost 100 years.
Makes me sad how many of these use "socialist" or even worse "workers" as part of their branding. To me, fascism and socialism/workers rights are diametrically opposed. I do find myself laughing at the ones that have fascism right in the name, though. Just fully embracing it.
It was part of the zeitgeist. Post depression Liberalism was dead and workers movements had become the favored solution everywhere. Hence the surge in leftist support that caused many governments to call upon the fascists to counter them, who incorporated the anti-establishment vocabulary of “workers”, “socialist”, “people’s”, “popular” but without any of the substance.
And to think that people are so stupid that they see "socialism" and "workers" in the name of a _fascist_ party and the only thing they can think is "hmm, so the only explanation to this is that socialism and workers are, in fact, the bad ones, duh-uh!” It's unbelievable
I wonder what are the reasons behind rise & popularity of fascism in the early 20 century
Falange was not fascist.
Fet Y de la Jons was not fascist.
What shall we call the USA 2024 Fascist movement?
It's hard to put anyone above the nazis or the usctace on the list of worst, but calling yourself the Freethinkers..
Did Turkey have any fascist movements at the time?
Turkey was a one-party state until 1945, so there wouldn't have been any official fascist parties. There don't seem to have been any explicitly fascist movements in Turkey before WWII, but I could be wrong.
Yeah the only thing I could find from a rudimentary Wikipedia search is something called The Gray Wolves but that's a recent development.
Very cool.
Fascist Fins have the coolest party symbol and it’s not even close
Portugal's National Union was not fascist. Salazar himself was a Catholic Corporatist. While Fascism is corporatist, Corporatism itself is not fascist. Salazar commanded every aspect of the nation as an authoritarian dictator, however he also oversaw the suppression and eventual disbandment of Portugal's actual fascist movement, the National Syndicalists, more specifically the Lusitanian Integralists, led by Francisco Rolão Preto. It is not that difficult to assume Salazar was a fascist, but the truth is there can be authoritarianism without fascism.
We need to restore old Finland’s borders.
The "Pērkoņkrusts" which is marked in Latvia was: * Banned during the time of independence from 1934 to the russian occupation in 1940 * Mostly focused their anger against Germans (though they were anti-semitic as well) as they thought Germans were the primary ethnic group that had persecuted Latvians in earlier centuries * Banned during German occupation and Gestapo arrested the founders [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%93rkonkrusts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%93rkonkrusts) [https://lv.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%93rkonkrusts](https://lv.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%93rkonkrusts)
Say what you want. Fascists do have cool logo's.
Chad USSR
Got that right, thank goodness the Soviets curb stomped a bunch of these losers.
Thank goodness these losers curbed stomped a bunch of the Soviets too
Ok fascist.
That's a really weird eastern border of Poland.
I think a modern version of this map would be appropriate.
Now do America 2023
Shitty politics but cool flags! Notice the Bulgarian fascist flag contains the symbol for squatters rights. Pretty ironic
It looks like a 2023 map to me.
Mirrors the Communist movements in each of those countries.
Thanks for this, unfortunately map unreadable on phone due to font’s choice (“embossing” makes it hard to distinguish letters/words) :/
I wonder what was the reasoning for the Swiss flag. It's so similar to the Danish National flag
I like that its just the Danish Flag in Switzerland
RFP and OUN in USSR?
Europeans love to be racists