I'm going to take a more abstract (philosophical?) stance on WWII. I think WWII (mainly German Nazism, Italian Fascism, and Japanese nationalism) and the Soviet Union are products of differing notions of 19th century ideas of "progress" in a metaphysical/totalizing form. It's the idea that society itself is some reified existential being that has its own trajectory and will. One can place it even earlier with the 18th century notions of Enlightenment (the French Revolution/Reign of Terror). First off, Nazism/Fascism is an ideology, as is Marxism/Communism. These ideas developed from:

1) Utopianism ala Enlightenment-progress. This first reared its head in the French Revolution. You had the Jacobins, Sans-Coulattes, and Dantonists who wanted to start history anew with months like Thermidor and the like. This got its wings in Marxist ideas of the "withering of the state" after a workers takeover.

2) Hegelian ideas of "progress" in history. He thought that each stage in history had nascent in it a contradiction leading to the next level. To him, the Prussian State circa 1820s was the height of historical progress and the last stage.. but it was the groundwork for Marx's economic version of this.

3) Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil and Ubermensch. Certainly, the version corrupted by Hitler/German racists was not what Nietzsche was necessarily saying, but the idea that a new dawn of history where morals of the past were set aside for a new one based on taking power (yes yes not in the original sense but still influential in its corrupted form).

4) Karl Marx- took Hegel's approach and made it about economic stages.. At the end is withering away of state and a final stage in history-society.

There's some other ones liker Herder and Fichte, Sorel, Spencer, and the like in there, but these are the major ones I believe.

The Soviet Union, Italian Fascism, and German/Japanese ethnic-based fascism are all kind of totalizing ideas of history that was a culmination of the 19th century ideas in political-social theory.

The Anglo-American ideal of a relatively free economic system was a holdover from the 18th century ideas of market ideas.. The liberal version of this is mixed economy with strong emphasis on multiculturalism.. a holdover from mainly pragmatism of late 19th early 20th century. Cultural pluralism, etc.

The only thing that was good about Nazi Germany was their uniform style. The sub humans who put on those uniforms can burn in hell if hell exists.

The Soviet Union, Italian Fascism, and German/Japanese ethnic-based fascism are all kind of totalizing ideas of history that was a culmination of the 19th century ideas in political-social theory. — schopenhauer1

I agree that the Three Fascisms were totalizing systems as was the USSR. Stalin was bad news all round--ruthless, dictatorial, paranoid, etc. but that doesn't make the USSR fascist. Fascism is not the clearest ideology. There are differences among the three. A brutal state doesn't have to be fascist, but fascist states tend to brutal. Do you count Francisco Franco as a fascist?

No, I don't think we can lay the blame for Fascism, whether in Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan, or anywhere else on the Enlightenment's doorstep. Marxism is a different matter. It seems to me that fascism is a rejection of enlightenment values. What does "authoritarian and racialized ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy" have to do with the enlightenment?

I put the start of the war before then. Maybe at the time of the destruction of the Tower of Babel. — Hanover

:up: That probably wouldn't be wrong.

Yes.

the invasion of Russia. — Foghorn

History of military conflict has twice proven (Napoleon & Hitler) that to invade Russia is to invite Russia. :rofl:

Somehow the two words, "invade" and "invite" got lost in translation. Anyway, if one must at the end of the day invite Russia, why invade in the first place? Around Jack Robinson's barn we happily go!