Reply #42: I don't think you have to go that far

[ThomWV]

I think a better starting point is the meaning of both pragmatism and fascism. I don't deny the author a number of points made in the piece but they didn't do much to support either a claim of pragmatism or fascism in the Nazi Party.

To claim pragmatism one would have to say that the Nazis based their current program on proven successes with the aim of German advancement. Rather than call Nazi German pragmatic it would be a lot more accurate to call it neo-religious sect; with a willing public idolizing - indeed worshiping - an all powerful demigod. In short they did not do things because of track record of success, they did things at the decree of a leader. So much for the pragmatism argument.

As for the fascism, sure there was that. The term came from Italy, and Hitler's compatriot Mussolini, who was the first to meld the interests of Government and industry into a single force presumed to benefit the people. In fact in Italy there is evidence (probably exaggerated) that some things did improve. Mussolini 'made the trains run on time'. However neither of them was much more fascist than the United States today and neither surpassed present-day Japan when it comes to that unholy marriage.

So yes, I agree with you that if the argument is to go forward then it suffers a fatal and elementary flaw in logic. My point is that because of flawed definitions there is no argument to consider in the first place.